-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
100-400mm - not so sharp? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chris Mayne
- Start date
Chris Mayne
Well-known member
Well I think there are e few things I can try next time I get out with the camera...
Thanks for the advice guys!
Although I think most of all I should perhaps go out in a different frame of mind - ie. instead of trying to prove that there is something wrong with the lens, try and work with its known capabilities.
I guess I was under the impression that distance of subject could be somewhat greater!
I'll have to report back with some more images sometime....
But in the meantime, if there is anyone in the Suffolk area interested in comparing lenses, just let me know! (Always nice to check these things!!).
Chris
Thanks for the advice guys!
Although I think most of all I should perhaps go out in a different frame of mind - ie. instead of trying to prove that there is something wrong with the lens, try and work with its known capabilities.
I guess I was under the impression that distance of subject could be somewhat greater!
I'll have to report back with some more images sometime....
But in the meantime, if there is anyone in the Suffolk area interested in comparing lenses, just let me know! (Always nice to check these things!!).
Chris
If only you'd asked last week... I've just sold mine! Plenty of 100-400 users around I'm sure you'll have no problems finding one to compare with yours.
One of the biggest suprises for most people coming to using SLRs is just how close you need to get to get a frame filling shot of a small bird, even when using a long lens.
Thanks for the advice Chris. I guess what you are saying is to record every possible pixel and fiddle with it afterwards?
In that case would I be correct in assuming that the Picture Style settings would then be somewwhat irrelevant and so a "Neutral" Setting would be OK?
Sorry to hijack the thread off at a tangent and pose probably naive questions.
Anyway, RAW it is then ... (and my technique could always do with some improvement)!
In that case would I be correct in assuming that the Picture Style settings would then be somewwhat irrelevant and so a "Neutral" Setting would be OK?
Sorry to hijack the thread off at a tangent and pose probably naive questions.
Anyway, RAW it is then ... (and my technique could always do with some improvement)!
Duck_Pond
Professional Wildlife Photographer And Guide
Continuing the slightly off topic theme - considering the price of flash memory these days, and the fact that there are very good RAW processing applications out there for free, it seems like a no-brainer to me, that one ought to shoot in RAW.
I seem to recall that when I met Paul Goode a while back, he said he was shooting in JPEG (and getting stunning results), but like me, since then he's converted to RAW, and aside from the fact that he still gets better results than me, I think we have both seen the light, and are converts.
It seems to me that unless the subject is motionless, close up and in superb light, shooting in RAW will yield better results than using another format.
Definitely worth considering if you're concerned about sharpness...
I seem to recall that when I met Paul Goode a while back, he said he was shooting in JPEG (and getting stunning results), but like me, since then he's converted to RAW, and aside from the fact that he still gets better results than me, I think we have both seen the light, and are converts.
It seems to me that unless the subject is motionless, close up and in superb light, shooting in RAW will yield better results than using another format.
Definitely worth considering if you're concerned about sharpness...
Chris Mayne
Well-known member
Processing RAW format images is not something I've dabbled with - any recommendations for free software??
Chris
Anthony Hodges
Member
Hi, I bought a second hand 100-400mm off ebay. Now it probably isn't that bad, but then again it doesn't show up too well on a 100% crop. I took a few of close up zooms yesterday in a park which I am unsure about. Admittedly it was dark and I had the shot at a low shutter speed/wide apeture, but on the example below I was able to rest the front of the lens on a post (Canon 350D, 360mm, ISO 400, 6 feet away, 1/25sec, -0.67 exposure, F/5.6).
Cicada picture for bird forum review
Is it considered good/ok/poor for the 100-400mm?
ps. This is a great forum.
Cicada picture for bird forum review
Is it considered good/ok/poor for the 100-400mm?
ps. This is a great forum.
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
No, that's not typical for a good 100-400mm, Anthony.
At 1/25 though - even braced - I reckon we're looking at camera shake there.
There's also a possibility that if you're guessing you were 6 feet away you may have been less than that, bringing you inside the minimum focus distance for the lens.
At 1/25 though - even braced - I reckon we're looking at camera shake there.
There's also a possibility that if you're guessing you were 6 feet away you may have been less than that, bringing you inside the minimum focus distance for the lens.
Anthony Hodges
Member
Thanks. Six feet wasn't a guess because that was what the AF said I was at, although I am doubtful as to how accurate my camera is at F/5.6 even when using centre point focusing. Camera shake is a possibility as it was a difficult post to rest on. None the less, the test shall go on. The link below is a slightly over-exposed picture I took in my backyard (F/5.6, 330mm, 1/60sec, ISO100 and IIRC < 10 feet away). Thoughts?
Bird forum test 100-400mm
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
It's better, but another very low shutter speed, Anthony - it's hard to gauge whether there's a problem until we've ruled out camera shake.
