100-400L AF vs MF

[photographer unknown]

After several disappointing shots with the 100-400L lens, I decided to test (unscientific) yesterday. Since most of my shots seemed slightly out of focus or just not sharp, when shot in AF I wanted to see what the results would be in MF. So with lens on tripod set to 1/500 at F4.5 I took shots in both AF and MF, the MF shot was most definately sharper. IS this normal? I know that AF can be off at times but in general should MF produce a sharper image than AF in same conditions? Just for the heck of it I did the same shot but bumped up the aperture to F8 and obvisously more was in focus but still not sharp. This is my first L lens, and honestly, I was expecting better... my 28-135 IS produces as good results.

Hmm.. just wandering, by nature is digital soft with out post processing? Anyone have a shot from the 100-400L shot @100mm and wide open they care to share that has no sharpening or other post processing applied.

TIA,
Photographer Unknown

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's not normal.. it is possible for a lenses AF to be "out" .. you may want to send it in to Canon for a look,.

But you also raise the question of Digital Vs. Film and sharpness...
It's sort of contradicting... in a sense.

Are the manually focused shots sharp or not?

You dont mention what Camera your using,. but Canon digital files definately benifit from sharpening in post processing.

But post processing should have no effect on whether your AF is focusing as well as you can get with manual.

Lastly,. I don't thimk I have many of any shots with that lens at 100mm wide open.. you may want to try a longer end of the zoom...

[Huckaback Photo]

Hi
Take a look in the sport section on this forum...Rally Wales GB 2003
all with 100 to 400L and the last pair of my posting Duval car no 5 taken at 100mm f8 1/350 800asa
and car no 15 were taken at 100mm f6.7 1/250 800asa
small adjust to levels in PS & approx 50% sharpening cam body used was D60.
totally agree with CDS above the processing will not effect the focus whether af or manual in any way.
Martin (huckaback photo)

[alan sh]

Stupid question ?Did you have IS turned OFF ? You should.

Alan

[TBoyd]

I was not satisfied with images from my 100-400 IS on my 10D. They were not sharp compared to images I'd seen posted by others with the same equipment.

I finally sent the 10D and lens to Canon for calibration. My images are much sharper now.

TBoyd

[photographer unknown]

Sorry, guess I forgot to mention that I had it mounted on a Canon 10D body. Also I did check and double check that the IS was OFF, (I really wanted the fix to be that easy):) The manually focused images are "sharper than" the AF shots but still not what I would consider sharp. I may need to send it off to Canon for a looksee but considering this is a brand new lens, I kinda have that user error feeling.... I will test it at the longer end and see what results before I decide upon sending it in. Thank you.

Martin... definitely headed over to check out your recommended photos. Thanks a bunch.

Photographer Unknown

[RichardtheSane]

Just an idea, do you have a filter on the lens?
If so what type?

[lomond]

Just an idea, do you have a filter on the lens?
If so what type?

Good point Richard,
though I hope he hasn't put a cheap filter on that lens.

[Huckaback Photo]

Hi Cameron
I really dont know about these filters today the quallity seems to very so much.
I have filters for various lenses going back over many years and the qual was certainly better on some makes then. B & W were made in a brass mount 1st class i recon. i bought a couple of Hoya sky for my 77mm lenses yes normal quality , no other choice in shop,that day.
a week later i wondered why so much dust and crap had got on actual front element of lens, tap the glass its loose of course and no good seal to be had i have actually changed these 3 times now.
As for how some can degrade the actual lens quallity is another story all this with todays high tech????
Does not make sense.
Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[lomond]

Hi Cameron
I really dont know about these filters today the quallity seems to very so much.
I have filters for various lenses going back over many years and the qual was certainly better on some makes then. B & W were made in a brass mount 1st class i recon. i bought a couple of Hoya sky for my 77mm lenses yes normal quality , no other choice in shop,that day.
a week later i wondered why so much dust and crap had got on actual front element of lens, tap the glass its loose of course and no good seal to be had i have actually changed these 3 times now.
As for how some can degrade the actual lens quallity is another story all this with todays high tech????
Does not make sense.
Martin (Huckaback Photo)

I couldn't agree more. I foolishly bought a cheapo Jessops filter for my 75-300 a few years ago. The images were all out of focus. At first I thought it was the lens but traced it back to the filter.
I now only use Hoya Pro 1.
Having said that I recieved a Pro 1 filter for my 100-400 and before I took my first shot the glass fell out of the filter. :cry:
Hoya replaced it.

