Check out my 100-400L - Certain it is soft

swag72

swag72

Messages
7,973
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
Last ditched attempt to decide whether my 100-400 is OK. I have doubted this for some time. So have done the following.

Picture of my brick wall. Taken at F/8 at approx 9ft from the wall at 400mm. Taken on a tripod, mirror lockup used and a remote. IS switched off. Pic taken as parallel to the wall as poss. 100% crop taken from middle of lens, edges were worse.

No sharpening, tweaking or ANYTHING - Apart from resize and convert to JPEG for uploading to the gallery.

Did I miss anything?

Full sized pic
brick-full-size.jpg


100% crop
brick-100_-crop.jpg


It looks crap right?
 
That looks like a lot of detail on the wall from 9ft!
I assume you didn't buy the lens to take photos of walls anyway, so go shoot some cars of wildlife or something and see how they come out.
 
peppyuk said:
That looks like a lot of detail on the wall from 9ft!
I assume you didn't buy the lens to take photos of walls anyway, so go shoot some cars of wildlife or something and see how they come out.
Click to expand...

I have been doing that since September of last year and I have not really been happy for all that time :crying:. I hope that this pic will be more of a control and will enable people to decide if this looks OK or soft.
 
Looks ok to me, but have always found the idea of controled test to be a waste of time in my honest oppinion, its how it preforms in real life situations that count for me, can you post a shot of your normal type of subject in real conditions if poss?
 
Here's a butterfly pic taken yesterday. It looks OK. But, I keep looking at other peoples pics of birds, where at a 100% crop you can see the feather detail really well. At a 100% crop, this begins to look pants.

3494343408_31d9d95108_o.jpg
 
Has that shot had any sharpening, one thing I have found is when resizing for the web it need that extra bit, and defenatly with my 100-400, that dosent look too bad, but dose improve with a slight sharpen in photo shop.
 
cosmix3 said:
Has that shot had any sharpening, one thing I have found is when resizing for the web it need that extra bit, and defenatly with my 100-400, that dosent look too bad, but dose improve with a slight sharpen in photo shop.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, quite a bit of sharpening on this one, both prior to resize and afterwards. All of my shots with this lens need lots more sharpening than with any other lens I own.
 
Do you shoot raw or jpeg,

The other thing I have foun with my 100-400 is that the midtone levels need a tweek to get the best out of the shot.
 
I used to do this,Spend ages comparing normal and 100% crops and then i thought,I'm not going to require great detail at 100% crop and when i do i'll obviously be in a good paying job and will be able to afford gear that will give me the results

You're better off just using the lens for what you want and enjoying it
 
There doesn't look to be anything really wrong with the butterfly, but it doesn't have the eye popping detail we get use to with some of the insect photos on this site. It's pretty hard to say if there is a problem with the lens from here. Maybe you can show us some of your best shots taken with the lens?
I assume you don't have a filter fitted?
 
If your not happy send it away for calibration - no matter what anyone else says you'll always have a nagging in the back of your mind and you'll never be 100% happy and confident in the lens until its been back to Canon.
 
swag72 said:
I have been doing that since September of last year and I have not really been happy for all that time
Click to expand...

If you have been unhappy since September and your still not sure, get it sent back whilst under warrenty (presuming it was new in Sept) for checking and calibration, so you can relax and enjoy using it (y)
 
Hi Sara
I've just down had a look at your flickr posting of the butterfly at 200% and to be honest, I can't really see anything amiss.
I have the same lens and do find it gets a bit soft at the outer edges and have also found that lens cleaning fluids can, on occasion, leave the faintest of traces on the glass that can make images look soft.
Maybe you are being a little hard on yourself in the critique department? Which isn't always a bad thing as it pushes us to get better images, but must say having had a look see at your work, you have plenty to be pleased with and proud of. (y)
 
How old is the lens?

When I had a 100-400mm it looked like what you have posted at F5.6.
At F8 it was sharper than your wall - although I have to say brick walls are not the best thing to determine sharpness.

Do you use a filter on the lens?
 
