Blurry Images with 75-300mm Lens

Have you tried it without the Filter as asked above ?

David

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

Gonzofan wrote in post #15019454
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.

you can get good action pics with the 55-250IS (with the right settings) but if you shoot a lot of sports or action shots you will eventually want the 70-200, 300/400 prime or 100-400, etc. because they are faster focusing with better image quality. I currently shoot with the 100-400, (that second pic posted is with the 100-400) it's a better all around lens but it cost a whole lot more than the 55-250IS

Sorry, didn't remove the UV filter. Seemed kind of pointless to be putting it on, taking it off, putting it on - just plain silly.

So...here are the Field Hockey photos. Still not watt's quality, but better than I have been shooting. Nearly all were shot @ 1/1,000, ISO 800, AIServo, single point center focus. Seems like the f stop was around 5.6.

I tried like the devil to keep the dot on the moving target. I removed the multiple shots because these are posted for the faculty, but I'll be using them in the Athletic Video I create after the season is over. I've got to say I'm really pleased with how these turned out and I have all of you who responded to thank for that. Clearly I have a ways to go yet. The Rebel only goes to 1,600 ISO and Canon tells me that @ 1,600 photos are going to get noisey.

Don't rag on me too much for the photos at the end - I was shooting into the sun to try and get some artsy fartsy stuff - sometimes it works, other times it doesn't.

I'm going to look for some sports photo forums and see if I can pick up some tips on how to shoot even better stuff.

Again, thanks all.

Definitely ditch the filter. I know the 100-400 is extremely sensitive to filters and photo issues. Use your hood and your lens cap for protection. Use a filter when you need a filter.

Gonzofan wrote in post #15020969
Sorry, didn't remove the UV filter. Seemed kind of pointless to be putting it on, taking it off, putting it on - just plain silly.

So...here are the Field Hockey photos. Still not watt's quality, but better than I have been shooting. Nearly all were shot @ 1/1,000, ISO 800, AIServo, single point center focus. Seems like the f stop was around 5.6.

I tried like the devil to keep the dot on the moving target. I removed the multiple shots because these are posted for the faculty, but I'll be using them in the Athletic Video I create after the season is over. I've got to say I'm really pleased with how these turned out and I have all of you who responded to thank for that. Clearly I have a ways to go yet. The Rebel only goes to 1,600 ISO and Canon tells me that @ 1,600 photos are going to get noisey.

Don't rag on me too much for the photos at the end - I was shooting into the sun to try and get some artsy fartsy stuff - sometimes it works, other times it doesn't.

I'm going to look for some sports photo forums and see if I can pick up some tips on how to shoot even better stuff.

Again, thanks all.

remove the filter, it affects image quality! Those field hockey pics are about as good as it's going to get the 55-250IS. If you shoot in RAW and use PS it can get a little better but those turned out fine with the higher shutter speeds. Definitely take a look at the sports section here, you will see that the better telephoto lens have larger apertures (for a blurred background) and longer focal lengths but of course the price tag is considerably higher. You will can get sports tips looking at what others have posted in the field hockey/soccer threads such as shooting lower, isolating the subject, capturing ball movement, etc.

(I am beginning to believe that the only way to achieve sharpness in photos is to move to a $50,000 Hasselblad - because I HAVE seen sharp images in magazines. I don't know, maybe it's not POSSIBLE to get sharp images with less expensive digital cameras - maybe it's a limitation of the technology?)

even with a $50,000 camera; you have to have your setting correct for what you want as your target
it you don't; somethings will be in focus and other not

all the great advice shared ( settings, AI Servo, experience etc) is pointless if you let your Rebel choose the target - especially in action photography

so the question was asked by others also; are you using automatic focusing or manual

your camera has seven auto focusing points - which one does the camera choose for your images that you posted; your processing software should tell you

"select manual" and i think your in-expensive camera (which is a good camera) performance might improve greatly

this is just my experience and opinion