[Whipspeed]

Bought this lens just before Christmas & have finally got round to using it in anger! Went to a local cycle race on boxing day & a rugby match yesterday & I'm not happy with the sharpness.

just wondered if anyone else had this lens & what they thought of the sharpness.

If you want to see the shots taken with it they are at Sarah Brooke - Cycling Photographer in Northamptonshire and are in the files, Wellingborough RFC vs Old Grammarians and the Boxing Day cycle race.

I'm going to give it one more go, but think I may ask for a replacement.

[Steve]

I have the non IS version and it is tack sharp.

I had a quick look through some of your shots but as they are all presented without any shooting details it is very hard to offer an opinion on the lenses ability (sharpness wise). Perhaps if you want to post a couple of shots here with full details we may be able to offer some opinions?

[Whipspeed]

Thanks Steve, I'll post one up.

Sarah

How do I link it in here?

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by Whipspeed

How do I link it in here?

If your using your Pixalo gallery then just upload as normal, click on the photo to view it, just below the photo there's a 1 line box named UBBCode:... highlight and copy all the text in that box, and then when your making your post in the forums just paste the text into the reply box and click submit reply as normal.

That should be it, when your post appears in the thread it should be also be displaying the pic you want to show

Feel free to PM me if it dosn't work and I'll try to explain it better

Slight tweak to Members gallery

[Whipspeed]

100% crop taken with 100-400mm f4-5.6 L IS USM - Settings f11 ISO 100, apeture priority mode. Flash used also tripod & cable release.


100% crop taken with 70-200mm f4 L IS USM - Settings f11 ISO 100, apeture priority mode. Flash used also tripod & cable release.

It's just not obvious on this, but I really didn't get one picture I was happy with the focus on Sunday. Maybe it's the IS? It seems noisy compared to the 100-400.
Maybe I'll try again on sunday & shoot at different settings & take the other lens & then duplicate them. Maybe 10 images per setting.

Any help appreciated as I'm tearing my hair out & I've just been to the hairdresser.

[Whipspeed]

Oh no PS on either shot, as taken from camera.

[stepheno]

As you say...seems to be OK on that one.

[Soupdragon]

Well I'm not sure you should use a tripod in conjunction with IS.
Having looked at a number of your cycling shots some of the problems (and they are minor in my eyes) is motion blur.
At least one of the pictures looks like you/the camera focused off subject.
I also think there is an issue with panning and IS lenses, I do suggest you read the lens instructions before condemning an optic of such high regard.

My best guesses anyway.

[Whipspeed]

Yes, it does, which is good, but doesn't explain Sunday. I usually get some photo's that are ok! But what I'm going to try now is to go outside with the dogs tomorrow & try some more movement & then the rugby on Sunday. It could just be me & new lens teething troubles.
I just want to sort it out before February as I'm going up to the Manchester Velodrome for 3 days of cycle racing! Just ordered a 40gig storage device, as I intend to shoot til I drop.

Thanks Stephano

Hi Soupdragon. The cycling shots on here were taken with the 100-400 and of the shots on the website, only the boxing day shots were taken with the new lens, in dull weather. However, I've not had the kind of blur from the 70-200 lens with the 100-400, motion blur yes & bad photography more than once, but with the rugby it was more than that, it was a general all over problem & yes, xmas morning was spent with the instructions, I'm a bit sad like that. I have all my little books in my backpack. For the lens test above, I didn't have the IS turned on.

[abirkill]

I've used the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, although sadly don't own it, and I have had some unbelieviably pin-sharp images off that at f/4 and above, and even at f/2.8 it's sharper than anything I personally own!

Early implementations of IS shouldn't be used on tripods, as they expect a small amount of motion, and without it go into a feedback loop, causing blur instead of reducing it. However, the modern implementations of IS will now detect when they are being used on a tripod, and will cancel out both any movement in the tripod itself, as well as reducing mirror slap (the movement caused in the camera by the action of the mirror mechanism flicking up when you take the photo).

The f/2.8 IS version of the lens defintely has this tripod-sensing feature, but I can't find any reference to it on the f/4 IS version - however, I would be amazed if it didn't, as it's a newer implementation of IS than in the f/2.8 lens, so I would recommend leaving IS permanently on unless you are concerned about battery life.

Regarding panning, it is true that you have to be careful with IS lenses - because they are inherently trying to stop camera movement affecting the image, panning with IS can have varied results - the lens is trying to prevent the panning movement, but will eventually reach the limits of correction it can apply, and hence the resultant picture will not have smooth background motion blur. However, both of these lenses have a IS panning mode, activating by the IS mode button on the lens barrel. In mode 1, normal IS function is enabled, but if it is switched to mode 2, the IS only works in the vertical axis, meaning that you can pan horizontally without issue, and have the lens correct any unintentional vertical movement you may introduce. Of course, you need to understand what this is doing, and realise that when panning to track certain things such as aircraft, you may be panning diagonally, and hence should disable IS completely.

To the OP: It would be good to see one of the 'bad' shots in full detail with the settings you used, so we can maybe see if the problem is a lens which front or rear-focuses, a lens which has an optical element out of alighment, or a faulty IS implementation. But fundamentally, this is a very expensive lens, and if you aren't happy with it, then take it back and get it checked out.

[Whipspeed]

Thank you for your detailed & informed reply. I'll add one of the rugby shots in its unedited state for you to look at.

Sarah



Taken in Apeture priority mode. f7.1 shutter 1/500, ISO 200. Face is indistinct. As I said, it could be teething, maybe I've got so used to the 100-400 over the last 18 months, it's all I've used for sport in that time.

[Sonsey]

Just as a side note... here at Pixalo we have a picture size limit of 200k, the rugby picture your displaying is only 43kb which will not look as good as a shot taking advantage of the full limit, which in turn may make it harder to accurately solve your problem.

Just thought it would be worth mentioning

[Whipspeed]

Thanks Sonsey

When I get home later today, I'll upload a larger file size. Just shoved that one on quickly last night. Me being impatient & in panic mode about the lens! My poor husband despairs

[abirkill]

Is that a crop or is that the full image? I'm guessing that's the full image, in which case it might be interesting to see a 100% crop of the guy's face as well. But I agree that, from what I can tell, that particular photo is not as sharp as it should be.

What focussing mode were you using on the camera? One-shot or AI servo?