I think it'd be worthwhile to take a good few shots at much higher shutter speeds: even though IS is a Godsend in my humble opinion, it's still best to keep shutter speeds up - especially when we're trying to evaluate the lens.
Funnily enough, I took a load of pictures on Friday which had me fretting over my 40D - many of them were on the soft side - until I looked at the shutter speeds to find that they were all at < 1/100.
I hadn't been paying attention...
Some were still OK of course, but the ones that weren't were hurt by a slow shutter.
I think it'd be worthwhile to take a good few shots at much higher shutter speeds: even though IS is a Godsend in my humble opinion, it's still best to keep shutter speeds up - especially when we're trying to evaluate the lens.
Funnily enough, I took a load of pictures on Friday which had me fretting over my 40D - many of them were on the soft side - until I looked at the shutter speeds to find that they were all at < 1/100.
I hadn't been paying attention...
Some were still OK of course, but the ones that weren't were hurt by a slow shutter.
Although I do not use Canon equipment I have followed this thread with interest. Its one of best I 've seen on here for a while. I've always found that when using any of my large lens either 400 or 500 zoom on my Nikon its always soft at maximum zoom unless I am either very close or its a clear blue sky with plenty of light. If the weather is dull I never use them as I don't use a tripod and even at ISO 1600 during winter days I am still not getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop camera shake. Infact I will probably not use them again until spring now.
a.dancy
Registered User
Being aware of this thread and others like it I went to the local park to see what shots I could get with no light (well very little light)
This shot has everything damning it.
f5.6
ISO800
1/25th sec shutter speed I have had similar and better in the past at 1/15th sec.
Slight under exposure.
A very active bird.
Me taking the picture , standing upright (I do not have the steadiest of techniques)
OK there is a bit of subject movement (bird's head).
Point I am making...canon 100-400 is sharp....IS is a dream
This shot has everything damning it.
f5.6
ISO800
1/25th sec shutter speed I have had similar and better in the past at 1/15th sec.
Slight under exposure.
A very active bird.
Me taking the picture , standing upright (I do not have the steadiest of techniques)
OK there is a bit of subject movement (bird's head).
Point I am making...canon 100-400 is sharp....IS is a dream
Attachments
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
That's an amazing picture with 1/25s!
I generally find that I need 1/100s to get good pictures, though I have a couple that were shot with 1/60s:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677287
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677288
Thomas
I generally find that I need 1/100s to get good pictures, though I have a couple that were shot with 1/60s:
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677287
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/83677288
Thomas
Anthony Hodges
Member
Sorry Keith, there was a typo in the shutter speed, it was actually 1/160s. I will post a faster one tonight to see if gives a better indication.
Anthony Hodges
Member
Backyward "Willy wag tail" ISO800, F/5.6, 340mm, 1/250s, ~7-8 feet away (using auto-focus).
Backyard "Willing wag tail" landing ISO800, F/5.6, 100mm, 1/1250s, ~7 feet, +1 Exp.
The first one I am more or less content with despite doing no post processing but I still unsure as to whether or not I should be expecting more. Admittedly the second photo was hard to obtain perfect focus as these birds move and stop so fast it is crazy, but at such a fast shutter speeds I expect a bit better.
Backyard "Willing wag tail" landing ISO800, F/5.6, 100mm, 1/1250s, ~7 feet, +1 Exp.
The first one I am more or less content with despite doing no post processing but I still unsure as to whether or not I should be expecting more. Admittedly the second photo was hard to obtain perfect focus as these birds move and stop so fast it is crazy, but at such a fast shutter speeds I expect a bit better.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
I have only just managed to get back to this thread, so I think this has been covered already. The softness looks to me to be entirely down to the distance to the subject. The bird is not covering many pixels on the sensor, so will have lower detail than a closer bird...making it appear soft. Also, the greater the distance, the more atmosphere is between you and the bird - water, dust etc in the air impact the sharpness of images...
However, considering the large crops you have made for the shots, they look pretty good :t:
I have shots like this too. It is a sharp lens!
First of all I am not expert and have only been shooting for 2 months so take what I have to say with a grain of salt and by no means look at this as me trying to sound authoritative. BTW,
OP have you checked your focus point? It should be set to the center focus point. I was having a problem with getting sharp pictures despite applying all of the helpful advice here. It turned out my focus points were set to a standard grid of 9 points which means that the autofocus would constantly focus between the background and or little foreground twigs in relation to the subject. Anything but the bird at times! Although I still managed to get some alright photos if I got extremely close. It is like night and day. I would say the IQ of my photos have doubled since this fix! It is an amazing lens and I can tell you from experience 10x better then the sigma 135-400mm.
Don't give up on the lens!
Last edited:
Similar threads