TerryO said:
Hi Sara
I've just down had a look at your flickr posting of the butterfly at 200% and to be honest, I can't really see anything amiss.
I have the same lens and do find it gets a bit soft at the outer edges and have also found that lens cleaning fluids can, on occasion, leave the faintest of traces on the glass that can make images look soft.
Maybe you are being a little hard on yourself in the critique department? Which isn't always a bad thing as it pushes us to get better images, but must say having had a look see at your work, you have plenty to be pleased with and proud of. (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks Terry - BUT, most of the insect stuff on Flickr was taken with my 55-250 last year. That was a corker and produced some great shots - Far better than with this damn lens.
RichardtheSane said:
How old is the lens?

When I had a 100-400mm it looked like what you have posted at F5.6.
At F8 it was sharper than your wall - although I have to say brick walls are not the best thing to determine sharpness.

Do you use a filter on the lens?
Click to expand...

No filter used on the lens. It was bought brand new from Jessops last September. I deliberately used F/8 as this is suposed to be the sharpest setting. On F5.6 god knows what crap I would have ended up with!!

I can not believe that I got better consistant results with a lens a quarter of the price compared to this one.

Andy and Paul - You are so right, the damn thing's going back!
 
swag72 said:
Here's a butterfly pic taken yesterday. It looks OK. But, I keep looking at other peoples pics of birds, where at a 100% crop you can see the feather detail really well. At a 100% crop, this begins to look pants.
Click to expand...


A few more tweaks will bring out a little More detail
But as been said if YOU are not happy then perhaps get it professionally
calibrated for peace of mind if nothing else?

Before
3494343408_31d9d95108_o.jpg


after( if you don't like it say so and its gone )
copy_3494343408_31d9d95108_o.jpg
 
Chris, that looks sharper, but I do feel that you've probably pushed it to the limits there.

Having taken some pretty good dragonfly shots with my 55-250 and 450D combo, I have been nothing but disapointed with the 100-400. I think I've managed 1 decent dragonfly shot with it on the 450D, but thinking about it, nothing has improved with the 50D, infact it's got much worse.

I do think that the brick wall should be a good indication, as with tripod etc, you eliminate all forms of camera shake.
 
swag72 said:
Chris, that looks sharper, but I do feel that you've probably pushed it to the limits there.

Having taken some pretty good dragonfly shots with my 55-250 and 450D combo, I have been nothing but disapointed with the 100-400. I think I've managed 1 decent dragonfly shot with it on the 450D, but thinking about it, nothing has improved with the 50D, infact it's got much worse.

I do think that the brick wall should be a good indication, as with tripod etc, you eliminate all forms of camera shake.
Click to expand...


Your right of course, I would suggest that it is right on the limit and difficult to "edit" a small Jpeg,
I will of course nuke it if you want (y)

I think we all "doubt" our lenses occasionally I know I do.
and some lens / camera combination just seem to work better
ie I prefer my 24-105 f/4 IS to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS on my 40D
and wish I could get the same reproduction from it
TBH, though, the brick wall looks ok to me as an "unedited" image
 
swag72 said:
No filter used on the lens. It was bought brand new from Jessops last September. I deliberately used F/8 as this is suposed to be the sharpest setting. On F5.6 god knows what crap I would have ended up with!!

I can not believe that I got better consistant results with a lens a quarter of the price compared to this one.

Andy and Paul - You are so right, the damn thing's going back!
Click to expand...

If you have warranty then I agree you should send it to Canon for checking.

For reference here are a couple of 100% crops from my old 100-400mm @ 400mm F5.6 (Took a while to find them, seems I rarely shot at those settings!)
CRW_5658.jpg

img_4070_1.jpg


I'm looking for some 400mm F8 ones now.
 
Richard, I think that last one just about sums up why I feel so damn despondant with my lens. To me that is good definition at 400mm F/8 - Exactly what I think I should be getting, but am no where near.

Great examples, thanks
 
marky_h said:
I think mine may be a reasonable copy :shrug:...a candid from last year - 400mm at f/5.6, and little in the way of PP :)
Click to expand...

