Picture sharpness on Canon M6 ii with Tamron 100-400mm

Hi everyone!

I'm trying to increase the quality of my bird photography as I'd like to print large despite cropping pictures. I've been shooting for a few years and got a new Tamron telephoto lens recently. While I'm generally quite happy with it (especially compared to my previous budget lens), I find the sharpness of my photos not quite up to scratch.

A few days ago I shot some pictures of a kingfisher which I expected to be sharper - I have included two below with different ISO-shutter speed combinations in case it makes a difference (btw, not sure if it is possible to zoom in on the pictures, otherwise I can provide more cropped versions).

It was relatively bright, I was using a monopod, the bird was around 25-30 meters away from me, and I used spot AF using the back-button.

What are your thoughts? Is it my technique or the lens? I've seen others take very sharp photos with this lens on this forum, so wondering whether I could improve my pictures - would the Tamron tap-in console offer some options here?

I look forward to hearing what you think!

Too far away creating two potential problems.

1. Pixels on subject aren’t enough for quality sharpness.

2. The AF box is larger than the subject potentially leading to AF focusing on the background.  DPAF likes vertical lines.

I shoot exclusively with this combo - this definitely a case of being too far away. 10m is really the max for a medium sized bird if you want a nice sharp image. Below was about 1.5m away and a smaller bird - no cropping.

This is a similar sized bird but now at around 5-8m, you can see that there is no way to get a nice sharp picture from this no matter how you crop, even though it is "in focus", the only way to fix this photo would be to get closer.

There's no substitute for distance - the closer you are the better your results

Or to look for larger birds! 😇

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Or to look for larger birds! 😇

That too  But OP is lucky enough to have access to some absolutely beautiful kingfishers. Would love to see a follow up with a closer photo of those.

OP, to be completely sure there is no issue with your lens perhaps find something bird-sized with some fine detail (like a toy bird etc) and place that around 5-15m away and take some photos and we can get a better idea on how it is performing. Looking at the detail around the pipe and wall in your photo it looks optically great, but I have seen reports of mis-focusing at the different focal lengths where the tap-in console may assist so will help isolate if there is a possible issue.

Thanks everyone for all your feedback!

Good to know that it is likely down to the distance rather than equipment - though somewhat disappointing as well, as I hoped this lens would allow me to exploit the M6's high resolution to the fullest and really crop a lot (those kingfishers tend to be on the other side of the river...)

OP, to be completely sure there is no issue with your lens perhaps find something bird-sized with some fine detail (like a toy bird etc) and place that around 5-15m away and take some photos and we can get a better idea on how it is performing. Looking at the detail around the pipe and wall in your photo it looks optically great, but I have seen reports of mis-focusing at the different focal lengths where the tap-in console may assist so will help isolate if there is a possible issue.

As for the experiment you're proposing, is the idea to have a relatively small subject so that it is clear where the focus is supposed to be, and then check if the focus under/over-shoots as I move the subject further away for each shot?

I'd be very curious to try it, just wanted to understand what the aim would be!

Polisky wrote:

I hoped this lens would allow me to exploit the M6's high resolution to the fullest and really crop a lot (those kingfishers tend to be on the other side of the river...)

Same here! I was using the 55-200mm for quite a while and I thought a higher quality lens with double the focal length would mean I could be double the distance. Technically it does, but at the end of the day getting the bird to fill the frame is still a challenge and the extra focal length only makes it easier, doesn't remove the problem entirely.

As for the experiment you're proposing, is the idea to have a relatively small subject so that it is clear where the focus is supposed to be, and then check if the focus under/over-shoots as I move the subject further away for each shot?

I'd be very curious to try it, just wanted to understand what the aim would be!

Was not thinking anything as scientific as that - although that would be a great way of doing it! The thought was more to do practice shots with a subject that you can get closer to and in the style you want and see whether the lens is holding up to your expectations. Could be a toy, could be some easier subjects (sparrows, etc). If you are getting shots where the subject is a good proportion of the frame but they still aren't sharp then I think that points to some possible issues.

I did some field work myself where I learned I am horrible at remembering distances, I passed by where I took that first shot of the Honeyeater today and measured that I was actually 4 metres away, and the bird is about 2cms larger than a sparrow for comparison. So don't feel that you need to be getting super close especially for a larger bird, you can still get great shots from a reasonable distance.

