is this acceptable? 100-400 L sample included)

Wez
Try limiting to 350mm It is a bit sharper at this length
 
totality said:
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!
Click to expand...

What filter is that?

I'll have a go tomorrow sometime without the filter.
 
My filter was a Hoya Green series (so around £20 in shops). Just a standard UV filter. Waiting now for the B+W pro filter as I've read this doesnt affect it half as badly as the cheap ones do!
 
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 really wanted you to try it to see if your aim with the centre focus point was accurate.
 
admirable said:
I really wanted you to try it to see if your aim with the centre focus point was accurate.
Click to expand...
I like your thinking, but I don't think you could conclude much simply from the Zoombrowser highlighting of the chosen focus point. What if the shot was focused and then reframed, or if focus was set and then the bird moved a bit. Wez uses the "*" button for focus so it would be quite possible, in any focus mode, to set focus and then have the bird or the camera move somewhere entirely different.
 
i've changed my focussing back to the half shutter press as i'm going to need it that way for BTCC in a couple of weeks, i use the * button for when i'm doing landscapes and archtecture and stuff, makes it a lot easier to focus my shot, then press the shutter without it re-fucussing itself. I've just done a very quick test again without a filter and again just opened the raw and opened with photoshop and cropped from the centre.

sample5.jpg


ISO100 - F/5.6 - 1/320s - IS on

Does that look better? I think that might be ok after a quick sharpen
 
Looks a little better to me, although its difficult to compare to the kestrel and blackbird shots since there is more contrast to work on. I still think its a bit soft though - i would certainly expect better of the 100-400 given the price.
 
Wez,
If that little house is completely unsharpened then I think the result is not that bad. The antialiasing filter is going to introduce some softness and raw files need some sharpening just to combat that, never mind making up for any deficiencies in the focus accuracy or sharpness of the lens. I do think sometimes there is a real danger of pixel peeping ruining people's enjoyment of their photos.

I did try sharpening in DPP and Lightroom and I think, for a 100% crop, you can easily achieve the sharpness you need with a little software tweak. Whether or not your lens is as sharp as the best of them is hard to say without a controlled back to back test but based on this evidence I would say your lens can turn it results that could produce very useable pictures. The 100-400 does have a reputation for being weak at 400mm and f/5.6 (even though it is an L) and I suspect that is what you are seeing.

If you want to see many more examples at 400mm and f/5.6 there are currently 577 examples available here....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/...x=400&aperture_min=5.6&aperture_max=5.6&res=3

Of course, there's no accounting for the quality of the photography, or the post processing, and I doubt there will be many 100% crops there, but in terms of judging the real world results that people can get with this lens I hope it will give you a better benchmark than one or two cherry picked examples posted here.

Regards,
Tim.

EDIT : p.s. I can't guarantee f/5.6 examples but there is a whole thread over on POTN with example shot at 400mm....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=296547

and another at various focal lengths, possibly also with some at 400mm too....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=373778
 
Thanks for the info there tdodd, i'll take a look. I'm going to give the lens a damn good test on sunday when i go to Bempton cliffs :)
 
tdodd said:
Wez,
If that little house is completely unsharpened then I think the result is not that bad. The antialiasing filter is going to introduce some softness and raw files need some sharpening just to combat that, never mind making up for any deficiencies in the focus accuracy or sharpness of the lens. I do think sometimes there is a real danger of pixel peeping ruining people's enjoyment of their photos.
Click to expand...

My robin was at 400mm full zoom and unsharpened so I'd say that's still a little soft, although a couple of times with my lens I've had this. Have you got the focus distance set appropriately, which IS mode (or IS off?)

Anyone nearby to borrow a lens from or local photo shop for a comparison?
 
Byker28i said:
My robin was at 400mm full zoom and unsharpened so I'd say that's still a little soft, although a couple of times with my lens I've had this. Have you got the focus distance set appropriately, which IS mode (or IS off?)

Anyone nearby to borrow a lens from or local photo shop for a comparison?
Click to expand...

But is your robin image a 100% crop? 100% magnification reveals all the little flaws that are pretty much invisible in a photo resized to around 20%.

I think the best way to make a comparison, from afar, is probably for people to shoot an equivalent subject - Sky remote, £20 note etc. - from the same distance - say 5m - in similar, good light - direct sunlight. Then we could compare results quite well. I doubt many people have one of those little houses laying around, so it is not a great subject for comaprison.
 
IS was on mode 1 , indoor shots seem really sharp for some reason - i'll post an example later on-n gtg work now - it just seems like outdoor shots are poo.
 
