Canon 70-200 2.8L NON IS soft focusing...

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Hi, this lens has been a workhorse for me but I've always noticed a bit of softfocusing. I figured user-error since I shot mostly sports and hand-held or uses a monopod. However, since moving more into landscape, using a tripod and mirror lock-up I'm still noticing a bit of blurry. My other lenses seem to be more tack sharp.</p>

<p>I've read up on this and seen all kinds of suggestions and tests ranging from shooting a high contrast item on my carpet to sending both the lens and my camera (50D) to Canon for calibration. One response was that this particular lens wasn't made for the 50D. What does that mean?</p>

<p>My question here is that if you've experience the same issue what did you do to correct it? If you sent both items to Canon for calibration did it mess up things with your other lenses?</p>

<p>Any other suggestions or fixes would be appreciated.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[ One response was that this particular lens wasn't made for the 50D. What does that mean?]]</p>

<p>It means the person that wrote it should be ignored. </p>

<p>[[However, since moving more into landscape, using a tripod and mirror lock-up I'm still noticing a bit of blurry.]]</p>

<p>Is this softness visible in your final prints? </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Have you done a microadjustment of the AF for this lens, which the 50D is capable of doing?</p>

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>@Rob - Yes, though I do sharpen as much as possible there's a noticeable difference between the finals shot with the 70-200 and my other lenses (17-70 Sigma; 10-22 Canon; 20, 2.8 Canon; 50 1.8 Canon). And thanks for the tip WRT to the first response. That one threw me - how could a Canon lens not be made for a Canon box? ;)</p>

<p>@Marcus - I just saw that term for the first time so have no idea what it means or how to do it. Would I find instructions in the 50D manual?</p>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Page 180 of the 50D manual - under custom functions. It's worth a shot if you've got just one lens that's an issue, I think. One question - is the OOF at the longest focal length? I'm not surprised you'd see a difference between the 10mm on the Canon 10-22 and 200mm on the 70-200. That's normal, I think.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Try this.... shoot an autofocus shot on a tripod at a static subject. Then shoot a manual focus shot using live view at 10x magnification.</p>

<p>If your autofocus shot is soft and your live view shot is sharp, then you've got autofocus problems which you can likely correct with microadjustment.</p>

<p>If both your autofocus shot and the live view shot are soft, then your lens is not sharp. A trip to Canon for service/calibration may help. The 70-200 f/2.8L should be quite sharp.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Blurriness is all relative. If it is a focus issue there will be a plane of focus in your image that is sharp, either in front or behind your point of focus. If this is the case Micro Adjust most likely will fix it. There are many methods for doing this, but I find a few shots of the white centre line in the street at f2.8 and 200mm will soon show whats going on.<br>

I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, about ten years old. On my 7D, at 100% and f5.6, it is sharp. I think the Canon should be better. Sorry, don't know what it's like at 2.8!<br>

If the MA doesn't work, or the focus is inconsistent, then I'm afraid a trip to the Canon fix-it-man is in order.</p>

 

[jim_ducey]

<p>If you use your camera alot its easer to do the micro adjust yourself with a lens Align Mk ll or Spyder. If you travel and they get banged around a bit its a good idea to check micro adjustment for each camera and lens combination. Once you are set up it only takes a couple of minuets to check and adjust.<br>

Jim</p>