Unwanted soft focus

ninjafox

ninjafox

Messages
98
Name
graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a friend of mine who has taken up club racing so I thought that I would do the right thing and get some photos while watching the race. They all looked technically okay on the camera (I'm still working on the whole composition thing...) but when I got them on the computer the 100% crop show's that they're not very sharp at all.

Is this a problem with the lens, am I expecting too much from non-pro glass or is it user error??

I'm using a 70 - 300mm IS USM Canon lens, it's a few years old but is in pretty good nick. I was thinking of sending it off to be serviced but that'll be the best part of £100 as a minimum so I though I'd ask some people who know about these things!

Here are some samples @ 100% with the links below to the original images of you need the EXIF data

4717545735_46722cc6a5.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/16737631@N03/4485397338/in/set-72157623759233504/

4718190686_7c6f01a05b.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/16737631@N03/4485388170/in/set-72157623759233504/

Thanks!!
 
What AF point were you using for these?
 
Not all photos are tack sharp from a 100% crop and they are heavily cropped. You may have focused on the wrong area, maybe the grass?
 
The 70-300 IS USM is a cracking lens, at a guess it would more likely to be user error than a fault with the lens.

As stated a 100% crop will make any problems more apparent and focusing on the wrong area could be a problem, could you post the full uncropped image ?
 
You guys might be on to something...

Just checked the camera and it's set to manual AF on the centre point - given that those two have the subject off-centre I'm guessing that's where i've gone wrong.

Maybe I just need some more practice!
 
Two likely possibilities are that...

1) You have a UV/protection filter fitted, possibly not of the best quality. Such filters (or any filters at all) often do not play nicely with telephoto lenses and can cause flare and ghosting plus other unpleasant effects. The 100-400 lens is notorious for having IQ destroyed by poor filters, although even good ones can have some negative impact.

2) You have engaged IS on the lens, and compound movements (neither static nor simple panning) to follow the bikes as they move both across the frame and towards you are confusing the hell out of it. At 1/1000 you would be better off without IS. Certainly that is my experience when shooting BIF.

Another point to note is that in one image your AF point is over plain tarmac and possibly struggling to find sufficient contrast for a focus lock. However, since nothing looks sharp in the frame I think it is an IQ problem rather than a focusing one, which points to the first two ideas above as probable candidates. By the look of the images I don't think camera shake is your problem either.

In the image with the lone rider, while the AF point may not be on the bike, it is on the striped edging beside the track and should provide ample contrast for a focus lock. The fact that nothing appears sharp, anywhere within the frame, is what leads me to doubt focusing as the problem. I'm sure it is more likely to be something else - filter, IS or both.
 
In all honesty I can't see a whole lot wrong with those 100% crops.

Let's face it, you're using a consumer zoom, with a consumer body, in harsh conditions. Given the circumstances I think you did good. Viewing images at 100% shows up abberations and faults even on expensive primes.
 
Not using a filter (haven't got around to finding a decent 72mm one!) so should rule that one out...

See what you mean about point 2 - off to Snetterton in a couple of weeks so will have to give it a try without the IS as well.

trencheel303 said:
In all honesty I can't see a whole lot wrong with those 100% crops.

Let's face it, you're using a consumer zoom, with a consumer body, in harsh conditions. Given the circumstances I think you did good. Viewing images at 100% shows up abberations and faults even on expensive primes.
Click to expand...

Cool - wasn't sure if I was expecting too much!
 
trencheel303 said:
In all honesty I can't see a whole lot wrong with those 100% crops.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious. Here is an image and 100% crop with zero editing. I did have a Hoya Pro 1 UV filter fitted (which normally I would never use), as well as a lens hood (which I always, always use)...

