Help! Blurry L lens

[deifythee]

I hope someone here can give me some advice, or at least tell me I'm not very bright LOL

I wanted to get into the whole L world so I tried my shots at a cheaper older model.
I purchased a discontinued 28-80mm f2.8-4 L used. The guy at ritz told me he also had one and was very happy with it.
Anyway, Lens is in very good shape, original case and all accessories but I can not get a crisp shot to save my life! The lens is a 1990 model so I see now it has had to have has some time on it, but can this effect quality? Or was it likely a dud from the start?
I thought maybe it was the lack of IS I was used to or the fact it weighs so much, but even on a tripod a decent shot is about impossible
Any advice?
Thanks for any comments

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by deifythee

I hope someone here can give me some advice, or at least tell me I'm not very bright LOL

I wanted to get into the whole L world so I tried my shots at a cheaper older model.
I purchased a discontinued 28-80mm f2.8-4 L used. The guy at ritz told me he also had one and was very happy with it.
Anyway, Lens is in very good shape, original case and all accessories but I can not get a crisp shot to save my life! The lens is a 1990 model so I see now it has had to have has some time on it, but can this effect quality? Or was it likely a dud from the start?
I thought maybe it was the lack of IS I was used to or the fact it weighs so much, but even on a tripod a decent shot is about impossible
Any advice?
Thanks for any comments

maybe you can post a few examples with the EXIF data so we can take a look, and try to offer some help

[deifythee]

IMG_0313 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
IMG_0654 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
These really don't help since they are scaled down, but if you were able to see the full versions you would see that a kit lens is more way more crisp then what I can produce with the L.
Any place I could post to get the full versions? Or any advice from Exif data?
Even with basic auto controls I get the same results. I feel like if I were to get anything blown up the blurryness would really show.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by deifythee

IMG_0313 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
IMG_0654 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
These really don't help since they are scaled down, but if you were able to see the full versions you would see that a kit lens is more way more crisp then what I can produce with the L.
Any place I could post to get the full versions? Or any advice from Exif data?
Even with basic auto controls I get the same results. I feel like if I were to get anything blown up the blurryness would really show.

The focus on the images really don't look that bad from what I can see...are you confusing shallow depth of field issues with focus problems? As long as your focus point is on your subjects eyes, and that they are in sharp focus, it's OK for the rest of the image to be soft...like the background

[Murtasma]

These look pretty acceptable to me. Since your body does not offer any micro adjustments you would need to send it into canon if your wanted the lens calibrated to your body. Did you shoot in raw? Did you do any post processing?

With out seeing an original size image it's hard to see if it's a focus problem or something else. Try taking a picture of ISO test chart, be sure to use a tripod and enable mirror lockup. Try manually focusing first, then take another with auto and compare the difference. Since you don't have live view on the camera you may have limited success getting an accurate focus on that body at wide apertures.

Also were you using any filters with the lens? If so remove those especially if your going to shoot a test chart.

[deifythee]

Like I said, without seeing full size these do look fine, but definatly not acceptable for an L in my opinion. These are some better photos, the average is much worse. I have done some side by side comparisons of fine detail and the L can pick them up better, but any sort of movement of a person I can't capture..
Here are some 100% crops that show the blur/ softness better. Perhaps it really is just my unsteadyness?
I have even made sure I'm not moving the camera when i press the shutter button, I guess really I just want to figure out if it's me or the lens.
IMG_0655crop on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
IMG_0654cropped on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I am able to fix a lot of it in photoshop, but I'd rather not have to.
Thanks again for the help

[Murtasma]

After looking at the 100% crops It's more then likely camera shake your shutter speed it too slow for the focal length you are shooting at the XTi also has a 1.6 crop factor so that that into account when selecting a shutter speed.

