is this acceptable? 100-400 L sample included)

wez130

wez130

Steak,wedges and a pint
Messages
2,246
Edit My Images
Yes
I got my new 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 L last week and went out for the first time yesterday with it, i was not happy with results from 400mm shots but i put it down to a misty day (was shooting a kestrel hovering). Anyway, i've just had another quick test and i think this is quite soft (100% crop) - what do you think?

sample.jpg


ISO 100 - F/5.6 - 1/250s IS on. Took 3 shots and they are all like this.

(the kestrel i was shooting yesterday was at 1/1200s and still soft.

If this is indeed soft, how do i go about getting it recalibrated?
 
I think at 400mm you need a slightly higher shutter speed and maybe looking at a minimum 1/400 .... go for a slightly higher iso and open the lens a bit more if you can in order to achive the higher shutter
 
Well it certainly looks soft, but at 400mm and on a crop body, you're going to need a faster shutter speed I think. That said, you have mentioned that the ones take at silly shutter speeds were also soft, can you post some of those.

I have to say my initial reactions are, yep, that's soft - but we need to eliminate user error to be sure ;)

Cheers,
James
 
Wez

My 100-400 is a bit soft at the 400mm end especially at f5,6. Reducing the zoom to about 350 mm improves things, as does stopping down to f8.

You can check things out by doing a standard test. Photograph something about 50 M away. I use a neighbors house. Photograph it at say 200mm 300mm 350 and 400mm, at a range of apertures from f5.6 to f11

In the meantime try using an unsharp masks to improve things.

If you're not happy I'd initially try the retailer the lens came from to see if they'll exchange it, failing that contact the Canon Regional Service Centre

John C
 
When I had a 100-400 it was a bit soft at 400mm, just knocking it back a little to 350-375 would sharpen it right up.
 
Different make I know, but my 80-400 is a lot sharper backed off to about 375 at the long end.
 
While at 400 the zoom is soft, I think it better to make sure that it isn`t user error first, upping the shutter speed to at least 400 should help.






That beak is really freaking me out, the pain, must have been like cracking a tooth :(
 
If the IS is on then I would expect sharper than that, even at 400m, but then it is a > 3x zoom so perhaps not. Just a thought though, were you handholding or on a tripod? If the latter, having the IS on can actually have a negative effect.

I would recommend mounting the lens on a tripod, switching the IS off and shooting at a shutter spend of at least 1/600. Try at different apertures and see how that affects the sharpness.
 
you need to test it on a tripod first to eliminate hand shake and slow shutter regardless of IS
 
certainly looks on the soft side but it's not really possible to say if it's a bit of shake or just a soft lens.
 
I would say your image does look too soft. Your shutter speed is slow for the lens at full stretch but IS should have taken care of camera shake, so long as you were careful, but that won't combat subject movement. However, the softness in your image does not look like blur to me - it looks like mis-focus. Part of the problem is that your shot is somewhat underexposed and the lighting seems very flat and lacking contrast - you did say it was misty! Contrast is a crucial element in creating the perception of sharpness. The underexposure has lost what detail there may have been in the feathers and that also makes things look soft - if you can't see detail in the feathers they will not seem sharp, but really they are too dark to see much at all.

If we look at your image in Lightroom with clipping indicators turned on and the RGB histogram we see that your shadow areas are very blocked up and you have about 2.5 stops of spare headroom in your exposure. There are several areas of the bird that are pure jet black - RGB = 0,0,0 - no detail whatsoever.

MWSnap026.jpg



For the purpose of comparison I've uploaded an album with a shot of a starling taken with my 40D and 100-400 lens at 400mm, f/5.6, 1/1600 and 400 ISO in good light. It was shot in raw and I have included 100% crop examples with different levels of sharpening, including none at all. Have a look and see what you think. Here's the album (by the way, my example is underexposed by about 2/3 stop and I have lots of featureless black on my bird too :) )....