20100616_200145_8183_LR.jpg


20100616_200145_8183_LR-2.jpg


I may have used may be better equipment (1D3 and 100-400 zoom), but there is no way the 400D and 70-300 should be as poor as the pictures in the first post. At that distance the demands on the AF are quite modest and should not be a challenge at all. The lens has a decent enough reptation, more than decent, and should be turning in very acceptable IQ. In my opinion there is clearly something wrong somewhere with those results.
 
His shots were taken at 300mm (the worst end?), wide open on a consumer lens. Your crop also looks much less tighter than his (just looking at the two pictures and crops) and you have used better equipment.

I used to see results like the OP's constantly when I used my kit lens 18-55 IS and could never get my head round it. I'm sorry that you don't agree with me but I just don't see a problem here.
 
The performance may not be stellar at 300mm, but I cannot believe it should be as bad as the examples shown. Here is a comparison of the 70-300 at 300mm against the 100-400 at 135mm, which is the focal length I used for my shot, both at f/5.6. Clearly the 70-300 is a bit wayward, but surely not to the degree shown in the first post....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

The review here - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1 - seems very positive, with the following findings....

The lens produced very good to excellent MTF figures. As to be expected the performance is best at 70mm with excellent center and border quality at all tested apertures. At 200mm and a little more so at 300mm there's a slight decrease in resolution but the results stay easily within very good territory reaching even excellent center figures at the respective performance peaks. Compared to true L grade lenses the contrast level seems to be a tad lower at 300mm. Nonetheless this is truly baffling for such an affordable lens.
Click to expand...
 
My mate has the 70-300 is lens and has had to send it to Canon twice for the same issue.

It works fine now and is sharp at 100% crop.
 
Well, yes, the third possibility is that the lens needs attention by Canon. It would probably be worth trying some controlled IQ testing with a static subject and a tripod, in order to eliminate variables that are not related specifically to the optical performance of the lens.
 
I have to agree with Tim. If I had a 70-300 and those photos were representative of the best it could do at 300mm, I'd be asking for my money back.
 
As an owner of a 70-300 and more recently a 70-200L I think the results from this 70-300 are not far off what I would expect in these circumstances.

The camera is 12MP, easily enough pixels to show up the lenses weak points at 300mm.

The worst part of this lens at 300mm and f5.6 is the horrendous chromatic aberration on highlights - see the edge of the bike faring. This effect just murders the apparent sharpness. Look at the riders helmet in both shots, not too bad and would probably benefit from a bit of PP sharpening so the sharpness is there but the lighting is not helping.

I wonder how much of this is shown up in lab test shots??

I stopped using mine over 200mm as I just really wasn't happy with the IQ, 230mm is usable but thereafter goes downhill fast.

And although I agree with Tim the auto focus should not be troubled by this situation, even on my 40D, which I assume should be better than the 450D used here, sometimes the lens really struggled with moving objects. The focus motor sounds clockwork compared to proper ring USM focusing (I think Canon call the 70-300 focusing Micro Motor USM a very different beast to proper ring USM) At f5.6 the consumer bodies do start to struggle with Servo focus situations.

I'll see if I can find some 300mm shots tomorrow - bit late now!!

David
 
There are 744 images taken with the 70-300 at 300mm and f/5.6, and available at full resolution, from these search results....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/...none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=5.6&res=1

I have no idea what you will find if you follow some of the example links but hopefully you should find real world results from the lens that others are achieving.

Looking at this randomly selected example, taken with a 400D, I would say the IQ is significantly greater from the lens used here....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyron/2075165787/sizes/o/
 
Trying it on a tripod sounds like the best plan here, nice low iso and shot at f8 or there abouts and work away from there. If it can't give good results like that then there is something seriously wrong with it.
 
ninjafox said:
You guys might be on to something...

Just checked the camera and it's set to manual AF on the centre point - given that those two have the subject off-centre I'm guessing that's where i've gone wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you meant by the bit in bold? I doubt you were actually usung manual focus, I assume you mean you were manually selecting the AF point?

There's not much to add to what's been said other than to just confirm you were using continuous servo focus?