[Huckaback Photo]

Cameron
sorry i have to admit i just laughed when reading about the glass falling out. i'm sure you were not amused at the time.
a funny one for you...
Question.... "WHAT IS DEPTH OF FIELD"


Answer......"ITS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO HEDGEROWS"

also..
A mate of mine has just bought a new digital camera, he recons its that fast he managed to get a picture of his wife with her mouth shut !!!
This is fiction of course

[lomond]

Cameron


A mate of mine has just bought a new digital camera, he recons its that fast he managed to get a picture of his wife with her mouth shut !!!
This is fiction of course

Of course it's fiction, even a 1Ds MK II can only manage 1/8000 sec. :lol:

[photographer unknown]

You know, I do have a Canon Sharp UV filter on it. I know I have heard both schools of thought on this and I go back and forth well sort of, I don't use them on my non-L lens, I figure the lens are reasonably priced and I could replace one if the glass was damaged but with the price of the L I took some advice and put the filter on. Thoughts on this practice? Tomorrow I will give the lens a whirl without the filter, wish I had time today.:(

Photographer Unknown

[phili1]

I have the 100-400 as well and went thru the same thing as you. This is what I have found. The lens will auto focus sharp but it is very sensative to movement. I found that the IS works best below 1/400 of a sec and that when you tripod mount the movement of your finger on the shutter can move the camera. I have now gotten my ratio with it up to between 65 & 75 % in focus.

It takes practice but you can get good reasults with it. I just bought a bogen gimbel head, I will post when I have tried it out.

Antway here is a shot with it using auto focus.

[photographer unknown]

Thanks phili1, Nice shot you have there. Is that without any USM? You are right about senstivity of movement, I noticed right away the movement and have been using the cable release when it is mounted on the tripod. Interesting that you note the IS works best under 1/400, having trouble wrapping my brain on the why? Blame it on the lateness of the hour.:) I really want to use this lens on my monopod or handheld. You guys have given my some ideas on things to try. As long as it isn't raining I am going to take my lens out to play in the morning.


Martin, those are some nice shots and shows that this lens in capable of producing some nice images. Thanks for directing my to those for comparing.

[phili1]

I should rephrase that. It works above that but best below 1/400. I find that tripod mounting gives the best results and you cant use IS on a pod, although I have.

I have not found the need for a remote if the shutter speed is above 1/400 os a sec but you have to treat the shutter with a gentle touch.

I now have a gimble head and have adapted it to my old heavy duty Pod,and will try it this week.

Anyway here is the same Jay right out of Raw files. Canon Raw needs sharpening and I have four programs and find the best for Raw is Capture 1 raw conversion.

[Jon]

Stupid question ?Did you have IS turned OFF ? You should.

Alan

IS would have the same effect whether he was on AF or MF. Of course, if he turned IS off along with the shift to MF . . .

[photographer unknown]

Seems like I started this thread and then disappeared. Sorry about that. I have been dying to play with this lens some more and hopefully get some worthwhile shots but life keeps getting in the way. So for the time being, I thought that I would post one I took testing the lens a little more. I am still getting better results with MF but changing the focusing to the center square has helped some witht he AF. This shot was taken handheld iso 100, 1/30th, 100mm, f4.5 and AF, so I think the lens is ok. Nothing great about this pic, just a followup. Thanks to everyone for your ideas and suggestions.

[Huckaback Photo]

Well done
Nice capture, allways good to get some feedback and certainly if you have one as good as this why not share it.
what i see in this shot...
Yes deffinately shows what a lens like this is capable of wide open at 1/30th sec.
Composition looks right to me, and reasonable separation from the background.
Colours are great. all those reds and wonderful shapes within them.
if pic was my own
Top left small twig is on same plane of sharp focus as bird... blur it or take it out with clone tool in PS.
on the lower right bulbous part of the crop, the vary light area (high lights) could be toned down as often in a shot the viewers eye is drawn to a catch light (for example in the eye) so why not try a small catch light in the eye instead , only my thoughts i like this image a lot and would not bother to (tidy it up) otherwise.
Cheers
Martin (huckaback Photo)

[phili1]

NIce job You can't get any better them that. It takes time to get used to, you have to find out what the Camera and lens wants and give it to it.

[HKFEVER]

Cameron
sorry i have to admit i just laughed when reading about the glass falling out. i'm sure you were not amused at the time.

I have this happened too. The filter glass fell, and it is a Hoya too.:D

[photographer unknown]

Wow! Thanks for the compliments guys.:eek: Martin, thanks for the suggestions, I will give the a whirl. My mind was so geared towards how sharp the image was, that image itself sort of escaped me!

I think me and my lens are going to be good friends.:D