100-400 User opinons needed for faulty lens

I think it is a touch softer than it could be. .[/QUOTE]

If you think that crop is soft and could be sharper you better sell the lens, because that is about is good as it gets. I have owned this lens for a couple of years and I know how to use it. Go research 100 % crops of the 500 mm f4 and see what it produces. I think you will suprised that they are not that much better.

If thats as good as it gets then I'll be dissapointed.

Lens is in the doctors.
They said it would be about a week

I'll post when I have results...

I don't wish to disagree with the experience of Simon and Chris, but I feel that given how close Evan was to the swan we should be seeing much sharper detail especially if the lens is stopped down to it's sharpest setting, hopefully he will see some improvement when it returns from Canon servicing.

I don't have any shots where I was as close to the subject but here's a fairly typical shot of mine picked from some I took last weekend. It was shot in RAW and converted using Canon's DPP2.1 using the "Standard" picture style, exported into PS CS2, where I took a 100% crop and saved for web as an 80% quality jpeg. No other changes. Taken at 400mm f5.6 handheld ISO320. If you compare the nose of the fox with the black "nose" area of the swan I feel it shows more definition despite the fox being a lot further away than the swan. With a bit of mild PP - levels, saturation, and USM I could make this fox really pop, I don't feel I could do anything with that swan to make it worth keeping. Just my take on it as a fellow 100-400 user.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Nick, I was just wondering if any sharpening is done by default using this conversion method. That image looks good for a 100% crop and no PP.

Yes I think it does Rum. I'm still getting to grips with the Canon software, I've been a Rawshooter user for the last year but was forced to change when I got the 30D.

Hopefully the comparison is still valid, obviously it's not scientific as there are too many other factors in the equation - lighting, ISO, handholding technique, shutterspeed, aperture, distance to subject, DOF etc etc but I feel my point still stands. You could try sharpening that swan until the cows come home but I don't think you'd end up with anything pretty!

Nick, guard that lens with your life and never let it out of your sight.

That's amazing for wide open. All the reviews I've read state that it should be stopped down a couple to get good results. I think you have an above average copy there like fstopjojo.

I can't imagine that mine will come back that good. But as long as its better than it was I'll be happy.

Ed

evandavies wrote:
Nick, guard that lens with your life and never let it out of your sight.

That's amazing for wide open. All the reviews I've read state that it should be stopped down a couple to get good results. I think you have an above average copy there like fstopjojo.

I can't imagine that mine will come back that good. But as long as its better I'll be happy.

Ed

LOL I can't really comment Ed, it's the only copy I've owned. I have however tried the 400 f5.6 prime but didn't find sufficient difference in IQ to justify all the disadvantages (no zoom, no IS, long min focus distance). I don't see why there is any reason why yours shouldn't perform exactly the same when you get it back, I like to think my copy is merely representative of how a properly functioning 100-400 should perform.

[QUOTE=evandavies]If thats as good as it gets then I'll be dissapointed.


What about this crop ? https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=164943

This one looks good to me Chris (as does your other one of the Cardinal - I missed it before). Aside from the performance of the lens, the yellow bird is a very nice shot indeed! Good work!

I think the images from nitsch and clivingston are what you should expect from a properly working 100-400. In your swan photo, Evan, I think the focus may be on the body and not the head. Perhaps that's why it looks soft...especially for f9.5. Here's an example of one I took at f5.6 and a 100% crop (camera zero'ed out and no PP):

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

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

They all look good compared to mine. Very nice shots btw.

Runjungle, I checked the swan pic again but the body is not in focus either so even if it did focus there its still soft...

I think this thread has digressed somewhat from my original post which was to show the aberrations appearing near the edge of frame. Those are what made me believe something was out.

Thanks again for all the comments,
ED

In the first couple of crops of the plants it looked just like undeveloped bokeh should...slightly OOF but not so much that the object cannot be discerned.

The photo of the number plate doesn't look too nice and neither do the ones of the swan. But when it comes to long lenses like this one, I think a phenomenon known as heat haze sometimes causes a deterioration of image quality when photographing far away objects. I've had the same issue with mine.

With near subjects, it brings in good sharpness, but far objects have this moth-eaten appearence. That said, the 100-400mm seems to produce softer results in less than ideal lighting, although I don't know the real reason why. Pity I'm not working from my own computer at the moment, otherwise I'd post up a crop of a butterfly at the zoo. That photo was so sharp I could almost see the scales on the wings. I will edit later and post up a crop.

I hope (and believe) that there's nothing wrong with your lens. It's just a bad habit of this piece of glass to show some softness when shooting into shade. Give it light and it's really good though.

EDIT: Alright...now that I'm home, here's some 100% crops. It's not a precise test since too many factors are involved, but it compares nicely the results between a near subject in good light and a far away one in more subdued lighting, with roughly the same camera settings in terms of saturation, contrast and sharpness.

Butterfly

Thats interesting.

WOW, you CAN see the scales on the butterfly wing

Its hard to judge crops as you don't know how much of the whole image is present.

I'll do some extensive testing when it comes back. (and I'll post the results of course)

evandavies wrote:
Thats interesting.

WOW, you CAN see the scales on the butterfly wing

Its hard to judge crops as you don't know how much of the whole image is present.

I'll do some extensive testing when it comes back. (and I'll post the results of course)

Heheh...it's certainly hard to see from crops because they don't show you everything. But I've tried to make it as fair as possible here by simply zooming in to 100% in PS and then taking out a 320px X 240px crop from around the area where I believed I had focused.

But definitely in this case, the heron crop is terribly unsharp, even less so than your crop of the number plate.

There's been some talk flying around that the lens actually gets soft at 400mm, hence people try to avoid using it at the extreme end but try to stick to something around 380mm or 390mm. I haven't been able to see if this is indeed true, mostly because I don't shoot a lot.

Yes, I've also read that the quality falls off at 400mm. I will be checking that too...