To really test the sharpness of the lens I would setup a tripod, use a self timer and enable mirror lockup. I believe with the self timer on the XTi if you enable mirror lockup you will need to connect a remote trigger to your camera. The first time you press the shutter button the mirror will flip up and countdown begin. Once the countdown is done I believe you may have to press the shutter again to take the picture. If this is the case it would be best to use the remote cable. It's been awhile since I used mirror lockup on my XTi so I could be wrong here. It may take the picture once the count down is complete if you have mirror lock up enabled.

The first link was at 80mm 1/60 on your body you want to keep it at 1/120th of a second or faster. The other was 70 so you can go a little slower but not much. I think if you opened your aperture in those two images you could have gotten a sharper picture. You could also increase your ISO but at 800 the XTi starts to get a little noisy for my liking especially in a portrait.

[autofocus]

Here's something else to consider, I see you shot the images in portrait mode which possibly sets the focus to "one shot mode." Not having knowledge of this camera, maybe someone can confirm that. What that means is that the camera will lock the focus point (which is another thing to consider) as you depress the shutter half way down...any movement on the part of you, or the subject prior to completing the shot could throw critical focus out. Let's discuss focus point...again, I don't know how it is selected in that mode (Portrait) but you may want to try one of the creative modes like AV, and also dial in your focus point directly on the eyes instead of letting the camera select it. Lastly, it's a known fact that digital cameras by nature tend to be a little soft on focus which can always be fixed in post processing. Just some food for thought....

Vince

[inkista]

Just checking, but are you positive you've got a 28-80 f/2.8L? Canon made about six or seven versions of 28-80s, most of them the f/3.5-5.6, and only the f/2.8 wore the red ring. The slower versions were consumer lenses, and decidedly less nice.

Secondly, the 28-80L got replaced by the 28-70 f/2.8L, which in turn got replaced by the 24-70 f/2.8L. When a lens revs like that, that usually means the original design wasn't a roaring success. Not necessarily a dog, but enough for Canon to tweak and re-release the design.

And in comparing it against the EF-S 18-55, you do realize that there's a 30-year difference between the designs? And that EF-S lenses have a sizable advantage in sharpness because of the reduced image circle size and sitting nearer the sensor, right?

I get why you think there should be an obvious huge sharpness increase by moving to an L, but it doesn't work that way. Any sharpness increase you're going to see is likely to be slight. The big increases are in build quality, contrast, color, CA control, distortion, vignetting, flare resistance, and usability features like full-time manual focus. Ls are often overkill for some folks, and their high pricetags often make them the worst bang-for-the-buck out there. A lot of the USM and EF-S lenses can easily rival Ls in terms of sharpness alone. It's the other features where they let you down.

Secondly, pixel-peeping (i.e., looking at your photos at 100% crop) is a surefire way to feel disgruntled with nearly any glass you own. I've only got three lenses that still look sharp at 100% crop on my 50D, and they're not my Ls. And I still love and use my Ls regularly and more than my sharpest lenses, because sharpness ain't everything.

One more thing, that lens will probably be sharpest stopped down to f/4-f/5.6. Most lenses perform better stopped down from their max. aperture by one or two stops.

[deifythee]

Well that is all a lot to take in.
First off, I have tried different priority modes as well as the different focus modes and nothing seems to help. I was curious of whether or not the newer crop cameras would choose the correct settings on a lens like this since it wasn't designed to be used on this type of camera.
As far as it's age goes, my assumption was companies will always create something better but when it came to quality glass, well it is what it is, and that's why they hold there value so well.
The lens is infact a 28-80mm f2.8-4 L, at least thats what it says on the side. And perhaps an L is an overkill. The way I look at things is I should get the best I can afford and work my way up to it.
Do you folks feel that a newer 24-105mm IS lens would be better or just save the money and maybe get a Sigma with image stabilization?
Inkista, you are very knowledgable and are probably right about me missing the finer details of a lens, I suppose when I see photos, the sharpness and contrast are what stand out the most, and thus what I was looking for. Do you have any recommendations for wider zoom lenses that I might should look into?
Thanks again to everyone, been very eye opening.
I wish I could have found this kind of straight forward information before the purchase.