Soft 300 f/4L IS?

Hi, it looks like the 6mm line is the sharpest.

J Robin, very sharp!!! Can count that horses hairs one by one, but anyway, yea, early morning, not exactly very sunny, but still, http://storyclip.smugm​ug.com …y/602540/1/2538​4065/Large that was from my 70-200 f/4L, and is also a pretty significant crop. Notice that the dimensions of the image are less than 1200x1800 pixels, yet it's sharp, and no USM was applied to it since I didn't even know what USM was back when I took that pic.

Anyway, here's the full un-cropped version of my focusing test.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

The focus test you did is not propely set up. The slanted focus target makes the camera choose a wide area, too wide for any conclusions. Set up a test like in https://photography-on-the.net …t.php?p=48015&p​ostcount=1 or take the lens and the camera to Canon and let them do the tests and calibate the lens (if all other lenses work ok with your camera).

eeeeehhhhhhhhhh.....

Off to try another test.

Your pictures indicate the same problems I've encountered with the 300 f/4 IS and I have determined that the softness is caused by lens flare. The lens hood of the 300 is too short and allows light from about 40 degrees to strike the front element. Since you were shooting with snow in your surroundings, I bet that you have encountered the same flare problem I have.

To overcome this flare I added an additional 4 inches to my lenshood when shooting in snow or water glare conditions. Also, no protection filter is needed with the 300 f/4 IS since its front element is a protection element.

Paul
http://www.iaw.com/~pt​urton/

Well, it turns out I'm terrible at these focus test things, and so tomorrow I'm going to go out and shoot some more bird pics. I'll try a bunch of different things and see if anything comes out sharp. Hopefully it'll be sunny.

Well here we go. I went out this morning and shot some more pics of birds. Seemed to do better, stopped my lens down to f/7.1, used the IS this time, the works. Here's what I got;

So the exif says ISO 400, f/7.1, 1/200th. Not an ideal exposure, but oh well, the sun wasn't out again today. IS seems to have done it's job though.

Here's the original, no USM, no crop, no nothing;

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I think either You got a bad copy or You have some slight shaking that the IS does not take out because at 1/200 You should be able to get a much sharper image. Maybe not unprocessed but definately processed.

Here is a sample of mine

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk …hp?n=050818zoo_​croc01.jpg (the blurr is cause by running water)

Look at the exif. Shot at 1/25 f/4. I think this is prettye sharp for a handhold at 1/25. I did use a railing as support but still if I can get a shot that sharp around the crocs eye You should also be able to get a sharp shot at 1/200.

Gah yea!!! That's way sharper than what I'm getting from mine, and wide open too? 1/25th? wooowwwwww. I think I'm gonna go see if I can get my money back....

If they will not do a dissatisfied customer refund, then send the lens and body to Canon for calibration. Likely the closest to you is Jamesburg, NJ.

I still think you've got a lot of water vapor in the air in your shoots. In real life birds do not look sharp, nature does not look "sharp," under these atmospheric conditions.

See if you can make a shot at f/5.6 and 1/300 under good lighting, with IS. I know my used 300 f/4L IS is sharp at f/4, better at f/5.6, but after f/5.6 I do not gain sharpness. Well, I gain sharpness because acceptible depth of field is greater. This lens has a razor thin DoF.

Some users feel their longer lenses are not sharp, then realize handholding a smaller 1.6 sensor body on a 300mm lens requires expanding the 1/focal length rule, combined with the razor thin DoF, and they good a new respect for long lens technique.

Wishing you success....
Jack

OK get a tripod or set the cam and lens up on a chair in the garden bluetack a 10p to a brick wall 20ft to 50ft away use selftimer to fire the shutter and take a couple of shots that way you can rule out anything your doing THEN take the same shot hand held and see how it conpares.
Rob.

I think you might be getting a little front focus in these pics (especially on the test chart), which would obviously affect sharpness. I've noticed others mention a similar problem sometimes occours with the 70-200 f4, only more usually a small amount of back focusing and especially if used with the 20D. Sending the lens in to get it calibrated seems to fix it.

This is from last winters GGO adventures over on Ile Bizard (I'm sure folks are a little tired of these shots but hey, it is to help a fellow member) 300 f/4 wideopen.

Thanks guys for the help. I've asked for a full refund. I feel somewhat bad about it, but hey, advertised as excellent, delivered defective. If canon can fix it, this guy can have it fixed himself, and resell it in working condition.

Now I'm off on my second quest to find a 300L IS or 400L. I'm thinking I might just buy new this time...

Best wishes on your lens purchase, Robert. I would give the 300 f4 IS another shot; it's one heck of a lens. Odds of getting 2 bad apples in a row from THIS tree are miniscule.