little scarey...

[coty41]

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not "official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example. One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me 100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the 100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred. Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[coty41]

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31600045

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31600062

These were taken in RAW (for some reason it lost the EXIF) using a customer WB, 1/8s @ f8. Again I don't see much if any difference between the lenses. I am planning on doing some more testing outdoors but it's been raining cats and dogs here in South florida lately.

 

[Nozkan]

Dear coty41,

Such a comparison totally meaningless when done between resized images (this really hides quality, i.e. increases quality ...

Please send 100% crops for comparison.

Regards

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31600045

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31600062

These were taken in RAW (for some reason it lost the EXIF) using a
customer WB, 1/8s @ f8. Again I don't see much if any difference
between the lenses. I am planning on doing some more testing
outdoors but it's been raining cats and dogs here in South florida
lately.

 

[Spaz]

Did you turn IS off on the 100-400?

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not
"official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example.
One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me
100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two
shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And
yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were
taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the
100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred.
Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not
the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did
NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I
see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems
to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the
white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[coty41]

yes, I don't even turn it on unless I absolutely need it.

here are the full size photos.
75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821310

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821322

again I wanted to use real world situations and since I never post a full size photo I resized them. but looking at them full size just makes it more scarey

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not
"official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example.
One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me
100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two
shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And
yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were
taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the
100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred.
Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not
the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did
NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I
see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems
to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the
white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[coty41]

I think it's a focus thing. I've had this problem on the L before. I can't even see where it's a front or back focus issue. it just isn't as "crisp" and nothing is really in sharp focus like it should be.

here are the full size photos.
75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821310

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821322

again I wanted to use real world situations and since I never post
a full size photo I resized them. but looking at them full size
just makes it more scarey

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not
"official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example.
One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me
100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two
shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And
yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were
taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the
100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred.
Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not
the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did
NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I
see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems
to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the
white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[Spaz]

How far from the subject where you? The 100-400L needs to be quite a big distance back from a subject to get a focus. And did you have the little button on 6.5m or 1.8m ?

Try the test again, but shoot outdoors at something in the distance.

here are the full size photos.
75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821310

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821322

again I wanted to use real world situations and since I never post
a full size photo I resized them. but looking at them full size
just makes it more scarey

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not
"official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example.
One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me
100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two
shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And
yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were
taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the
100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred.
Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not
the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did
NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I
see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems
to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the
white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[Jonathan Henderson]

Oi no! Taking pics of Mickey at a few feet is no way to treat a 100-400, get down to the zoo, or outside at least!

If however you insist on continuing with this silly behaviour, you may want to consider using MLU as 300mm+ @ 1/20s is exactly the sort of area it has an effect.

--

My best efforts here:
http://www.pbase.com/gothmog

 

[coty41]

yep. I had the lens set on the 1.8 and was probably 20-25 feet away.

Try the test again, but shoot outdoors at something in the distance.

here are the full size photos.
75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821310

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31821322

again I wanted to use real world situations and since I never post
a full size photo I resized them. but looking at them full size
just makes it more scarey

considering the test photos here. Not I know they are not
"official" test photos, but they are more of a real world example.
One was taken with my 75-300 (non IS) lens and the other with me
100-400L. Anyway, please let me know what you think of these two
shots. Ovbiously ignore the unoriginal composition. haha. And
yes I know there were a few spots that are blown out. Both were
taken on a tripod, f8 1/20s. The 75-300 was at 300mm and the
100-400 was at 400. I also shot one at 300 but it was blurred.
Everything seemed a bit blurred, I think it was my fault and not
the lens. I did trun the camera off while switching lenses and did
NOT move it from it's location in any way. I honestly can not say I
see much difference. and If anything the much cheaper 75-300 seems
to look a bit better. Well except for the tremendous CA around the
white hands, but that can be taken out pretty easy in PS.

75-300
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820294

100-400
http://www.pbase.com/image/31820312

 

[coty41]

yeah, that is kind of what I figured (and was hopeing) but like I said, florida summer rains would not take kindly of my lens. haha. I think we had 5 inches of rain last weekend alone. I think I should be able to get out there one day this week.

Oi no! Taking pics of Mickey at a few feet is no way to treat a
100-400, get down to the zoo, or outside at least!

If however you insist on continuing with this silly behaviour, you
may want to consider using MLU as 300mm+ @ 1/20s is exactly the
sort of area it has an effect.

--

My best efforts here:
http://www.pbase.com/gothmog

 

[Boardhead]

Either use MLU or a remote shutter release. Your shutter speed is right in the danger zone for vibrations.

Also, try manual focus and moving the focus back and forth to make sure it isn't a focus issue.

 

[coty41]

I did use a remote on those. I don't have the "hack" so no MLU

and as expected...it's raining. haha. The everglades are on fire again (lightning...) so I guess I'll have to shoot for tomorrow for some outdoor tests.

Thanks everyone.

Either use MLU or a remote shutter release. Your shutter speed is
right in the danger zone for vibrations.

Also, try manual focus and moving the focus back and forth to make
sure it isn't a focus issue.