this amazed me 70-200f4l vs 50mm

[jann1033]

i was in the city last night after dark taking photos, on a tripod/timer naturally, and took some with both lenses.

70-200 ( goes to 32, taken at f25, i took 4 photos same setting same place, so it 's not very likely the tripod might have moved or something, they are all identical as to focus. i took 4 cause i had a street lamp that caused a lens flare i hated

50mm taken at f22 goes to f22

cropped close to 1:1, converted to jpg, nothing else done and i am amazed at how soft the 70 is. i did some fast off the cuff photos at different f(32-18) this morning and it seems soft till it gets to 18 then it starts to get better. but still not nearly as sharp as the 50

so what is up here,
1) why do i have a mutant 50mm that is soft at wide aps and sharp as a tack when it's supposed to be bad

and

2) what is up with my 70-200, used to be sharp as can be now stinks. i haven't dropped banged or otherwise mutilated...could it just get out of focus or something on it's own? i'm going to set it up on a tripod this weekend and do some more comparisons...

i thought i was just not able to hand hold the weight steady but my tripod doesn't have those limitations so i now believe it's the lens. i am searching to find the photos i took when i first got the lens to see if i can compare at f stops
the overall photos look ok, i am guessing i was about a mile away from the building but i think the 70 is softer than it once was, ie some other photos i can't read the neon signs i know i would have been able to before. i checked the mtf charts on the 70 and i do think it was sharp before but sure not now

 

[JR6ooo4]

Does the 70-200 have IS? and if so was it off, while shooting on the tripod?

the blurr looks very familiar to when I forgot to turn IS off using my canon 70-300IS.

Mikeeee

 

[Code]

You shouldn't expect your 50/1.8 to be sharp wide open, it's actually quite a dog at f/1.8 (just like all other brands' cheap 50/1.8 primes). It won't be "tack sharp" across the whole frame until somewhere between f/2.8-4. Even the 50/1.4 is quite bad at f/1.4, and isn't really frame-wide sharp until f/2.8

Now about the 70-200mm.. you are most definitely looking at motion/vibration blur in that shot. Just look at the balls on the top of the 2 poles, they are streaks. JR6ooo4's advice about IS is good, but I thought I remembered your 70-200mm was the non-IS version. Perhaps your tripod can't handle the weight of the 70-200mm? Or maybe you were getting vibration from the ground (car passing by, etc)?

Lastly, the sharpness of all lenses used on APS-C starts to fall off past f/16 due to diffraction. Avoid going above f/16 if you want the sharpest possible images. (here is a good explanation of diffraction)

 

[zackiedawg]

As the others have said...I agree - that's not softness - that's definitely motion blur. The camera and/or lens vibrated or moved in an up and down motion fairly clearly here.

Remember a few things - even on a tripod, minor vibrations to the ground nearby, or wind moving the lens very slightly, can cause this type of blur. Also, longer zoom lenses would be much more prone to wind movement, especially if your tripod mounted into the camera's tripod plate - the camera is technically off-balance, with all that lens hanging past the tripod center making it very sensitive to the tiniest vibrations or movements (you'll notice long zoom lenses typically have a tripod mount on the lens body or bracket, for just this reason).

Overall, the 50mm might be a tad sharper because of the more tidy optics (less glass, less movement inside the lens)...but the fact that the 70-200 can get much closer to the subject should result in same or better results than the 50mm cropped to match.

If you have a breeze, and no option to mount the lens to the tripod instead of the camera, you might want to try counter-weighting the lens (a homemade weight hanging on a rope or string down to the ground) to hold the end of the lens steady...and try avoiding contact with the camera at all during these exposures - use self-timer to snap the shot, or a remote shutter release. You can also body-block the wind if there is any by standing close to the camera to wind-side.

 

[jann1033]

non is version, the street was deserted( actually a parking lot of a closed shop but the street was empty as well,) no wind (ie my hair wasn't blowing at all) , i used the timer( 10 seconds) and move away from the tripod when i use it so i don't accidentally touch it. it was on flat concrete sheltered against a building on one side, a wall on the other then a big building beside it, kind of like a court yard. so it wasn't moving due to the ground being soft. no one else was near it. this happened in all 4 shots but only those 4 shots that i took with this lens. my tripod holds 35 lbs, head holds 13 or 15( don't remember now which ) and my body and that lens are only about 3 total, it was in portrait and all the way to the side of the ball pivot plus tightened so it wasn't moving due to that. my 28-235 that i used after this one is only 6 oz less and no problem there. i've used this lens for about 2 yrs and never had this happen until recently..in fact it was the sharpest lens i had. for the past couple months i have been having problems with the sharpness of this lens and assumed it was due to other things, ie my hand shakiness but no way this was since i know the tripod was secure. i understand about the wind aspect and traffic and if there was some i would say "maybe" but there wasn't any.

i took probably 20-30 photos with the exact same set up but the lens change( 4 lenses, this was the first) and these 4 were the only ones that were blurry. looking at them as a normal shot they don't look that bad, just not as sharp as they used to be but from the rest of the shot you can clearly see the spaces between the bridge side rail( slightly closer than the gold building but still across the river), cars, phone and light poles, the road itself etc are not "doubled " nor is the blue spire thing on top of the key bank building , like they would be with motion blur . obviously the closer part of the picture would have the same problem as the top if it were from motion. if the others weren't clear i'd think maybe light clouds or something or haze. it could be what you are taking as movement might be do to the glow from the lights, i don't know, but i am 99% positive it's not motion blur. if it were only one i'd be more inclined to agree or if there were some from the other lens ( espec the 28-135 lens since it fairly large/long as well especially extended

my 50 isn't even close to sharp anywhere below 4, reallly till you get to 5.6. i think it's probably the focus problem i read about with large aps, closeup esp. and that lens but i think it's funny it's so sharp where it isn't "supposed" to be sharp. i basically have rarely used it since it's worthless on the end i bought it for but at least it's good on the end i didn't buy it for.

