Blurry Images with 75-300mm Lens

Gonzofan wrote in post #15018417
OK, Field Hockey this afternoon - I'll give it a shot and post the pics tonight. I'm not afraid to eat humble pie. I haven't posted my review on Amazon, YET.

yes, remember, shutter speed at least 1/1000 or greater, aperture f5.6 - f7.1 (adjust ISO)
if you can't get a sharp pic then you never will

XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS
1/1000
f7.1
ISO 200

That kid is about to get kicked in the back of the knee ouch!

Field Test #1 - Just shooting during recess - single point focus - AI Servo (although the shots of the tree were non-servo mode). The tree was "confirmation focus".

Some of these were 1/1,600 - so shutter speed can't be an issue anymore.

Clearly the photos are "better", but not $1,500 better!

I'm going to shoot some with my 55-250 lens to compare, but I'll have to wait for noon recess.

Interesting - Canon just emailed me and offered to recalibrate the lens.

Gonzofan wrote in post #15018016
Well, I took delivery of the lens yesterday, slapped it on my Rebel, attached my B&W UV filter and excitedly headed for the field.

Imagine the SHOCK that greeted me when I opened iPhoto. Out of 800 images I shot at the game, less than 10% were what I would consider "acceptable". Soft, out of focus images were the norm. Of the ones I kept the best I can say is that the images are "soft". In fact, in many of the images I can't even find a point of focus. Yet I could hear the motor (very quiet, BTW) churning away in auto-focus mode.

Try using the lens without the UV filter. Although the filter may work fine on wide angles, telephotos can get soft due to filter flatness issues. For a good example have a look at:
http://www.clarkvision​.com …filter_quality/​index.html
My non-L EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM gets soft if I put a UV filter on it. The problems varies from filter to filter, but it only works really well consistently with no filter.

macroimage wrote in post #15018873
Try using the lens without the UV filter. Although the filter may work fine on wide angles, telephotos can get soft due to filter flatness issues. For a good example have a look at:
http://www.clarkvision​.com …filter_quality/​index.html
My non-L EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM gets soft if I put a UV filter on it. The problems varies from filter to filter, but it only works really well consistently with no filter.

Something is causing pretty obvious image softness, so maybe this is it. If it's still soft not using the filter, then I'd say it's time for controlled testing - shoot using a tripod or put the camera on a stable surface such as a table top, use mirror lock-up and timer shooting, and shoot a high-contrast target in good light. You could also try the "battery test" - shoot a row of AA batteries from a 45 degree angle, making sure to space the batteries out enough that the AF system will only try to focus on one of them; focus on the center battery and see if any of them is sharp. The battery test will tell you if you've got a front- or back-focusing issue depending on whether a battery in front of or behind the center battery is in sharp focus. I don't think that's the issue, since nothing appears to be really sharp in the samples I've looked at, but it wouldn't hurt to confirm.

Gonzofan wrote in post #15018372
Sorry, I should have said 1/250sec. But maybe that's still not enough?

1/250 is about the slowest shutter speed you can expect to stop action with.

In looking through your photos, I see a lot of motion blur, and DOF issues. I don't know where you're focus points were, but there are parts of the photos posted that are very sharp. Probably not what you wanted to be sharp, but parts are sharp.
That's technique.
Whether not enough DOF for what you want to capture or too slow of a SS to freeze the motion. I think you'll find that lens to be very sharp if given a fast enough SS or deep enough DOF.

blackcap wrote in post #4440750
I have been comparing my shots to some others on Flickr using the same lens, which is why I noticed the blur in the first place. I guess it's possible the other pics have been sharpened in Photoshop or something, but given the focus test it does look like a bit of front focus.

Also I like to keep the aperture as wide as possible to maximize background
blur and I'm aware that will contribute to some blurring on the subject. But as long as the area I'm focusing on is sharp then I can live with that.

Anyway the lens is with Canon now so I'll see what they say.

This thread was a bit highjacked but it's still all along the same lines. Your lens looks to me like it's front focusing a bit. If you want magazine type photos, the 75-300 isn't going to do it most of the time. It's an adequate lens, but in no way anything special, earlier incarnations of that lens were widely vilified as some of the worst lenses produced. The latest incarnation is decent, but like I said, nothing special.

Just got off the phone with Canon and the tech was very helpful. He seems to confirm the focus points as being the problem. Maybe the heavier lens making it harder to keep on track compared with the 55-250mm which is considerably lighter and, therefore, easier to keep on track. Recess is coming up, so I'm going to do some more tests and we'll see what happens. But he said he didn't see anything wrong with the lens itself (well, what else would he say, right?). But I'm willing to admit to operator error.

picturecrazy wrote in post #4432244
that's a typical POTN gear forum response... i.e. just go buy an L

He wasn't asking about how crappy his lens was and what L he should replace it with. He wanted help determining the cause of the blur on his images.

