7D Mll, original 500 mm f/4 IS compatibility

Hello.

Desperate times...

I've been shooting wildlife with Canon--40D, 7D, just purchased the 7D Mll, and original 100-400 mm IS zoom and 500 mm f/4 IS--for about 10 years and have virtually never taken a sharp image. But it's gotten worse since I started using the latter camera.

I live 20 minutes from the Jamesburg, NJ repair center and have tried to address this with phone tech support and this location on and off for years. I've sent many images and have been told very often (save from early on) that it is not user error (though often enough I'm sure it is and I'm allowing for that).

Full disclosure, I have cognitive issues akin to ADD that keep me from having more than a rudimentary understanding of the camera and how to use it most effectively/correctly, but after sharpening/NR, I've gotten many beautiful images (8 x 10, 11 x 14, some 16 x 20), prints of which I've sold/am selling for good money at art shows. Most of these were taken with the original 7D and the 500 f/4.

That said, having updated to the Mll (which I bought upon multiple recommendations to help solve the focusing/sharpness issue), I was first told a calibration between it and the 500 would solve my problem. When it did not, I was told by the same rep that the problem can't be solved, that the technology between the two pieces of equipment are too far apart to achieve optimum results. All I want are usable images (to print as above or better). We've not come to terms on those definitions and the lens is likely going back there tomorrow.

Other Canon reps tell me this is untrue, and I tend to believe them--that I should be able to get usable images, if not the ones I'd get with the 500 mm Mll. Even with sharpening, very few are usable. I do not want and can't afford to upgrade to the Mll unless absolutely necessary.While I appreciate technical advice, chances are I might not understand it. I say so simply to not waste anyone's time.

My question is if anyone believes this is true--that I can't expect usable images with this combination. Certainly no one at Canon or even B&H mentioned this before I purchased the camera and while the B&H rep with whom I just spoke doesn't believe it, the Canon rep indicates it's specified in various places. But I assume that doesn't mean the combination won't even produce usable images.

I typically shoot AV, AI servo, with (but also without--same issue) the 1.4 MIII extender), at 5.6 or close to it, still and barely/slowly moving subjects (Forget about flight shots...), single point focus, in bright to reasonable light, 400 ISO more often than not--adjusted when necessary but the problem exists at 400. This served me well enough--if not ideally--with the original 7D. I get there are things I can do to tweak/improve--back of camera focusing, more focal points, etc. But that's not my question/concern now.

If interested, my images are here (Many, especially older ones, are not of the quality I printed--no NR on the Flickr images at all beyond a few years ago.):

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/26398858@N02/

The first few down to the chipmunk were taken with the new combo. Nothing is done to those beyond cropping, sharpening, NR, and bits of exposure/color adjustments, all with Canon's DPP software (and there's virtually no Photoshopping done on any of the other shots--maybe less than 20 of the 1000's there and that's almost exclusively minimal removal of foreign objects.).

Would appreciate any help. Unless I can sort this out within days, as I was set to book a month long rental in FL last Friday--the disparity is likely going to cost me my first vacation in five years.

Brett

First, the link in your post doesn't work.

So I followed the link in your signature and looked at photos you've taken over the last couple weeks. There is no EXIF about the images, so I can't be sure if they were taken with the 500mm and 7DII. Frankly, all the shots I see there are beautifully sharp and I'm not sure what you are concerned about. But maybe I need to look at different images (if so, please provide a working link).

I cannot imagine any compatibility issues using the original 500/4 IS on a 7DII.... any more than using that lens on 7D or 5DII, both of which were released many years after the original 500/4 IS.

Is it possible your computer monitor isn't sharp? A lot of them aren't. I'm using a graphics quality IPS monitor. It's good, but even with it I'm often pleasantly surprised by how sharp prints are, made from the same images (on smooth matte paper with a high quality photo printer.

As amfoto said, we could really use some files with exif intact. Personally I would find the worst example from your last shoot and print it bigger than you would for sale and examine that rather than pixel peep on a monitor. I use a non is 300 f2.8 on a 6D with no compatibility issues (with and without cons) so I think your problems lay elsewhere...

The link does work for me.
But the photos I see there look as sharp as anyone could expect, in my opinion. Either I'm looking at something you didn't have problems with, or you are seeing problems that aren't there.

Link works for me and your images look great. Not sure what you are concerned with. Body/lens combo should be fine. Have you MFA'd the combo?

Can't see any problem with your images. They look very sharp to me.

Looking at those I see why people rave about those big white Canon primes. Suffering from laceration of the eyeballs looking at them.

Alan

A general response to all three (again, my apologies) threads in which I have the post...

I appreciate the kind words re: the images on Flickr but those are among the few salvageable ones from cards with hundreds of files each. A photographer shooting next to me with a 100-400 got sharper images of the bluebirds than I posted at 700 mm. Many to most or all on various cards from various days and subjects weren't fixable at all, and those on Flickr required the DPP sharpening lever moved to 10.

But, my question was whether or not anyone has been told what I was told re: the compatibility of the two pieces of equipment. I can fix user error but needed to know if I was fighting a losing battle re: the gear.