Definitely the thing to do is take some static shots on a tripod at full zoom of a subject with plenty of fine detail. If you get similar results then you definitely have a duff lens or it needs calibrating.
 
trencheel303 said:
In all honesty I can't see a whole lot wrong with those 100% crops.

Let's face it, you're using a consumer zoom, with a consumer body, in harsh conditions. Given the circumstances I think you did good. Viewing images at 100% shows up abberations and faults even on expensive primes.
Click to expand...

You're WAY off with that post!! The crops are no way acceptable for the combination of lens and body used by the OP, the 70-300 IS is a cracking lens, even at 300mm. Its a combination capable of pin sharp results. Don't think a 'consumer' lens and body arn't more capable than the images posted! I get pin sharp images from my 400D with the 55-250 IS, much sharper than the OPs posted images here.

I'd say its a combination of camera shake and missing the AF point. Also, are you using single shot AF or servo AI? One shot AF will almost always miss the focus on motorsport shots. Also, dont be fooled into using the cameras 'sport' more, 9 times out of 10 it doesnt work! Use either shutter priority or aperture priority (set fairly open for a decent shutter speed, the 70-300 will still be nice and sharp wide open).
 
The main problem there is simply the massive crop. You are just too far away. The first rule for quality images is the fill the frame and every square mm is precious. If you had done that, you would probably not be even asking the question.

It's not a focus problem. Unlikely at that distance, and as is clear from your Flickr.

I agree with Tim that the lens should do better than that. Stopping it down to f/11 at 300mm will help quite a lot. It could need a tweak by Canon but I think the point about IS is maybe a good shout. The only time I've had trouble with IS was with panning and the IS on mode 1 - switch to mode 2 (that's what it's for) or turn it off if you can maintain 1/1000sec anyway, which you probably won't at f/11!

Fill the frame, shoot at f/11 at the long end, use IS mode 2. Pretty sure that will sort it.
 
ninjafox said:
Definitely seems less sharp at 5.6!
Click to expand...

Viewed at 50% with a little more sharpening added, the picture, even at f/5.6, looks very usable to me. I think attempting to view/use files from a camera with a highish pixel density at 100%, especially with a lens pushed to its limits is perhaps a bit ambitious. I wouldn't try that with my 7D, or the 50D I had previously, when using a hand held zoom lens to shoot action.

I hope you don't mind, but here is a 50% crop from your f/5.6 shot. I would expect the leaves to be soft, because they are not within the DOF, but the details on the house look good to me.

4721817624_4075f56b6c_o_DPP.JPG


I'm not sure what went wrong with your motorsport shots. Hopefully it was a problem caused by having the IS enabled when it would be better turned off. I would hope that if you can fill the frame sufficiently then your lens will be quite capable of delivering the results you would like.
 
It may be worth noting that ISO in the f11 shot is 200, but is 400 in the f5.6 shot. So still not directly comparable... :)
 
Back again, found a couple of examples.

So nice front lit subject, no detail at frame edges and at 1/500th f9.5 200 ISO on 40D with default RAW 3 sharpness setting and 150 in the RGB sharpness slider.



100% crop



Not too bad I would say.

And slightly more challenging but only 250mm F8.0 and 1/250th sec. Same sharpening as above.

Whole frame



100% crop - not too bad



See the CA on the shirt



And although a bit OOF much nearer the edge of the frame



So there you are, any comments??

David

PS I looked at several of the pictures posted on Pixel Peepers or whatever it was and almost without exception they were very poor in terms of technique, I don't think I found a single one that was as sharp as my first shot which surprised me a bit. I will see if I can find a f5.6 300mm shot in my archive but I think as soon as I became aware of this lenses shortcomings it became f8 or nothing for me especially at the longer end.
 
