Help needed with 500 f4 (1 Viewer)

Ragna said:

Sorry forgot to add shot in raw converted in rawshooter with rawshooter standard sharpening applied.Saved in jpeg

Click to expand...

As you say, both top and bottom look okay, but I presume you have reduced the resolution to upload. You could post crops of the image from the top and bottom at the native resolution.

I suspect you are wondering whether this lens is normal and perhaps self doubting your own testing techniques. What you really need is someone with a similar lens to run side by side comparative tests. If you live close to your supplier, you could always speak to them about your concerns and if they are a half decent company, I'm sure they wil help.

Just one last check, you dont have any filters in the way? I once had a poor UV cut off lens that degraded image quality for one year. I blamed my lens until I took the filter off!

Adrian

Taken at face value I can't see any problems with these latest tests, Graham.

Graham
I've just done a few very rough calculations using the distances you gave for the shots of the brick wall. if you were about 50' away and the camera was angled up about 18', the shot you posted in post number 11, (8 bricks at 65mm = roughly 20") would be angled back about 5" ie the top would be about 5" further away from the camera than the bottom.
try this again shooting at 90 degrees to the wall,I'm fairly certain this is a depth of field issue
BTW the newspaper shots look ok to me, may have to book that trip to Jersey for £109

From what I can see there is no problem with your lens Graham.

I would agree with bob hastie's views; I originally said that you could have a depth of field issue (not problem), but also still think that your original test subject, the wall, did't have enough contrast in it to begin with.

I have shot waders at about that sort of range and am often surprised at the lack of DOF at f4; even something as small as a Dunlin can have its tail and bill tip out of focus if it is an oblique shot. Usually going to f5.6 cures it.


Colin

The newsprint looks fine to me i really do not think you have a problem .
as for using flash -i see what you thinking but if there was any ambient light then your sync speed of 1/200 could well include camera shake as your inefect getting 2 exsposue's one from the flash at aprox 1/1000 sec ( could be way higher )and one from the other light daylight or house bulb's whatever was there.
Rob.

Thanks everybody for your replies.Ive dont some more test today (between the showers) and viewed the images on a 32" tv not so sure that i can see to much difference between top and bottom so it may have been DOF.But i have also compared the 500 @ 5.6 with the 400 @ 5.6 moving the 400 closer by about 25% so i got a simular image size in the view finder and on viewing one after the other i dont consider the 500 is quite as sharp as the 400 and am a little disappointed seeing as the 400 is wide open and the 500 closed down a stop.I did at least expect the 500 @f4 to be as sharp as the 400 @ 5.6. Bob that trip to Jersey looks to be much better value than my 500.

Ragna said:

Thanks everybody for your replies.Ive dont some more test today (between the showers) and viewed the images on a 32" tv not so sure that i can see to much difference between top and bottom so it may have been DOF.But i have also compared the 500 @ 5.6 with the 400 @ 5.6 moving the 400 closer by about 25% so i got a simular image size in the view finder and on viewing one after the other i dont consider the 500 is quite as sharp as the 400 and am a little disappointed seeing as the 400 is wide open and the 500 closed down a stop.I did at least expect the 500 @f4 to be as sharp as the 400 @ 5.6. Bob that trip to Jersey looks to be much better value than my 500.

Click to expand...

JUST DONE A TEST cloudy here too but im happy with the way i did my test centre point only and 3 shutter presses to get a lock in 1 SHOT self timer used .
full size does show the 500mm sharper these shots may not but the 500f4isL is just a little sharper than the 400f5.6 . - both shots selftimer f5.6 iso 200 1/90 sec on the 500 and 1/60 sec on the 400 i moved closer to get aprox the same size image with the 400mm paper aprox 30ft away.
Rob.
EDDIT
well i have to wonder if the WEB affect's what we try to show - on my screen the 400 shot iv posted look sharper YET in photoshop the 500 is sharper also parts of the image are sharper in one place than another .non of this changes my view that the 500 is sharper but it does make me wonder why things look diffrent to what i know to be true.
At the end of the day in real life shot's other than TEST'S one would never notice a slight diffrence between the 2 lense's unless the bird or object is NAILED down and all shots are with self timer .as to what you should do i really don't know but you do want to be happy with you len's and any gear you /we have.
Rob

Thank Rob i cant see much difference between the 2 but i would have expected the 500 to be a little sharper.Ive not had a chance to look at what ive just downloaded on the computer but on the tv the 400 looked as sharp if not slightly sharper than the 500 on most shots.Ill let you know if they look any different on the computer.Thanks Graham

Don't give up with your new lens Graham. From what I have seen I think it is O.K. and you are worrying unnecessarily. You own THE best birding lens.

Coming back to the depth of field problem, I have attached a shot of a bee collecting pollen on an Oxalis flower. This was taken at a range of about 6 metres and is very heavily cropped. It has lost a lot of quality in reducing to the size acceptable for posting her but you can see how the flower buds just a few centimetres in front of and behind the open flower are soft and out of focus.

Not bad fror a "macro" shot with a 500mm telephoto lens!

This lens takes an awful lot of "learning" and I am still taking bum shots when I think that conditions and settings are perfect.

Colin