Duade Paton has a great Youtube video going over some of the fundamental tips that drastically improve the quality of your shots, his advice has been immensely helpful for me so hopefully you might find it helpful as well.

I am not quite sure how to judge whether or not the lens is adequately sharp. On the face of it, the below (taken in similar bright conditions, but clearly much closer to me) looks fine, but when zooming into the picture, the feathers are somewhat blurry.

Is this essentially the level of sharpness I can expect from this lens?

Also, I went out again today to capture action shots of the kingfisher, but got incredibly frustrated with the AF tracking: I press the screen exactly where the bird is, asking the camera to track it, but it either focuses elsewhere (e.g. the background) or it expands that focusing box onto the entire perch instead of just the bird, which is otherwise clearly outlined against the background (bright blue on grey is pretty stark!). Getting the camera to then follow the bird in flight for even a short burst is then of course impossible.

Am I expecting too much of the camera or do you find the tracking works fine?

Based on the photo you have posted I agree that it does not look up to standard at all. It is very soft.

This could be an issue with the lens, or it could be out of focus. With almost any telephoto lens + moving subjects, finding & keeping focus locked on to subjects is difficult. You then also have to take into account your f-stop which at the high focal lengths your depth of field gets quite narrow so when the focus moves just a tiny bit it can be enough to throw your whole subject out of focus. It is essential that you are shooting in burst mode to account for this as it is normal for the autofocus system to hunt around for the best focus when the subject is moving - I typically shoot in low-speed burst unless there a specific action moment I'm trying to catch then I use high-speed burst. No matter what, you will end up losing shots due to this and it happens even on the high end gear - Duade Paton shows on a couple of videos that even on the R-series with the super fast bird eye AF, using the best available lenses on both the R5 and R7 and a tripod, you will still end up losing a few shots while the focus is hunting around.

Here is an example of this - these photos were taken ~1 second apart with no input from me, just holding the button and hoping for the best Can see the first one is way out of focus and looks similar to yours, but the following one is nice and sharp.

Of course, if you were already taking all of this in to account and that image you posted is still the best example of it being in focus, I would be very inclined to say it may be an issue with the unit.

Regarding your issues with tracking - when you are far away with a small subject like with the Kingfisher you should probably be using spot or single point AF rather than the default 'tracking' mode as it is not really designed for subjects that are small in the frame - I find it is great for general use but for the really small stuff you will need to switch to a different mode. Generally speaking I find the AF great, one of the reasons I went all-in on Canon.

Damn, now I'm wondering whether there may indeed be an issue with the unit. I will have to do some testing under better conditions to be sure, but the difference between my pictures and your second one is quite stark.

I do wonder, though, do you keep on pressing the focus button (whether back-button or shutter) while shooting, so that the camera is searching continually?

If the subject is not moving, I generally stop the focusing process when it looks fine in the viewfinder, so I generally don't have different focus points within a burst of pictures. But since the camera often gets it completely wrong (as in the sitution with the kingfisher described above) I don't really trust it getting it right if I kept on focusing. I suppose that could be either a camera issue or a lens issue (similar to those pulsing issues some people report when using Sigma telephotos on the new R7).

Is any of this potentially improveable with the tap-in console? Have you used it yourself?

Thanks again for all the input, it's good to hear about someone else's experiences with the same setup!

Damn, now I'm wondering whether there may indeed be an issue with the unit.

Worth exploring the possibility for sure, good to do some testing. This video might help with how to test your setup - the summary of it is to have a static object in nice light, take your time getting focus right and trying different exposure settings from various distances. It's full of great advice and tips though so worth the watch. If you want me to do any comparison shots of anything I'm happy to do that too.

Slightly unrelated, but when it comes to exposure settings I love the flexible priority mode (FV). By default it is basically shooting in Auto, but then using the dials you can very quickly lock in specific Aperture, SS, ISO or a combination of them + set exposure compensation and let the camera calculate the rest, it's super powerful.

I do wonder, though, do you keep on pressing the focus button (whether back-button or shutter) while shooting, so that the camera is searching continually?

I have my camera on "Servo AF" and also have "Continuous AF" (In menu SHOOT7) turned on - which means regardless of whether I am actively holding an AF button or not, the camera will constantly be searching for the correct focus. On a tripod this is not needed as the camera isn't moving much you can be more deliberate with where to focus, but as I only shoot handheld the Continuous AF and burst shooting is a lifesaver. With Servo+Continuous AF I don't use back button AF and stick with AF on the shutter. I will admit I've lost a couple of shots due to it hunting for focus at an inconvenient time but there's far more shots it has saved that I would have had no hope of getting otherwise.