i'll just have to see what happens next week end. i can't find the original shots i took when i got the lens)( i took a range of apertures ) but i do have some from last yr that are tack sharp at 8-10 so i can see if it's as sharp there or not

 

[Code]

you can clearly see the spaces between the bridge side rail( slightly closer than the gold building but still across the river), cars, phone and light poles, the road itself etc are not "doubled " nor is the blue spire thing on top of the key bank building , like they would be with motion blur . obviously the closer part of the picture would have the same problem as the top if it were from motion. if the others weren't clear i'd think maybe light clouds or something or haze. it could be what you are taking as movement might be do to the glow from the lights, i don't know, but i am 99% positive it's not motion blur. if it were only one i'd be more inclined to agree or if there were some from the other lens ( espec the 28-135 lens since it fairly large/long as well especially extended

Look at the lights in the building. In the 50mm photo, they are points. In the 70-200mm photo, they are vertical streaks and all the same length. Since it is only in one direction, it leads to one more question... did you use MLU? (mirror lock up)

 

[zackiedawg]

Or with it being a zoom lens...there's always the possibility of lens creep!?

 

[boBQuincy]

Moving the ball into the slot for portrait orientation does bad things. The center of gravity of the camera & lens is no longer over the tripod center, creep and other things become a real problem. It is even worse when we do not have the lens tripod collar for a long lens, the whole weight of the assembly is counting on the tightness (or lack of) of the 1/4-20 screw. It doesn't work well, I have enough motion blurred photos as proof!

Here is a good article that goes into this:
http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html

So, what is the answer? Center the weight over the tripod with an L plate and use a lens tripod collar. In other words, spend lots more $$$!

Another public service from your friends at Disboards!!!

 

[jann1033]

Moving the ball into the slot for portrait orientation does bad things. The center of gravity of the camera & lens is no longer over the tripod center, creep and other things become a real problem. It is even worse when we do not have the lens tripod collar for a long lens, the whole weight of the assembly is counting on the tightness (or lack of) of the 1/4-20 screw. It doesn't work well, I have enough motion blurred photos as proof!

Here is a good article that goes into this:
http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html

So, what is the answer? Center the weight over the tripod with an L plate and use a lens tripod collar. In other words, spend lots more $$$!

Another public service from your friends at Disboards!!!

well thanks, one more thing to buy

i found another photo i forgot i took with this lens that is 200 f4 but not the same shot so i had it another place, .8 sec so faster shutter but i think this was still portrait. it's only under the bridge, not the tops of the buildings but i can read the stop sign at 1:1( if you can even see it here,it's to the far right just before the bridge leg starts) . i did think of this though, i usually used that lens at 100+- 200 ( or at least longer than 70) and not often above f11. it's only recently that i have been doing more landscapes that i have been using really small aps for better cross the photo sharpness, which i always thought were sharper but maybe not with this lens. if i can get husband to go ( 2 people were shot around the same night we were here, not far from where i took these but later at night, gotta love Cleveland ) i am going to try the exact same set up landscape and portrait through all the apertures to see what is up. plus i want to take more shots of an old building i took but that's not as good of an excuse to go

 

[Code]

well thanks, one more thing to buy

i found another photo i forgot i took with this lens that is 200 f4 but not the same shot so i had it another place, .8 sec so faster shutter but i think this was still portrait. it's only under the bridge, not the tops of the buildings but i can read the stop sign at 1:1( if you can even see it here,it's to the far right just before the bridge leg starts) . i did think of this though, i usually used that lens at 100+- 200 ( or at least longer than 70) and not often above f11. it's only recently that i have been doing more landscapes that i have been using really small aps for better cross the photo sharpness, which i always thought were sharper but maybe not with this lens. if i can get husband to go ( 2 people were shot around the same night we were here, not far from where i took these but later at night, gotta love Cleveland ) i am going to try the exact same set up landscape and portrait through all the apertures to see what is up. plus i want to take more shots of an old building i took but that's not as good of an excuse to go

Don't forget MLU in your tests... I'm really curious if you used it on the building photo.

 

[boBQuincy]

Since your lens was sharp before it is always possible something has gone wrong with it. Taking a photo using a sandbag on concrete, or some other absolutely stable platform might confirm the cause of the unsharpness.

I have the same lens and it is supposed to be one of Canon's best. For reference here is a 100% crop, no sharpening (raw), 200mm, f/8 at 1/250 with a fair tripod and good ballhead/clamp system:

We will lose some sharpness by going from f/8 to f/22 but it is gradual and should not be anything like what you are getting.

 

[jann1033]

i did not use mirror lock up cause i can't find my remote and not being the most coordinated person, am always afraid i'll knock over the whole tripod trying to move away in 2 secs. but i'll try some and see if it does make a difference

 

[jann1033]

Since your lens was sharp before it is always possible something has gone wrong with it. Taking a photo using a sandbag on concrete, or some other absolutely stable platform might confirm the cause of the unsharpness.

I have the same lens and it is supposed to be one of Canon's best. For reference here is a 100% crop, no sharpening (raw), 200mm, f/8 at 1/250 with a fair tripod and good ballhead/clamp system:

We will lose some sharpness by going from f/8 to f/22 but it is gradual and should not be anything like what you are getting.

thanks bob that is what i was wondering