Dissapointed with Canon 200 2.8L (Now with test pics)

CraigDouglas

CraigDouglas

Suspended / Banned
Messages
580
Edit My Images
Yes
I've taken a few bird shots using this lens combined with a 2x converter and wasn't very impressed, the quality was about the same as my old sigma 120-400. I've been out this morning to Donna Nook using my 40D with the 200 2.8L and i've come home to find that I don't have a single sharp image. I used to own a 70-200 F4L and that was far sharper than this.

I bought it from Warehouse Express less than 2 weeks ago but their phone lines are shut till monday. What tests can I do on this lens in the mean time? I was expecting that with it being fixed focal and fast, that stopping down to about 3.5 should be giving me very sharp images and fast focus. The focus was indeed very quick but the images are soft.

I want to eliminate my technique as being a factor (even though i've always produced sharp images before!) so I want to do some proper tests before sending it back.

Any help appreciated :) :(
 
I would do the standard tests, focus target, tripod, etc. and see how it looks then. I've got the same lens and my copy is razor sharp wide open but I've not tried it with a TC.
 
The digital picture states;

"Wide open results with the 2x in place are soft - Stopping down to f/8 restores good sharpness. CA is increased and contrast is reduced".

I'll stick mine on later and see what sort of quality ensues.

Bob
 
I can understand it being soft with the 2x but this morning was without the 2x and it was still soft.
 
2x converter....of a canon make?
is it certified to be used with this L glass? (I know some aren't)
and doesn't the 2x affect auto focus?
it should be a cracking lens

for sharpness do the usual tests.
each lens at 200mm, focus to distant low contrast writing (brass plaques are handy for this) and zoom in at f2.8 and f4 and see the difference. then try it with the TC on.I'd be interested in the results too to be honest.
 
if you dont like it,give it to me ;P
maybe that will solve your problem hehe
 
CraigDouglas said:
I can understand it being soft with the 2x but this morning was without the 2x and it was still soft.
Click to expand...

Oh....no need to test then.

Mine's certainly sharp enough...not comparable with the 35L or 135L but holds its own against most of the others.
When I first got mine (secondhand) it had a filter fitted and looked less than clever although the filter wasn't a high spec one.....worth popping it off if you've got one on there.
I found this in my post from last year;
"I bought a 200L recently....usual "filter fitted from new" statement. I stuck the lens on the camera and fired away for 10-12 shots.....bloody awful....diabolical. Off with the filter....brilliant."

Bob
 
No filter either. I'll take some test shots shortly and get them posted up.
 
Here are some test shots. Tripod, mirror lock up, bounced flash of ceiling. These are all 100% crops and each image is F2.8 then F4. All centre point focus also. I think looking at them, some look softer at F4? Or is it focusing problem?

Additionally, these don't look as soft as my shots at a longer distance from the lens. Is it possible they are sharper at near focus than further focus?

IMG_7690.jpg

IMG_7691.jpg

IMG_7692.jpg

IMG_7693.jpg

IMG_7695.jpg

IMG_7696.jpg

IMG_7698.jpg

IMG_7699.jpg

IMG_7701.jpg

IMG_7702.jpg
 
For completeness, here are the two sharpest shots I got from this morning at 100% crop.

ISO250 F2.8 1/400sec
IMG_7576.jpg

ISO250 F3.5 1/640sec
IMG_7633.jpg
 
Hi,

those look ok, but only ok on the test shots, the one thing that springs to mind with the seal shots and I suspected this BEFORE you had even posted them that the light would be terrible and I was right, I think you would struggle to get any lens to show nice sharp colourful shots on such a grim day so I don't think it's a fair test although I'm not convinced the lens isn't in need of some tweaking. Plus I notice on the test shots that sometimes F2.8 is better than F4 and vice versa.

I think you would be better testing outdoors in decent light and then maybe you/we could make a better judgement. One thing I will say about the test shots is that you can fairly see the CA in the last shot and that is something I hate in a lens, I sold my Sigma 100-300 F4 because of it. Yes I know it can be fixed by pp'ing but I'd rather the lens didn't show it at all.

Mike.
 
Completely agree Mikey, I noticed the CA straight away on a few shots, and also the difference in quality between f2.8 and f.4 is strange.

I also agree on the light, but it was like that last year and my 70-200 F4L performed better. I got this to help at weddings indoors and as a short wildlife lens which would be ok with a 2x but it's rubbish at both really. I'll try get a shot when the weather gets better but I can't imagine i'll be able to shave with it :(
 
CraigDouglas said:
Completely agree Mikey, I noticed the CA straight away on a few shots, and also the difference in quality between f2.8 and f.4 is strange.

I also agree on the light, but it was like that last year and my 70-200 F4L performed better. I got this to help at weddings indoors and as a short wildlife lens which would be ok with a 2x but it's rubbish at both really. I'll try get a shot when the weather gets better but I can't imagine i'll be able to shave with it :(
Click to expand...