Thanks especially to those who indicated the workability and described their learning curves. I was not expecting to have to shoot differently but will learn now that it's clear it's required.

Still have to decide about bringing the lens back to Canon, but I think I'll experiment some first rather than doing so immediately.

I wasn't worried about showing full size images or EXIF as I'm not looking to get shooting tips from this post--just a response to the main question.

Thanks again.
Brett

Brett,

My only input is that the newest cameras mated to the newest lenses, allows a more precise autofocus movement.

Example: old D30 and old 400 2.8 might be able to focus within a 3 inch fore-aft range, on a bird that's 200 feet away from you.
A 7Dii, 5Diii, 1Dx mounted to a 400 2.8 ii might be able to focus within a 1 inch fore-aft range. So it's 3 times more precise.
Those numbers are NOT exact, but I think I'm pretty close on the 3 times more precise value.

I have never heard of problems with older and newer Canon equipment not working together. That's the whole point of the EF technology!

Brett,

Are you also remembering that when looking at a 7Dii photo at 100% zoom, you are 'zoomed in' more, because of the smaller pixels?
I know you said 'no tech talk', but you need to understand this. Let us know, so we can explain.

Brett, your images in the link provided look wonderful to me.

If my 500mm f/4L IS is not working well with my 7D2, well that's sure news to me!
It really sounds like something someone just made up.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I do not see any sign of an issue. The tufted Titmouse close up is superb!

My 300L F4 IS which almost 20 years old works will on my 7D2. It just does not focus as quickly as my 100-400 II which is expected.

The link is working now.... great!

Following that confirms I was looking at the correct images... and, yes, to me too those look nice and sharp,accurately focused. So from them I'm not sure what the problem might be.

It may be useful if we could see the "bad" images, with EXIF attached. We might see something in the images themselves or the EXIF details, that's causing your missed focus issues.

Looking at the "good" images only, all we can comment is that they look fine... which is little real help to you.

But, yes... I believe that the 500/4L IS first version lens is fully compatible with the 7DII and shouldn't give a problem (I have both, too... but just got the 7DII recently and haven't been out shooting with that particular lens on it yet. So can't say this from personal hands-on experience yet... but see below.)

That's quite true comparing a 10MP 40D to a 20MP 7DII. Looking at files from each camera at 100% would mean that you're actually looking at the 7DII about twice as large.

However, comparing original 7D to 7DII, there's not a lot of difference... 18MP to 20MP images will display close to the same size.

That's true... especially with L-series lenses. One of Canon's hallmarks for L-series is that they must be fully compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future.

Have you read both the instruction manual and the 7DII AF Setup Guide? The supplementary setup guide is a 50 page booklet available only in digital form (PDF) and separate from the user manual (the printed version of which is only 180 page, the full version is also PDF-only and 550 pages). Pages 32-35 of the AF guide and pages 99-103 of the user manual deal with lens compatibility on the 7DII's 65-point AF system. There both the 500mm f4 IS lenses are listed as "Group B" when used without any teleconverter or with a 1.4X (only limits the center AF point performance a little), and "Group G" with additional limitations when used with a 2X TC. The 2X significantly this effects what AF points are usable. But, looking at your gear list you appear to only have 1.4X, so this might not matter.

I don't know that the manual or AF supplement will be of any help solving the problem...

However the fact that the 500mm f4L IS "Mark I" is listed in both suggests compatibility with the camera.

Finally, page 133-138 of the instruction manual deals with AF Microadjustment (MFA).... how to make these adjustments manually is described.

But there is software that can help with MFA. Reikan FoCal (http://www.reikan.co.u​k/focalweb/) is one of the more advanced. It runs the camera through a series of test shots and then sets the MFA to give optimal results. There is a Youtube video showing how it works. It also would help identify if a particular lens has a problem with focus consistency. (Note: current version of FoCal works with 7D Mark II, but requires some user input, isn't yet able to do fully automated testing. This isn't uncommon with a relatively new camera model that introduces a unique AF system and future versions of FoCal might resolve it.)

As I understand it, Canon lenses have an electronic component that stops focus once the camera detects that it's been achieved. These components can and do wear out and need replacement at times. They might give intermittent focusing results or just fail completely. I've had this happen with a 300/2.8 IS lens.

To update, I tried shooting with expanded focus points today and every image (of over 200) was extremely soft.

I also tried printing one of the shots (bluebird next to wood duck) everyone is saying is sharp at 11 x 14 and it is unusable (though the others were okay at that size).

Next time I go out I'm going to use my original 7D on the perched bluebirds, just to have a comparison. And likely either a CF card full of all of the past days' images or that and the gear are going back to canon on Friday. Have 9 days to solve this and book the trip. Not looking good.

My subject and shooting conditions are so basic that I've not studied the manual re: this issue. Concerned about that limited center point focus issue amfoto mentions.

Continued thanks.

Have you tried controlled shots - from a tripod, the same hi-res stationary target, remote shutter release, the same lighting, etc.? If the results are the same, it is something about the technique rather than the equipment, and you can do some more investigation.