100-400 User opinons needed for faulty lens

this is about what i would exspect from a non processed image at f5.6 from the 100-400 zoom, i dont have this lens but my mate has and its about like this for image quality.
Rob.

Ta da! After seeing the original image, i think your lens is fine. I think many were confused by your 1st post, thinking you were complaining about sharpness problem.
As for CA, i think you'll find some even in L lens, just depends how severe it is. Your copy of 100-400 has very minimal CA as far as i can tell. The gosting effect is just some "ugly bokeh" IMHO. The lens looks like a keeper to me.

Well, if this is normal for this lens then I gotta say I don't think it deserves the "L". True the build quality is good but it should have better optics as well...

I also have the Sigma 17-70 f2.8/4.5 and I know its a different range and you can't compare them directly but its image quality is FAR superiour to the Canon 100-400mm.
Check here: http://www.pbase.com/e​vandavies/sigma_17_70
NOTE: some grading and colour tweaks but NO USM.

Since its under warranty and the canon service center isn't too far away, I'll take it and see what they say. I'll post the results when I get it back.

Thanks for the feedback everyone...

Ed

That's not too different from what I would expect from mine. Let me know if it gets better when you get it back from Canon.

evandavies wrote:
Well, if this is normal for this lens then I gotta say I don't think it deserves the "L". True the build quality is good but it should have better optics as well...

I also have the Sigma 17-70 f2.8/4.5 and I know its a different range and you can't compare them directly but its image quality is FAR superiour to the Canon 100-400mm.
Check here: http://www.pbase.com/e​vandavies/sigma_17_70
NOTE: some grading and colour tweaks but NO USM.

Since its under warranty and the canon service center isn't too far away, I'll take it and see what they say. I'll post the results when I get it back.

Thanks for the feedback everyone...

Ed

well a lot of Canon lenses have the L only because there better than some of the junk Canon puts out, im not going to name any as i dont want to start a debate i do see what you thought an L might give but to be honest only a prime has given me anywear near what i want .
hope you get things sorted to your needs.
Rob.

The image of the car looks ok,the number plate is one hell of a crop.

I hate to be a smart *** but just because it is an L it doesn't make anyone a better photographer. Not saying that you're not a good photog. but many people think that a Pro lens will automatically make them the best.

Hehehehe, Yeah, I know what you mean.
I'm not pretending to be a great photographer but I'm not a complete beginner either. A lens that costs this much should be able to deliver better than this.
I still think its off because I've seen better examples of what this lens can do.

So I hope that when it comes back my faith shall be vindicated.

I'll post here when I have the results

Cheers,
ED

Why would think that a license plate ( that looks to be 20' away) in a shaded recess be any sharper than what you have shown ?

Here is just 1 example of what this lens can produce.

This is from a review here:
http://www.photozone.d​e …_100400_4556_is​/index.htm

This is a resized and cropped example image they have in the review.
Converted RAW with no post processing

ED

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I think my copy is representative of a "good" copy of the lens. I don't have any full size images or 100% crops on line to share but I find it performs very satisfactorily at 400mm wide open. The only 100% crop I have on line at the moment is in this thread http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=149169 which is with the 1.4x TC fitted (ie. 560mm wide open) which softens the image slightly. If you wait until the weekend I can try and replicate a shot of a numberplate like yours for comparison purposes?

evandavies wrote:
Here is just 1 example of what this lens can produce.

This is from a review here:
http://www.photozone.d​e …_100400_4556_is​/index.htm

This is a resized and cropped example image they have in the review.
Converted RAW with no post processing

ED

Go out and reproduce this shot with your lens. Fill the frame with his head , while in direct sunlight and post your results.https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=170406 shows a 100 % crop. The bird fills the frame in good light. The subject is also 7' away.

Nitsch, thats what I'm talkin about. You've got a great copy there!!! Can you post a 100% crop, preferably as it came from the cam?

Now I know this is not ideal as its in the shade but the cam chose 1/750s so it had enough light and motion blur should not be a factor.
f9.5 too!!! This is the sharpest my lens gets...

Yeah, Clivingston, I did see that post when I was looking for comparisons and I think it is a touch softer than it could be. I still think mine is a bit worse.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

OK that's definately not right, the swan crop is very soft. My copy shows no appreciable difference in sharpness at 400mm between wide open (f5.6) and f11, so I use it wide open 99% of the time only stopping down when I need greater DOF. Seeing as your lens is under warranty still I think you are doing the right thing in sending it in for recalibration. I will be interested to see how it performs when you get it back.

This is what I would expect from my owl lens under these conditions.The lens is fairly soft at f5.6 and is sharper at f8. Lighting also is very important with the 100-400 as low light gives a soft cast to the image.
Are you using a 20D ?