Hi Craig,

it is frustrating I know, I suspect you're initial reaction to the lens is correct and something is amiss, and it's not easy to think that you will need to spend more cash to correct it either as servicing costs aren't cheap these days.

I would have seen it if this was a superzoom or telephoto with a big learning curve like I had with my Sigma 500mm but you shouldn't have any problems using the 200mm handheld etc.

Be interesting to see Bob's samples for comparison.

Mike.
 
rdh said:
Hi mate, I'd recommend a replacement. For that kind of money, it's obviously far under your expectations.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I never fully read the first post ( as usual ), if it's new I'd be straight back with it on Monday for another one as rdh has said above :thumbs:

Mike.
 
Craig, are these jpegs or RAW? Have you sharpened them at all?
 
The seal crops are shocking. The indoor shots look OK.

BTW is not CA, its blooming aka PF on your "Ultrasonic" crop and this is a lens / sensor interaction. You'll probably find another sample the same here.
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

I never fully read the first post ( as usual ), if it's new I'd be straight back with it on Monday for another one as rdh has said above :thumbs:

Mike.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm pretty sure it'll be going straight back on Monday unless today's tests show something different.

CT said:
Craig, are these jpegs or RAW? Have you sharpened them at all?
Click to expand...

They were all RAW then just the default sharpening that Lightroom does then 100% crop.

puddleduck said:
The seal crops are shocking. The indoor shots look OK.

BTW is not CA, its blooming aka PF on your "Ultrasonic" crop and this is a lens / sensor interaction. You'll probably find another sample the same here.
Click to expand...

There is also purple fringing on the "C" on the last test shot but it is very limited I admit.


Looks like sun is coming out for today so hopefully will get some good-light test shots today. I'm still disappointed with the seal shots yesterday though, the light wasn't terrible as you can see from settings posted above I was getting good shutter speeds at ISO250!
 
I have this lens and am getting much better results however I was told not to bother with the x2 converter as the quality really suffers when its used.

Apparently, the 1.4x converter isn't too bad (although you loose the f2.8 aperture) but the lens reviewers say that the 2x is a bit of a no-no. I can't verify that as I followed their advice.

I'm presuming that you aren't using the converter on the test shots as some are at f2.8. in that case, I'd check the individual lens and camera, however if the reports are true, you will never get tip-top class results with converter and lens.
 
pthurst said:
I have this lens and am getting much better results however I was told not to bother with the x2 converter as the quality really suffers when its used.

Apparently, the 1.4x converter isn't too bad (although you loose the f2.8 aperture) but the lens reviewers say that the 2x is a bit of a no-no. I can't verify that as I followed their advice.

I'm presuming that you aren't using the converter on the test shots as some are at f2.8. in that case, I'd check the individual lens and camera, however if the reports are true, you will never get tip-top class results with converter and lens.
Click to expand...

ALL shots posted in this thread are WITHOUT any converter. They are just the 40D and the 200 2.8L, not even a filter on!

The camera is known to be fine with other lenses also.
 
I agree that you should send it straight back, obviously the alternative is to send it to Canon at Elstree for calibration, but really this should be better straight out of the box.
 
Hi Craig. You don't mention if this is the IS lens. If so, have you set the correct mode - ie 1 or 2? I do not have the IS version of this lens, and only use the 1.4 converter occasionally, but I have never been disappointed with its performance. Barry
 
if shots furthur away are more poor than shots close up then IMHO (having had same results on sigma 120-300 and canon 300 over the years) its a simple case of calibration
 
weird
sometimes the F2.8 looks better... sometimes the F4.

distance selling regulation is 7 days but full replacement warranties are often in effect for 28 days with decent shops.
read up on their regulations. do you know anyone who works for a camera vendor? can they do a sneaking comparison with one of their stock lenses?

also have to tried focussing manually?
I'd have been interested in three shots on something like flowers across the room or something with texture detail that wasn't so dark...gives the camera something to lock on to.
then use liveview and the zoom in to get a decent focus manually...see if it is the AF or not.
 
Here's a couple of quick bar code shots...f/2.8 and f/4 taken from around 3 metres and heavily cropped. Normal sharpening applied to RAW files and resharpened after resizing for the web.

Bob

200_28_test_web.jpg


200_40_test_web.jpg
 
I phoned WE today and they told me to send it straight back and they'll replace it. They also said out of all their lenses they are surprised that I'm having issues with this one which were my sentiments exactly :)

Hopefully the replacement should be fine
 
Typical of WE in my experience - fair does to 'em.
 
Just a quick update to this.

I received the replacement within a few days and it's razor sharp :D

Much happier with my purchase now :D
 
Just thought i'd post up a couple of pics.

This was WITH a 2x converter on too! The quality of this lens with the converter is similar/better than my old 200 2.8 without the converter!

This fence is ~20meters away in my garden and both images are same standard processing in LR as my previous shots are earlier in thread.

ISO320 400mm f5.6 1/500sec
IMG_7745.jpg


and 100% crop of same image
IMG_7745-2.jpg



Images without the converter are razor sharp but i thought these were more impressive as they;re using the 2x as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top