80-200 2.8 Poor IQ at 200mm/f/2.8

[JustinD]

Here's a sample shot from my recently acquired 80-200mm "push/pull" at f/2.8 and 200mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Terrible image quality. Big disappointment.

Here's the same shot stopped down to f/5.6:

View attachment 215924

Noticeably better...but still. I was hoping for a little (a lot actually) better at f/2.8 with this lens.

 

[mood]

something wrong here
my 80-200 2 ring was sharp, sharp at any mm even at 2.8

 

[Nuteshack]

my push/pull is stellar there @2.8 ...looks like u a gotta stinker,,sorry ...;-(

 

[CAJames]

It's no help to you, but I had pretty much the same thing: The lens was great wide open up to about 150mm, then it went down hill fast. Like yours it was alot better at f/5.6. There is/was some conventional wisdom that the 80-200 push-pull was soft wide open at 200mm and close focus. Eventually I got a 70-200vr and needless to say, it is very nice indeed.

 

[GKR1]

How close are you to the subject? What was your shutter speed? DOF could be be playing tricks with you too as well.

 

[JustinD]

Shutter speed was 1/1250''. I was approximately 15' feet away from the flower. Note the halos around the petals in the f/2.8 sample - some kind of aberration?

 

[scyfreestyler]

Mine is the same way at close focus distances. Moving out to 20 feet or so, it sharpens up nicely.

 

[scyfreestyler]

2.8, 200mm, minimum focus distance

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2.8, 80mm, min focus distance

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

f4, 200mm, 35 feet focus distance

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Ewout_vB]

When I was looking for a 80-200mm f/2.8 a lot of people said the same regarding the close focus distances. Seems like there's a big difference between copies b/c some seem to be doing just fine.

 

[JustinD]

Not entirely sure what to think here - just went out and took this:

1/5000", f/2.8, 200mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is much closer to the kind of results I was hoping to get. Not quite sure what's up with the 1st flower shot above...maybe I was too close it, but, the pop can was photographed at just about the same distance. Probable user error?

 

[scyfreestyler]

Focusing at minimum focusing distance yields less than stellar results when at the long end of the zoom range. Fortunate for me, my uses for this lens do not include close focusing at all.

 

[JustinD]

Here's a shot at f/5.6 just taken outside:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm happy with that...and stepping back a bit from the minimum focus distance bumps up the quality of the wide open aperture shots as well.

 

[JustinD]

That's a great shot. How far away from the football were you?

 

[cleoent]

maybe the flower was moving just a bit or the camera mis-focused.

Try another static object (like the soda can) and see what results you get.

 

[JustinD]

I took a couple dozen shots of the flower in the first circumstance (200mm wide open) and they were all like that.

I think the ticket is to avoid taking any shots wide open at the close focusing minimum.

 

[JMontes]

Guys, keep in mind that at 200m and f/2.8, your DOF is very small. At 15 feet your DOF is about 2" (and at f/5.6 it's 4.5"). You don't have a lot of room for error there. At 20 feet you have 4 inches DOF, at 35 feet you have 12 inches DOF.

Notice on that football shot that the front of the football is sharp, but look at the fingers on top, already a bit OOF. If you aren't spot on with your focus, your shots are going to look like something is off.

 

[JustinD]

That's all true, John. But can you see the weird halos in the first flower shot I posted? There is a very substantial difference between both of those flower shots with the second one being stopped down to f/5.6.

 

[JMontes]

I do see what you mean, but they are also "barely" visible at 5.6........just nowhere near as bad as 2.8.