I still don't think there's anything wrong. Your f/5.6 shot of the house in comparison to the f/11 shot showed a huge difference in quality, and given your first shot that you started the thread with was done at f/5.6, it tallies up. It also debunks those in this thread who are claiming it will be nice and sharp wide open. Few lenses are, consumer zooms no less!

My 50mm prime doesn't deliver properly sharp results until stopped down one whole stop from wide open, and it takes another stop again to produce shots that are truly acceptable and usable in the maximum amount of situations. How on earth do people expect a consumer zoom (oh-oh... I said it again!) to perform stellar wide open?

More to the point, your shot at normal viewing size seemed perfectly fine to me on flickr. Sure, we all pixel peep from time to time, and it's a good thing to do to be aware of our equipment but honestly, 300mm at f/5.6, I'd be happy with that result!
 
Found one!

1/180th F5.6 300mm on 40D (10MP) so relying on the IS a bit here







David
 
kimaldis said:
@ninjafox

This isn't just out of focus or motion blurred, you're seeing flare around the highlights. It's not so disimilar to what you get when you soft focus with a vaseline smear. Did you check that the front and back of the lens is clean?
Click to expand...

That's why I thought a filter might be the culprit. It is shocking flare/halation in those original images, and not what you would expect of any half decent lens. If it's not a filter then my next best guess is the IS. Of course, a vaseline smear might well produce similar results, but I did not like to suggest that. :eek:

I do sometimes see similar effects from my 100-400, with halation evident where bright areas contrast with darker ones, but never as bad as the examples here. Whenever I set up a test scenario the problem is not reproduced. My conclusion is that there is definitely some funky affect caused by having IS engaged when it it inappropriate for the subject matter. I keep my lenses clean and do not use filters of any kind unless absolutely essential. There may be room to find fault with the lens IQ but I'm still hoping that IS is the vallain here and ninjafox can improve results simply by turning it off.
 
I've just sold this lens and had used it on a 450d before I got my 7d. The first results you sent in are definitely not right even wide open at 300mm.

That lens does become softer at 5.6 300mm for sure but nowhere near as bad as your results showed. Your later results look more like what mine was like. At 300mm I wouldn't use it at 5.6 because of the softness, I'd go to f8 at that point, but up to 200 it should be spot on wide open.

This was at 150mm wide iso200 with no sharpening on a 450d, sharpen it up and it would be fine!

4706460244_6c93a41044_b.jpg


this was at 300mm but at f8 on a 7d after sharpening, with 100% crop on the eye, it does start to soften here but not to the extent your originals showed.

4724066258_c9c42ca6fb_b.jpg


You later pics look much more reasonable so it seems like maybe a user/settings error in the begining. bottom line with this lens, don't expect it to be razor sharp at 5.6 at 300mm, but expect better than what you got in your first effort.
 
trencheel303 said:
I still don't think there's anything wrong. Your f/5.6 shot of the house in comparison to the f/11 shot showed a huge difference in quality, and given your first shot that you started the thread with was done at f/5.6, it tallies up. It also debunks those in this thread who are claiming it will be nice and sharp wide open. Few lenses are, consumer zooms no less!

My 50mm prime doesn't deliver properly sharp results until stopped down one whole stop from wide open, and it takes another stop again to produce shots that are truly acceptable and usable in the maximum amount of situations. How on earth do people expect a consumer zoom (oh-oh... I said it again!) to perform stellar wide open?

More to the point, your shot at normal viewing size seemed perfectly fine to me on flickr. Sure, we all pixel peep from time to time, and it's a good thing to do to be aware of our equipment but honestly, 300mm at f/5.6, I'd be happywith that result!
Click to expand...

lol, now you have a 1d you talk about "consumer" kit! so what your saying is unless you get an L series lens you won't get acceptable shots (or at least shots no better than the original ones posted by the OP)?? Utter rubbish!!!
 
kimaldis said:
@ninjafox

This isn't just out of focus or motion blurred, you're seeing flare around the highlights. It's not so disimilar to what you get when you soft focus with a vaseline smear. Did you check that the front and back of the lens is clean?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking when I got the pics off the camera but no filter, or smears on the glass at all.

