Unhappy with 300mm 2.8 non-is... Am I crazy?

A bit of background- I recently ordered the 300mm 2.8, the older, non-is version, from Adorama (Used, obviously...) The lens arrived without the hood, so my first step was to get a replacement (ended up with the Aquatech- $150). Then I went to mount it to my monopod, only to find that there were no threads in the foot of the tripod collar. That turned out to be a loose bushing in the foot, which I as able to work around. Finally- I am ready to shoot......

After all the rave reviews of this legendary lens, I can't believe I am saying this- I am disappointed in the photos. I've shot 3 events with the lens- a track meet, lacrosse game, and softball game..... in all three cases, the photos are far softer than I am accustomed to. I would usually shoot these events with a 70-200 2.8 is II, or a 400 5.6, or perhaps even the 200 2.8 prime. I am used to seeing tack sharp images from these lenses, and expected similar, if not better results from the 300. I am not getting it. I'll attach an example, but its not really going to show what I can see after processing 1,000 plus images from this lens- on a whole, the photos are not as sharp and detailed as I was getting from my older gear.

I did a quick test on a monopod, shooting from my deck- the 70-200, with a 1.4 tele-convertor, gave much more detailed images than the 300.

I am 90% sure that I am going to return this lens. I can add a few more $ to the project and get the Sigma 120-300, or 300 prime, both of which seem to have excellent reviews. Sadly, the new Canon 300 2.8 is still well out of reach price-wise.

Here's my question then- Is there anything I could be doing wrong? I hate to return this lens if it is some kind of user error, but I can't see how it could be. I have been shooting on a 7D, I am going to try some shots on different bodies this weekend to be totally sure.

Here's a link to a sample from the lacrosse game. Pardon the horrible crop- it's for the school's website, and they are restricted to that shape...

http://www.fotofink.ne​t/WomensLacrosse/2011-12/Lacrosse-v-PS-Abington-031712/22038686_H9FnXZ​#!i=1758604507&k=Rc7H2​vt&lb=1&s=O

At full size, the softness is clear. That one is pretty typical of the batch. I know that focus can miss, but there are none that are much better.

I want to like this lens- and after everything I went through to get it here, and in operation, sending it back is a last resort. Any help you can provide is appreciated!

Picture is password protected. Could be possibly a bad copy or maybe your hopes were too high? Once we can see the picture we will know more.

Sorry about that- the password is

xxxxx

The password was removed from this post, as it is no longer important. The photos are not good, they will likely not ever see the light of day.

If you have interest in some of the photos that turned out better, my site is www.FotoFink.net

Thanks for all of your help!

There is something wrong with your lens. Probably dropped a few times.

Yea if that's what most pictures look like, that is a terrible copy. Like Cesium said, probably a few drops causing the glass to get whacked outta place.

Looks more like motion blur to me.

EXIF info?

You are using 300mm (on a crop?) with no IS. You'll have to have very high standards of keeping the camera still. People trampling on the ground next to your tripod will do it.

uOpt wrote in post #14125931
Looks more like motion blur to me.

EXIF info?

You are using 300mm (on a crop?) with no IS. You'll have to have very high standards of keeping the camera still. People trampling on the ground next to your tripod will do it.

Doesn't look at all like motion blur to me. Look at the OOF areas in all the pictures, they have some crazy weird patterns in them.

uOpt wrote in post #14125931
Looks more like motion blur to me.

EXIF info?

You are using 300mm (on a crop?) with no IS. You'll have to have very high standards of keeping the camera still. People trampling on the ground next to your tripod will do it.

The image that came up for me (girl holding stick) was iso 100 ss 1/500th. I think that should acceptable on a monopod.

OP, have you checked focus to make sure you're not getting a slight front or back focus? It might be worthwhile to make sure the focus accurate before you bin the lens.

uOpt wrote in post #14125931
Looks more like motion blur to me.

EXIF info?

You are using 300mm (on a crop?) with no IS. You'll have to have very high standards of keeping the camera still. People trampling on the ground next to your tripod will do it.

Thanks for that thought- This is what I want to try to eliminate before I give up and return the lens.....

EXIF is as follow-

SS- 1/5000
Aperture- f 2.8
iso- 100
Focal length- 300mm (duh....)
Shot on a 7D, which is, of course, a crop sensor. It was on a fairly sturdy monopod, the Manfrotto 681B.

I don't think it is motion blur. I routinely get good results from my 400mm 5.6 with that same camera/monopod setup. Considering that, and the high shutter speed.... I don't think that could be the culprit. I will consider it when I shoot this weekend though.

EXIF would help

Difficult to give much of an evaluation without EXTF

Scatterbrained wrote in post #14125978
The image that came up for me (girl holding stick) was iso 100 ss 1/500th. I think that should acceptable on a monopod.

OP, have you checked focus to make sure you're not getting a slight front or back focus? It might be worthwhile to make sure the focus accurate before you bin the lens.

I was thinking that.... What would you recommend as a method for that? I have heard people discuss shooting a ruler, but will that be a big enough object to work, considering the focal length? I was going to be shooting on a field with football markings soon- I thought I might also use the yard lines as a reference for that- or would that be too large of a scale?

It may not matter- I understand Canon will not service this lens any more, and Adorama, while they have been very agreeable to taking it back, have told me that it was checked before it was sent to me, and they feel it is working properly.

sfinkernagel wrote in post #14126038
I was thinking that.... What would you recommend as a method for that? I have heard people discuss shooting a ruler, but will that be a big enough object to work, considering the focal length? I was going to be shooting on a field with football markings soon- I thought I might also use the yard lines as a reference for that- or would that be too large of a scale?

It may not matter- I understand Canon will not service this lens any more, and Adorama, while they have been very agreeable to taking it back, have told me that it was checked before it was sent to me, and they feel it is working properly.

"Checked for proper function", is different than calibrating it to your camera body. You can always get a Spyder LensCal, or use measuring tape and a focus chart or book. If the focus is spot on and the lens is still soft then you can let it go with no regrets.

Maybe have a person stand right at a yard line and focus on the person. Have them stand still and you use your monopod/tripod, just to be sure that neither motion blur nor camera shake is the problem.

If the person is OOF, then maybe the yard lines will be able to tell you if it's front- or back- focusing, like a ruler would for a more "normal" focal length.

Jason

Raylon wrote in post #14125969
Doesn't look at all like motion blur to me. Look at the OOF areas in all the pictures, they have some crazy weird patterns in them.

This is a dead giveaway that something is misaligned internally. I would send the lens back.