I don't really trust it getting it right if I kept on focusing

While you are burst shooting should definitely be letting the AF do its thing. At 400mm and f6.3 as per your latest shot - the depth of field only allows a couple of centimetres at best for it to still be sharp, small movements with the camera or the subjects positioning are enough for previously correct focus to be incorrect. A DoF calculator like this can help illustrate what the limits are (I've updated the values to simulate pixel-peeping rather than overall image clarity).

Is any of this potentially improveable with the tap-in console? Have you used it yourself?

Haven't used the tap-in console unfortunately. I've seen posts on the forum about some people having success but I don't have the experience to say. In my opinion their issues seem a lot more subtle than the examples you have shown.

Polisky wrote:

Hi everyone!

I'm trying to increase the quality of my bird photography as I'd like to print large despite cropping pictures. I've been shooting for a few years and got a new Tamron telephoto lens recently. While I'm generally quite happy with it (especially compared to my previous budget lens), I find the sharpness of my photos not quite up to scratch.

A few days ago I shot some pictures of a kingfisher which I expected to be sharper - I have included two below with different ISO-shutter speed combinations in case it makes a difference (btw, not sure if it is possible to zoom in on the pictures, otherwise I can provide more cropped versions).

It was relatively bright, I was using a monopod, the bird was around 25-30 meters away from me, and I used spot AF using the back-button.

What are your thoughts? Is it my technique or the lens? I've seen others take very sharp photos with this lens on this forum, so wondering whether I could improve my pictures - would the Tamron tap-in console offer some options here?

I look forward to hearing what you think!

I have to thank you for posting samples and EXIF!

There are a ton of different factors that can have an effect on sharpness.  I agree with the others that some careful testing can help to eliminate many of them.  If you suspect your lens, then test it under controlled conditions for both ultimate sharpness and autofocus accuracy.  Do you have a filter on your lens?  Best to remove it unless there’s a specific hazard.

I use Spot AF exclusively on the M6ii (Servo AF with the back button).  Unlike the other poster, I do keep Continuous AF disabled, as I like to lock focus at various times.  I also like to pre-focus at about the distance that I anticipate my subjects to appear at.  This really helps with initial AF acquisition speed.

BTW, BIFs with the smaller birds can be nearly impossible even when using the latest techno-wizardry out there (believe me, I know! ).  You might get a couple of clear frames if the bird stays within the depth of field (and it’s far enough away).  Otherwise, just keep trying!  

Holler back with your lens testing results.  Best of luck!

R2

Thanks both!

R2D2 wrote:

I have to thank you for posting samples and EXIF!

I wouldn't even have considered removing it, seems much easier for other users to troubleshoot when it is included!

There are a ton of different factors that can have an effect on sharpness. I agree with the others that some careful testing can help to eliminate many of them. If you suspect your lens, then test it under controlled conditions for both ultimate sharpness and autofocus accuracy. Do you have a filter on your lens? Best to remove it unless there’s a specific hazard.

Nope, no filter.

I use Spot AF exclusively on the M6ii (Servo AF with the back button). Unlike the other poster, I do keep Continuous AF disabled, as I like to lock focus at various times. I also like to pre-focus at about the distance that I anticipate my subjects to appear at. This really helps with initial AF acquisition speed.

BTW, BIFs with the smaller birds can be nearly impossible even when using the latest techno-wizardry out there (believe me, I know! ). You might get a couple of clear frames if the bird stays within the depth of field (and it’s far enough away). Otherwise, just keep trying!

Holler back with your lens testing results. Best of luck!

R2

So I've tried doing some testing on the sharpness of the lens, using manual focus on a few textured objects. In each case I was trying to focus on the eye of the dodo.

From the last picture, with the subjects close up, I think the picture looks quite sharp. For the first two pictures, I am somewhat less impressed and can now better understand how small birds might not resolve particularly well when even further away. Comparing the two aperture openings, the f/14 picture looks even softer so stopping down likely won't help me in the field.

What do you guys think, is this kind of performance to be expected with this combo?

Subjects around 11m away, wide open.

Same distance,  smaller aperture size.

Subjects around 2m away, wide open.