Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Is Quality  
User currently offlineGuamVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 18
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4999 times:

I know it is just me, so I need to ask...

I just purchased the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM from bhphotovideo.com and in most aspects (portraits, landscapes) I am more that pleased. I am, however a bit more than disappointed in my aviation pictures, as they don't seem to come out as sharp as the other photos on this site that I've seen taken with the same lens. To be quite honest, they are just poor in quality as the ones I used to take with my EF 75-300 f/4.5-5.6.

Here is my setup:

Canon 30D
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM
Standard UV filter
ET-86 Hood

I currently shoot handheld in Av, f/5.6, ISO 100, AWB, Continuous@5fps, AI Servo. Maybe these photos are how they should look, I'm not sure. But I've seen such great photos here with this lens that are tack sharp with great DOF. I am getting a monopod in the mail tomorrow, ordered it the other day. Any help I can get would be appreciated!

Samples:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a375/guamvice/IMG_5012.jpg


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a375/guamvice/IMG_4905.jpg


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a375/guamvice/IMG_4943.jpg


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a375/guamvice/IMG_5170.jpg




The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1417 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Brandon,

Try first without the filter. The lens is of such good quality, that if you don't have the highest quality filters to go with it, you will find picture quality to be much degraded. And by the way, I would think that you really don't need a UV filter at all...
Also, judging from the pictures you posted, these were taken with a high sun, so I would doubt that you really need f/5.6 to get a decent shutter speed with such light. With f/8.0 you should still be able to be above 1/400 sec, which should be enough even at 200 mm.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 1):
Try first without the filter.

Very often overlooked. It's astonishing how a filter can affect quality. I had consumer Hoya UV filter on my 70-200 and there is a notable difference in images, not really an issue at 70-100mm but definitely at longer focal lengths.

Strangely enough I only decided to try this when I noticed the same thing on my 18-55 kit lens. The filter I stuck on that really borked the quality on it.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4965 times:

Quoting Sulman (Reply 2):
It's astonishing how a filter can affect quality.

I bought one and used it once and ever since it's been in my bag unused. A waste of money. Just stick with a lens hood.


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

I have the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, and I use it without a filter. The dealer (Norman Camera) told me that there are only a handfull of filters out there that are compatible as far as quality goes, and they are VERY pricey.

Some people insist on using filters to protect their investments. I used to be the same way, but now quality takes priority over protecting the front element. I bought a big LowePro bag, and I treat the lens like it's an $1,800 piece of glass, and I've had NO problems.

Take the filter OFF for your next spotting trip, and see the difference. You will be amazed. That is one hell of a great lens.

Drew   

Also - my first spotting trip was a crushing disappointment too. I was a rookie, and thought the faster the shutter the better. So - on a bright clear day - I was shooting at f2.8 and shutter speeds of around 5,000 for the first dozen frames. Needless to say, they look like cheap color-by-number drawings! I doubt you made this mistake, but I just thought I'd mention what I did (and thereby make myself look like an idiot...)  banghead 

[Edited 2007-06-21 19:01:58]


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineGUAMVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

Thank you EVERYONE for your feedback. I will definitely be going spotting tonight and trying out the glass without the filter. The hood does seem to do enough, I will stick to it, and as Andrew said, treat it as what it is--an $1,800.00 piece of glass!

Andrew--Don't feel embarrassed--I bought my SLR and used auto for the first three months...flash was my best friend lol



The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3288 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

I know it's probably a little late to chime in, but I think it's worth mentioning if you plan to show us the results from tonight:

When you post the sample images, do so at 100%, unedited crop. You don't even have to show us the entire aircraft...Just enough to show us the output quality of the *original* image. That's where the true distinction between a "good quality" photo and a "not so good quality" photo will be seen.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineGuamVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4869 times:

It's not too late to chime in at all, I will definitely do that after spotting & the gym. Talk to you all soon!


The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Vs. F/2.8L Is Vs. 35-350... posted Thu Aug 26 2004 01:19:56 by QantasA332
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F2.8 L Is posted Mon Apr 2 2007 20:50:29 by Mongorat
Canon 70-200 L F4 Is USM posted Tue Dec 10 2002 16:34:45 by PRM
Anyone Shoot Canon 70-200 Is W/2x? posted Wed Feb 12 2003 23:40:31 by Planedoctor
Canon 70-200 2.8 Is New? posted Tue Sep 4 2001 01:28:41 by Blackened
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F4L - $519.99 - US Only posted Thu May 4 2006 19:53:45 by VasanthD
Sigma Or Canon 70-200 F2.8? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 18:25:30 by Morvious
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX Vs Canon 70-200 F/4L posted Fri Jul 22 2005 07:30:42 by DLKAPA
Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM posted Mon Oct 4 2004 21:30:12 by Jat74l