Sounds like user error to me. Long lenses need good technique. Don't depend on your IS, just act like it's not there and you'll nail it next time! Still keep your shutterspeed high enough like there's no IS and use good technique. In time you'll learn how to use your lens and you'll be able to bag more photos with slower shutterspeeds.
I personally only shoot with the lens tripod mounted, with mirror lock-up and remote shutter release. But again I don't have IS and my wildlife lens is double the weight of the 100-400, which would be really tiring to use hand held for extended periods of time, but still, at high magnifications and at long focal lengths, the slightest movement is magnified. You may say that the 100-400 has IS, but still, it doesn't perform miracles, you need to use proper technique.

What I would personally like to see as a sharpness test is some text printed (maybe from a book or just something from your printer), set across your lens and shoot at different apertures, at different focal lengths, different distances. Crop a 100x100 pixel from the center for every photo and post here. What we are really interested is its performance wide open, but it's still useful to see how it performs a bit stopped down.
 
stylgeo said:
Sounds like user error to me. Long lenses need good technique. Don't depend on your IS, just act like it's not there and you'll nail it next time! Still keep your shutterspeed high enough like there's no IS and use good technique. In time you'll learn how to use your lens and you'll be able to bag more photos with slower shutterspeeds.
I personally only shoot with the lens tripod mounted, with mirror lock-up and remote shutter release. But again I don't have IS and my wildlife lens is double the weight of the 100-400, which would be really tiring to use hand held for extended periods of time, but still, at high magnifications and at long focal lengths, the slightest movement is magnified. You may say that the 100-400 has IS, but still, it doesn't perform miracles, you need to use proper technique.

What I would personally like to see as a sharpness test is some text printed (maybe from a book or just something from your printer), set across your lens and shoot at different apertures, at different focal lengths, different distances. Crop a 100x100 pixel from the center for every photo and post here. What we are really interested is its performance wide open, but it's still useful to see how it performs a bit stopped down.
Click to expand...

If you look at the kestrel sample, that is shot at 1/1200s which should erradicate any movement whatsoever.
 
Also, here is a sample from this morning, just off 400mm though

sample6.jpg


ISO100 - 1/250s - F/5.6
 
Don't know if this will help you in your task of comparing your lens, I took a few photos with my 100-400L using a Canon 40D of a yellow cup sitting on a fencepost 75 feet away, weather was fair and no sun out at the time. All photos were shot at a shutter speed of 1/400 varying the focal lengths on each shot. There has been no sharpening etc, all have been cropped 100% to fit screen.

1st link were all handheld with IS on mode 1.

The second link these were all shot at 1/400 too but this time with IS switched off, Mirror lockup enabled and on a tripod at varying FL's. Since Photobucket does not allow Exif to show ? (at least on mine anyway) I've named the files with each setting.

Handheld --> Click Here

Tripod, MLU, No IS --> Click Here

If any of the more experienced guys think The lens could be better too I'd appreciate you saying so.
 
Frank, your shots confirm what I see with my lens. OK up to about 350mm then goes a tad soft.

I think this is normal with the lens.

It's interesting that there was an article in Luminous landscape by Michael Reichman on the similar subject. He did some comparison tests with the 400mm f5.6 and the 100-400 and found the former to be sharper. No real surprise there .

The reason for the comparison was that digital cameras were getting higher pixel counts and they were showing up weaknesses in even the best lenses. His comparison, if memory serves used a 1Dsll
 
Neither 1-4's I owned met my quality standards and both my 400mm's did. No point buying a lens for use at 400mm when copy inconsistency means you have to stay at 350mm or so, or you have to stop down, esp. in Uk lighting conditions. You can also use the prime with a 1.4 and 2.0x and get great results, light and MF permitting.

I have seen good shots with the 1-4 at 400mm wide open and that it why it is such a frustrating lens. It's like a lucky dip if you get a good 'un, a bummer or a just Ok! Add in user error, old IS, possible zoom creep and it's easy to understand the kinds of results seen here.

You gotta go back to basics and use manual on a tripod, IS off, and using a well contrasty target and good light: not harsh and not dim. See what results you get. You want good results at 400mm wide open. Not as good as f8.0 maybe but at least usable. Otherwise send it back.

But if you think you'll use 400mm most of the time and can forgo IS then the 400mm prime is a much better buy IMO, esp. if you have something at around the 200mm too, either the 2.8 prime or a 70-200mm or even a 135mm and TCon. That lens is great with a 1.4 and 2.0x as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top