Is that a 100% crop? If not it would be worth posting one - It's not really possible to tell much from a full size image resized for web :)
 
You may find the the 100-400 Canon zoom does go a bit soft at the 400mm end. It seems to do this quite quickly, backing of to 350mm or even 375mm does give a much sharper image.

I tend to limit mine to 350mm and try to work at about f8

You might also want to double check that the focus is OK, plus I would tend to use subjects a bit further away than 9 ft
 
I do want to use it as near to 400mm as possible, but have found it particulary poor. Everyone's posted pics show the poorness of mine I believe. I often pull it back to about 380mm, but I'm still not happy.

Off to Canon it goes!

Kaz, your shots are pin sharp. You're using the 300 F2.8 aren't you?
 
I dont know as I dont have a 50d yet but isnt there a knob you can adjust to match the camera to the lens?
 
Looking at your 100% crop of the wall, it does look like a focus issue to me.

But.. doesn't the 50D have a very high pixel density? I'm not overly familiar with the Canon range but it's possible that the camera is out resolving the lens.
Do you have another body you can try it on? Or maybe a mate does?

It's funny, I've always been jealous of that lens and wish Nikon had an equivalent, it always looks so sharp to me.
 
swag72 said:
I do want to use it as near to 400mm as possible, but have found it particulary poor. Everyone's posted pics show the poorness of mine I believe. I often pull it back to about 380mm, but I'm still not happy.

Off to Canon it goes!

Kaz, your shots are pin sharp. You're using the 300 F2.8 aren't you?
Click to expand...

I do use the 300f2.8 at the beginning of my gallery i think i took some with the 100-400 but they were never at the 400 end at 5.6 so i didn t feel I was getting the most out of it.I sold it and bought the 400f5.6 for my walkabout lens as the 300f2.8 does get a bit heavy, the few shots i have took with my 400f5.6 are a lot sharper im afraid im a fan of the prime
 
Not saying your 100-400L is good or not, but it's not possible to tell from your pics. You need to shoot identical images side by side, preferably with another 100-400L, or at least something with similar focal length.

You can eliminate the issue of focus accuracy by using AF, then switching to live view/manual and seeing if you can improve it significantly on maximum magnification.

I assume you had a high shutter speed, but you don't specifically say so.
 
If I return the lens with the camera (My set button has just decided to stick in the wheel) then they should sort out any focussing issues with them both together?
 
Swag, as I said on your other post a couple of days ago, you obviously have doubts about this lens, it's under warranty, why hesitate? Send it back, together with the camera if necessary, and they'll check it out. That's what a warranty is for, and you've paid good money for the kit, and that is what Canon Elstree is for.

Just let us know how you get on, and all the best!!
George
 
George said:
Swag, as I said on your other post a couple of days ago, you obviously have doubts about this lens, it's under warranty, why hesitate? Send it back, together with the camera if necessary, and they'll check it out. That's what a warranty is for, and you've paid good money for the kit, and that is what Canon Elstree is for.

Just let us know how you get on, and all the best!!
George
Click to expand...

I agree especially if its still under warranty its horrible to be disapointed with your kit i hope you can get it sorted as im sure you will
 
i find my copy is best kept below 350mm...here's a shot taken at 250mm f6.3 with very little pp & no cropping...it will go to 400mm but is a little softer than i would like
3500619948_c3f2b5185d_o.jpg
 
i've never been impressed with that lens
it has a sweet spot at F8 and that's about it

not one of canons finest moments IMHO
 
Quote " Last ditched attempt to decide whether my 100-400 is OK. I have doubted this for some time. So have done the following.

Picture of my brick wall. Taken at F/8 at approx 9ft from the wall at 400mm. Taken on a tripod, mirror lockup used and a remote. IS switched off. Pic taken as parallel to the wall as poss. 100% crop taken from middle of lens, edges were worse" unquote


The minimum focus distance for that lens is 1.8 mtrs and that would be the lens at the shortest distance of 100mm..
I would suggest trying again within the lens specification.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
The minimum focus distance for that lens is 1.8 mtrs and that would be the lens at the shortest distance of 100mm..
I would suggest trying again within the lens specification.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Last time I checked 9 feet was about 3 metres
The minimum focus distance for the lens is 1.8m through the entire zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top