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/100400Sharpness?authkey=MPLdKhJb1Ww

Here's one example 100% crop, with no sharpening at all....

20080508_173845_1201_DPP.JPG


and here's how it sharpens up with DPP sharpening = 3 (my usual default)....

20080508_173845_1201_DPP_sharp3.JPG



You should certainly try a proper focus test before sending the lens in, but you will need a static high contrast flat target, perpendicular to your lens, good lighting, a solid tripod, mirror lockup and a timer or remote release to see what the lens is truly capable of. IS should be off for a tripod sharpness test.

Actually, I've just had a thought - did you give the lens time for the IS to spin up and stabilise fully before shooting? You should hold the half shutter press for about a second before shooting, in order that the stabilisation motors can spin up to full speed. If you shoot before then, all bets are off.
 
Thanks for the replies so far, that shot is a straight conversion from RAW to Jpeg, then cropped to the blackbird, no other adjustments whatsoever. However, it wasn't misty when i took that one, it was yesterday when i took this kestrel though...

sample2.jpg


ISO100 - F/5.6 - 1/1250s - 400mm

Now i know it's 'wide open' still, but that's what you pay extra for an 'L' lens for, fair enough, it's a heavy crop but that clearly should be sharper than that shouldn't it?
 
wez130 said:
Now i know it's 'wide open' still, but that's what you pay extra for an 'L' lens for, fair enough, it's a heavy crop but that clearly should be sharper than that shouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I'd say so. The one's in this thread here were with the 100-400, heavy crops at 400, usually wide open.
 
now you're showing off :D

I'm gonna give it another test tomorrow and see what results i get from it, if i'm still not happy then i'm gonna get it replaced / recalibrated.
 
Sorry for the slightly minor hi-jack but when I first used my 70-200 2.8 IS I turned out some pretty crap shots.... for awhile
Maybe I still do............:D
and was quite prepared to lob it outta the window at one point

I dunno, its almost as if I had to run it in :shrug:
( more like get used to it I guess from the 70-300)
 
Do try going to 350 mm at about f8 and do some tests. If it's still unsharp at that the consider either returning it or getting checked by the service centre
 
Here is a shot I took last week. The damn birds were so close most of my shots were using a shorter focal length However this is 300mm 1/400 @f8 shot at 400 ISO the first shot is full frame the second is equivelent to 100% .
Port_Lymph_Zoo-26.jpg


Port_Lymph_Zoo-26-2.jpg
 
Well, i've just been through some from last week from when i got my lens - which has left me even more confused....

sample3.jpg


Same settings again, shot in raw and simply converted to jpeg and 100% crop, now i'm quite happy with that, so why the huge difference?
 
davenjulie said:
what a shame for the poor little blackbird hek he's gonna struggle
Click to expand...

he will be fine!! There is a duck in Marple on the canal, who has the whole bottom half of his beak fixed pointed diaganolly downwards and to the side a bit, he can wobble it but not close his beak at all....he has been knocking around for a year or so now :)
 
I wonder if the AF is having trouble locking onto the subject due to low contrast. If you look at the Blackbird there is not much contrast for the electronics to evaluate. and at f5.6 no dof to help. The same may be said of the Kestrel, although not as bad. The Kestrel shot does seem to have a fair bit of noise in the image. I wonder if that's being confused with lack of sharpness.

The latest image has a lot more image contrast which may be the reason the AF can nail the focus. I don't know what focusing system you are using, all active or single point. The central single point is known on most Canons to be the most sensitive = accurate.

If you have the time when taking the picture check that it looks sharp in the viewfinder, The AF is not always spot on and sometimes manual focusing is still the best. ( That is if the damn subject will just stay still long enough).

Enjoy

John C
 
wez130 said:
Well, i've just been through some from last week from when i got my lens - which has left me even more confused....

Same settings again, shot in raw and simply converted to jpeg and 100% crop, now i'm quite happy with that, so why the huge difference?
Click to expand...

