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

To me it seems pointless using a lens with that range at something that close. There is no way I would even consider doing it, even just to try any find fault.
I would use a more suitable lens should I wish to take a photo of a brick wall. Too many times have I read on here about lens problems when half the time its the photographer setting out to try and prove a lens fault.

Just My opinion for what its worth

Realspeed
 
I have to agree with Realspeed and other posters on this. You need to try photographing a test image at real world distances, something like 30-40 ft.. This would also tend to eliminate minor focus errors, as the depth of field would be greater. I would also do a similar test at 200mm and 300mm , plus maybe 350mmto see if it's sharpness is falling of at the long end.

Also how are you processing the images. Are they jpeg, or RAW. With jpeg usually some in camera sharpness is applied by the camera software. RAW processors may also add a bit of sharpness by default. Also does adding sharpness in PP improve the result. Sometimes capture sharpening can be a good thing.

It's probably unlikely, but can you compare the results with another lens, the Canon 400 f5.6 springs to mind. This is very sharp.

At the end of the day you don't want a lens that you are unhappy with. You'll always have a nagging feeling at the back of your mind about the quality of the results you are getting.

If you bought the lens from a local dealer maybe they can help you resolve the problem with some side to side tests, failing that, a phone call to Canon service is what you need to do and get the lens checked under warrenty. I don't have a specific email address, but Canon RCC is 0844 369 0100

I hope it all works out for you
 
Chappers said:
I have to agree with Realspeed and other posters on this. You need to try photographing a test image at real world distances, something like 30-40 ft..
Click to expand...

I have to diagree with your description of real world distances. The 100-400mm is regularly used for photographing small bird/beast life and larger insects. If you go above 15 feet on many of those subjects (Such as the butterfly that was posted earlier, or indeed my squirrel) then you will have to crop - most people will then work on fieldcraft to get closer.

IMO a lens should work well at all distances.
 
I will regularly use the lens at it's minimum focusing distance of 1.8m and not much more. This is to capture butterflies, dragons etc and aiming to avoid as much cropping as possible. I certainly think that 9ft is a working distance and the only way to eliminate the shutter speed, lens shake etc that you would get in the field is to take a pic of something not moving, with some detail to look at.

If I submit a pic of my butterfly for example, the first thing to eliminate is user error and shakes etc. If the pic is not sharp people will say that I was not steady at the point of the shutter. At least all tripod'ed up and eliminating as many other considerations as possible you face a cat in hells chance of deciding if it's the user of lens. How can you ever hope to do that in the field so to speak?

This is just my simple way of looking at it!
 
If it helps ...

3485667004_f87ff8fd5e_o.jpg


This is about the sharpest I've done with the 100-400mm but I tend to shoot hand held and shake is a possibility even with IS. Uncropped at a distance of around 2 metres
 
Got a new 100-400 a couple of days ago - big fella isnt it?

Immediate reaction is that it is SO critical on focus - far far more than I ever expected. Auto is slow - particularly if you have it in full range rather than the shorter AF. Did a motor race meeting with mine yesterday - asa to 400 and set app to be f8 ish - landed with a speed around 750 to 1k - then swapped to a slightly lower f and upped the speed and I have to say for movement that was way better - I think it is just prone to movement due to full extension - and it IS long when its full out. (think one can also talk oneself a little in to issues - I know I have!)

This is probably no help or use - but just my comments as a new 100/400 owner (and thanks to Kerso - great service!)

Rog
 
POAH said:
looks a bit OOF and unsharpened.

why did you not sharpen it, do you not sharpen your pics ever?
Click to expand...


Pics always sharpened, but for the purposes of this, I did not want to sharpen, otherwise that would hide any flaws with the lens I'm figuring.

Anyways, all off to the menders now, so I'll see what happenes when it gets back(y)
 
I bought a 100-400 last week and have a UV filter on the end of it. Is it not a good idea to use a filter with this particular lens?
 
Chonga said:
I bought a 100-400 last week and have a UV filter on the end of it. Is it not a good idea to use a filter with this particular lens?
Click to expand...

No more than with any other lens. It also depends on the filter quality - a cheaper filter will have more of an impact than a better quality one (Which do you use?)

Personally when I spend £1k on glass I don't want to stick another piece of glass in front of it, so I use the lens hood for protection.
 
My friend just bought a 100-400L and he too is not happy with how soft it is. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top