Is it ( ME)...or what?

i have the same issue with my 78-105mm usm.. always ends up soft,, its really starting to make me mad.. i always have a cheap uv filter on for lense cover, i wonder if that could effect my af,, but maybe its just my bad eyes. everyone tells me canon has insanely good af, but so far with this lense i cant say much..
mike

Thanks cannonloader, the headstone was shot w/28-135mm. Will try your test shots again today, as stated last night. I need to get off this Forums and go make TALL grass SHORT.

Will post late this afternoon.

Thanks
ROOKIE

Thanks mikeb540 for the input. My 100-400L nowhere comes close to the ones posted on POTN. But I know that the PROS HERE WILL GET ME ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

Cracker, ease your mind. I will straighten things out for you and determine what your problems are. Bring your camera and lens to " The Point" early Wednesday morning when there is favorable light. I will stalk some birds with your set up and download the images to my laptop while out there to figure out your plight once and for all. I would also ignore the 100-400 comments about this lens being soft. Though I don't use it much anymore I have had countless photos published and contests won with that lens. Take off that cheap filter also. Don't add a 1.4x which will just add another head scratcher to the equation. This lens doesn't like "teles" for the most part.

I have my suspicions it is not the equipment but on the users end which we can iron out with a few basic lessons.

Well lookie here, if it aint my good friend Mike.

Buy the way... Mike is the one who started me in this Photography stuff anyhow. You want to see some top-of-the line photos, go check out Blue Deuce.com.

This is what I want to be like!

Mine is VERY sharp, even wide open @400mm

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

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

Of course, there are always going to be some extremely sharp copies, but if you think they are all sharp, you are just fooling yourself. The 100-400 is well known for it's soft copies and if you have never had one, consider yourself lucky, but don't say they don't exist, cause you would be wrong.

I had this lens once and had similar concerns. I got the 70-200 2.8is...wow...what a difference. Even with the 2x extender, I find the pictures to be sharper than the 100-400. In fact last week, a friend wanted to borrow the 70-200 but I was going to the racetrack so he lent me his 100-400...not one good shot...all soft.

One thing I found out is that the quality increases dramtically if you can fill the lens with the subject matter. The shot of the dog's head was very sharp but the bird on the fence looked soft to me. Just MO

Gary

FWIW, I've had my 100-400 for four years now.. I've found that I get the best results at f/9.5 .. When I shoot with my 100-400 I always use Av mode to lock in that aperture. If the shutter speeds start getting too slow because of low light, I increase the ISO to get the speeds I want.

I also use the lens hood all the time... I've found it makes a difference.. The 100-400 is quite prone to flare when you have the sun or other bright light source shining on the front element at an angle.. Flare doesn't have a big effect of focus, but it does reduce contrast noticeably.

I have a couple of recent shots posted in the bird gallery -> https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=532049