GuamVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 20 Posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3156 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:
The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3145 times:
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!
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.
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3096 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...)
GUAMVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3071 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
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3040 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."
Sponsor Message: 
From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