I'm going to give it a go again at Snett with all of the advice in a couple of weeks & see what it looks like. I'll let you all know & thanks for the input everyone!
 
odd jim said:
lol, now you have a 1d you talk about "consumer" kit! so what your saying is unless you get an L series lens you won't get acceptable shots (or at least shots no better than the original ones posted by the OP)?? Utter rubbish!!!
Click to expand...

You made that assumption yourself. I may own a 1Ds (was that a touch of jealousy?) but I own plenty of consumer kit as well. What I don't do, is go out, take shots with said consumer kit at the worst settings, and then spend days wondering why they were soft, OOF or lacking any vibrance. Knowing the limitation of anything and using it within that limitation isn't difficult.

So tell me;
Where did I mention the necessity of an L series lens to get an acceptable shot (in fact, tell me where I mentioned an L series lens on this thread, at all - because I don't remember doing so.)

I really don't know what people's problem is on this forum with being told the story straight, but it's beginning to seriously annoy me.

You use a cr*p lens, and you will get cr*p results - end of story, and if you can't accept that, then that isn't my problem. Whether or not I own kit a, b or c is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Consumer kit is consumer kit!
 
trencheel303 said:
You made that assumption yourself. I may own a 1Ds (was that a touch of jealousy?) but I own plenty of consumer kit as well. What I don't do, is go out, take shots with said consumer kit at the worst settings, and then spend days wondering why they were soft, OOF or lacking any vibrance. Knowing the limitation of anything and using it within that limitation isn't difficult.

So tell me;
Where did I mention the necessity of an L series lens to get an acceptable shot (in fact, tell me where I mentioned an L series lens on this thread, at all - because I don't remember doing so.)

I really don't know what people's problem is on this forum with being told the story straight, but it's beginning to seriously annoy me.

You use a cr*p lens, and you will get cr*p results - end of story, and if yocan't accept that, then that isn't my problem. Whether or not I own kit a, b or irrelevant to the issue at hand. Consumer kit is consumer kit!
Click to expand...

I think you've been advised to do this before on other threads, take a chill pill!! You didn't mention L series but you harped on about "consumer kit". The only kit people generally class as pro kit is usually ff bodies and L series lenses. Pretty much everything else is 'consumer'. You can't say the 70-300 is usm is a cr*p lens as you did in your previous post, it's one of canons most highly rated lenses?

As for being jealous of a 1ds, yes it's a very nice camera. Am I jelous? No, I'm a fully grown up adult and have real issues to worry about!! I could get a ff body tomorrow but I don't want to (my 7d might have something to do with that though).
 
trencheel303 said:
You made that assumption yourself. I may own a 1Ds (was that a touch of jealousy?) but I own plenty of consumer kit as well. What I don't do, is go out, take shots with said consumer kit at the worst settings, and then spend days wondering why they were soft, OOF or lacking any vibrance. Knowing the limitation of anything and using it within that limitation isn't difficult.

So tell me;
Where did I mention the necessity of an L series lens to get an acceptable shot (in fact, tell me where I mentioned an L series lens on this thread, at all - because I don't remember doing so.)

I really don't know what people's problem is on this forum with being told the story straight, but it's beginning to seriously annoy me.

You use a cr*p lens, and you will get cr*p results - end of story, and if you can't accept that, then that isn't my problem. Whether or not I own kit a, b or c is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Consumer kit is consumer kit!
Click to expand...

After a thread like this it's pretty obvious why in your own words you are quite "unpopular" on this forum. You do love to write posts with an edge of nastiness to them. No need.
 
Trencheel, you were asked yesterday to reconsider your posting style. You can make exactly the same point politely, without need to avoid the swear filter etc.

This is the last time you will be asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top