A couple of thoughts - blackbirds are black and maybe there was not enough contrast in the feathers to get a good focus lock. BIF is notoriously difficult to get right and there is plenty of scope for missing focus, either through user error or the camera struggling to lock properly.

I think the only fair way to test the lens properly is with a high contrast, well lit, static subject, shot from a solid tripod with MLU and remote release or timer release. You need to eliminate the variables that have nothing to do with the lens performance.
 
I think the last two posters have nailed the problem - probably low contrast at the point of focus causing the AF system to struggle. Also, try one AF point - centre probably (if you're not already) and use Servo AF which then makes continuous adjustments for any slight movement of both yourself and the subject. My 100-400 is a cracker and it gets used at 400mm a lot.
 
Hi, just to point out, i only ever use 1 point of focus, in this instance it was the centre point, which i always try to focus at the edge of my subject (where there is a contrast from dark and light.

However, i think i may have an incling as to where i might be going wrong, i've recently changed my focus button from the half press of the shutter to the star button at the back, not very good with AI servo but then the blackbird and the kestrel were still when i was shooting them, also, i was a lot closer to my subject on the last sample, the blackbird was about 10m away whereas the kestrel maybe 25m away in the sky, the last one i was maybe 5 metres away from.
 
wez130 said:
Hi, just to point out, i only ever use 1 point of focus, in this instance it was the centre point, which i always try to focus at the edge of my subject (where there is a contrast from dark and light.

However, i think i may have an incling as to where i might be going wrong, i've recently changed my focus button from the half press of the shutter to the star button at the back, not very good with AI servo but then the blackbird and the kestrel were still when i was shooting them, also, i was a lot closer to my subject on the last sample, the blackbird was about 10m away whereas the kestrel maybe 25m away in the sky, the last one i was maybe 5 metres away from.
Click to expand...

Wez - I think you need a day out toggin' with your Uncle Ced! ;)

Certainly, for Servo you want that AF back on the shutter button.

If you're focusing right on the edge of your subject there's every possibilty that you're getting the edge of the subject and the background in the AF rectangle which will confuse any system and cause it to hunt. You need the AF point to be in one plane with enough contrast (another way of saying detail) for the AF system to lock on. :)
 
I always shoot with the AF-ON button on the 1d which is next to the * button, and always used the * button on the 20D never had an issue with AI servo or any other mode with it.

You should be putting the focus point over the eye of the creature you are trying to get, or you will end up with out of focus eyes, one of tbe most important things to consider with wildlife. The further the distance away from the lens the less information is resolved so the Kestrel being 25 metres away i would expect to see some loss of detail, specially if poor light. The 100-400 is a decent lens, but it isnt the fastest lens Canon make, so does need decent light to give great images. Specially at the longer focal lengths. If you get a decent bright day, try taking pics of a static object, at different ISO and Apertures and see how that looks, pick things at about the distances you expect to be shooting from to give it a fair chance.
 
IanC_UK said:
I always shoot with the AF-ON button on the 1d which is next to the * button, and always used the * button on the 20D never had an issue with AI servo or any other mode with it.
Click to expand...

I have an AF On button on the 40D, but I can't say I use it. It's a nice touch for those who previously preferred to have the AF on the * button as it leaves the * button with it's default function. I know a lot of people prefer this method, but it just makes more sense to me to have it all on the shutter button where AF is maintained right up to the point that you fully depress the shutter and take the shot, and only one button to think about.

It's what you get used to I suppose. Off to install my new scanner now... deep joy!!! :LOL:
 
IanC_UK said:
I always shoot with the AF-ON button on the 1d which is next to the * button, and always used the * button on the 20D never had an issue with AI servo or any other mode with it.
Click to expand...
Same thing for me with my 40D and 30D respectively.