I agree with Jon, it would help much if we had some sample images with EXIF.

The expectations have to be realistic. Most if not all newer photographers expect Nat Geo photos now that they have spent "all this money" on their gear. Most don't realize the photos they see in magazines were taken with gear costing many times what their gear did, and this gear has much higher tolerances than their gear does.
I know I did. I though once I got the 70-210 f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens I would be on the road to great nature photography. Maybe I was, but that road was more of a realization that I would never capture that level without more experience and better lenses. And I still struggle all of the time, even with great equipment. The experience and time to be in the right place/time is still difficult for me.

Great photos take being in the right place at the right time, with the gear required to capture that moment when it comes, and the time and money to have those things come together at the right time.

Hermeto is completely correct, the 70-200 f/4L blows the 75-300 away. The 75-300 is capable of taking some fine photographs, but it's window is much narrower than the 70-200. Of course the 75-300 has more range, but that lens is known for being a bit soft as it gets past 200mm. So is the extra range really worth it?

watt - the photos you're posting are with the 55-250 lens ($200) - that's the point I'm trying to make - I'm beginning to have a better respect for that lens. I'm just comparing photos shot with that to the $1,500 lens I just got and I don't see the difference - at least not the difference that's worth spending the additional money.

I have spent a lot of time today shooting test photos. I've spent at least an hour on the phone with Canon tech support. My conclusion is that the lens is going back and I'm just going to stick with what I've got. It's giving me good photos and, with the tweaks I've learned here today, I think they might get better.

The only way you're going to get Nat Geo type photos - as I alluded to earlier - is with MUCH higher end equipment and I've got to quit my day job.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and comments - this has been very helpful and I AM grateful!

John

casaaviocar wrote in post #15019130
The expectations have to be realistic. Most if not all newer photographers expect Nat Geo photos now that they have spent "all this money" on their gear. Most don't realize the photos they see in magazines were taken with gear costing many times what their gear did, and this gear has much higher tolerances than their gear does.
I know I did. I though once I got the 70-210 f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens I would be on the road to great nature photography. Maybe I was, but that road was more of a realization that I would never capture that level without more experience and better lenses. And I still struggle all of the time, even with great equipment. The experience and time to be in the right place/time is still difficult for me.

Great photos take being in the right place at the right time, with the gear required to capture that moment when it comes, and the time and money to have those things come together at the right time.

Hermeto is completely correct, the 70-200 f/4L blows the 75-300 away. The 75-300 is capable of taking some fine photographs, but it's window is much narrower than the 70-200. Of course the 75-300 has more range, but that lens is known for being a bit soft as it gets past 200mm. So is the extra range really worth it?

You're replying to five-year old posts. This thread was just revived by Gonzofan, who has a different issue with a different lens.

Gonzofan wrote in post #15019116
Just got off the phone with Canon and the tech was very helpful. He seems to confirm the focus points as being the problem. Maybe the heavier lens making it harder to keep on track compared with the 55-250mm which is considerably lighter and, therefore, easier to keep on track. Recess is coming up, so I'm going to do some more tests and we'll see what happens. But he said he didn't see anything wrong with the lens itself (well, what else would he say, right?). But I'm willing to admit to operator error.

I don't think heaviness of the lens would be a likely cause of this issue. The 400mm f/5.6L is heavier than the 70-300 L, but it's easy to use in tracking birds in flight.

Gonzofan wrote in post #15019322
watt - the photos you're posting are with the 55-250 lens ($200) - that's the point I'm trying to make - I'm beginning to have a better respect for that lens. I'm just comparing photos shot with that to the $1,500 lens I just got and I don't see the difference - at least not the difference that's worth spending the additional money.

I have spent a lot of time today shooting test photos. I've spent at least an hour on the phone with Canon tech support. My conclusion is that the lens is going back and I'm just going to stick with what I've got. It's giving me good photos and, with the tweaks I've learned here today, I think they might get better.

The only way you're going to get Nat Geo type photos - as I alluded to earlier - is with MUCH higher end equipment and I've got to quit my day job.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and comments - this has been very helpful and I AM grateful!

John

If I were you, I'd take Canon up on their offer to examine the lens (send it with your camera) and see if there's something off in the lens or camera.

Seriously, if I can shoot photos like watt with what I've got - I'm happy with that for a while longer. I've got better places to spend $1,500. I don't make my living doing this - I thought this might be a step up for me - looks like I've got a ways to go yet.