I have to say that Wez's photos are looking a little underexposed - good for a fast shutter speed but not good for noise control and not good for detail, when you have to post process some brightness back in and then smooth out the noise (and detail). I would be interested to take a look at one or two of the raw files to see a more accurate picture. I'm also not convinced that outputting to jpeg and then cropping the jpeg is the best way to yield maximum IQ. Why not set a crop with the raw file before outputting to jpeg? That way you only get one round of jpeg compression.

http://rapidshare.com/ is an easy way to freely share a few large (raw) files.
 
Don't suppose you have a UV filter attached to the lens by any chance?

I bought a cheapy Hoya Green series one and my images had ghosting in parts and were blurred. Took it off and it was a completely different lens!

I notice in your later pics that there is slight ghosting so thought I'd ask!
 
Good point about the filter. I used to be a filter fan and have Hoya and Kenko Pro 1 filters, a well as a Hoya HMC. I have stopped using the filters completely, unless I am shooting in harsh or mucky conditions - dust/sand/mud/sea-spray etc.. The only filter that gets regular use is my CPL. The UVs stay in the bag, just in case I need them, which is very rare.
 
combat squirrel said:
It does look soft, that quality of shot is totally putting me off a 100-400, my canon 55-250 'cheap' lens at 250 is 1000% shaper than that :confused:
Click to expand...

Nooooooooooo!! There's something simple wrong here I'm sure. It's possible to get a bad copy of a lens, but not that bad! ;)

100-400L at 400mm

OY8N4175-01.jpg
 
CT said:
Nooooooooooo!! There's something simple wrong here I'm sure. It's possible to get a bad copy of a lens, but not that bad! ;)

100-400L at 400mm

OY8N4175-01.jpg
Click to expand...

hehe, that is a great shot, however im waiting on the 150-500 from sigma, see how that compares to the 100-400 :). The 100-400 while an awesome lens, is getting on now, im hoping sigma can at least match the optics while having a 500 zoom, in this day and age who knows.
 
Try opening up the pix in the Canon zoombrowser that comes with the camera. It will let you see what focus points have been triggered.
 
96563510.jpg


1/60s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso800 shot through a slightly open window of my lounge. I'd been sat there for about 40 mins tryign to get a shot of the robin that lives in my bushes. Only after the shot did I realise what slow shutter speed it was, which means the IS is pretty good.
 
totality said:
Don't suppose you have a UV filter attached to the lens by any chance?

I bought a cheapy Hoya Green series one and my images had ghosting in parts and were blurred. Took it off and it was a completely different lens!

I notice in your later pics that there is slight ghosting so thought I'd ask!
Click to expand...

Good point there, i have a Hoya 77mm skylight 1B on the end for obvious reasons, i paid £30 for it so it may be part reason.

combat squirrel said:
It does look soft, that quality of shot is totally putting me off a 100-400, my canon 55-250 'cheap' lens at 250 is 1000% shaper than that :confused:
Click to expand...

Don't let my shots put you off, i'm sure theres a simple explanation which is why i'm asking here, if there was a problem with it, i would be fine to go to Canon and get it recalibrated anyway.

admirable said:
Try opening up the pix in the Canon zoombrowser that comes with the camera. It will let you see what focus points have been triggered.
Click to expand...

I know what focus point i use as i only use a single point - usually centre as i mentioned earlier in the thread.

I've been out for a play this afternoon and shot at F/8 and my shots seem sharper but still not the best it could be.

sample4.jpg
, focussed on the eye.
 
Take two sample shots with and without the filter. The following were two I took for testing the lens fully open at 400mm. They are 100% crops of an area. I thought it was soft until I removed the filter! The link above is to my post on Photography on the Net I posted yesterday!

WITH FILTER:
2-1.jpg


WITHOUT FILTER:
1-1.jpg
 
Don't know what filter you are using but I've just done a similar test on my 100-400 both with and without filter. Can't see any difference with or without at 100% The filter is a Hoya Pro UV. Shot @350mm 1/500 f11 IS on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top