Sharpness issues..

Ricky91t

Hello all,

It seems recently my lens has lost some of it's sharpness or my eye's got more critical...

I'm not considering selling my 70-200 f/2.8 and saving for a 300 f/4 I find when I shoot sport I use a 1.4 TC meaning I've got a 280mm f/4 so the 300 f/4 would be the cheapest/nearest option..

Can anyone comment on the sharpness of the 300mm f/4 and AF for sports(mainly day time)

And maybe compare it to this original and 100% crop from my lens with 1.4 TC

Both are straight off the camera, Not sharpened processed etc.

(click for full res in both cases!)



Thanks all!

PCPhoto

prime lenses are always sharper than zoom lenses ..... and when you add a teleconverter/extender (1.4x or 2x) to a lens you also loose a little quality.

so ... 300mm f4 would be sharper than 70-200 + 1.4X

the problem is with 70-200mm + 1.4x you have versatility to zoom back if the action comes a little closer - with the prime 300mm you dont have that choice. (which can get annoying sometime)

eas

Hi Ricky91t,

all lenses will be softer around the edges of the frame then in the middle, the bird is in the area where I'd expect some degree of softness (relative to if it was dead center). It also looks as if you've got a wide aperture set, which will also have a negative effect on sharpness.

what aperture & focal length was this shot at?

Ricky91t

PCPhoto wrote: »

prime lenses are always sharper than zoom lenses ..... and when you add a teleconverter/extender (1.4x or 2x) to a lens you also loose a little quality.

so ... 300mm f4 would be sharper than 70-200 + 1.4X

the problem is with 70-200mm + 1.4x you have versatility to zoom back if the action comes a little closer - with the prime 300mm you dont have that choice. (which can get annoying sometime)

Thanks for the reply PCPhoto, I was thinking about that and the only other option is the sigma 100-300 f/4, But I'm not to sure about the quality of the glass.

eas wrote: »

Hi Ricky91t,

all lenses will be softer around the edges of the frame then in the middle, the bird is in the area where I'd expect some degree of softness (relative to if it was dead center). It also looks as if you've got a wide aperture set, which will also have a negative effect on sharpness.

what aperture & focal length was this shot at?

This was just a recent example I have, I've got a number of "softish" images in the centre with the 1.4x TC on..
It was shot at 280mm f/4(which is what alot of sport I shoot would be at)

Ballyman

Ricky, if I were you I'd be very slow to give up the 70-200 for a 300. You're very limited in what you can shoot with just a 300 and you'll miss the 70-200 zoom.

Is there any way you can save up for the 300 on it's own? Is it more a want to have than a need to have?

Ricky91t

Ballyman wrote: »

Ricky, if I were you I'd be very slow to give up the 70-200 for a 300. You're very limited in what you can shoot with just a 300 and you'll miss the 70-200 zoom.

Is there any way you can save up for the 300 on it's own? Is it more a want to have than a need to have?

I've even considered selling my 1D MKII and down grading to a 40D just to get the extra reach!

It's quite frustrating knowing I could of got a good shot(with a longer zoom) but instead had to crop it quite badly and then sharpen the cropped photo just to get something alright.

I'd also have the option of a 1.4 TC with the 300mm(canon one!) which wouldn't destroy the lenses sharpness, give me an extra 50% reach and would be good for sports(during the day anyway).

I'm hoping next year at college to shoot a lot more sports and the fact a lot would be for nothing leaves a very small chance of me managing to get the money together without selling other gear.

It really does feel like a need..

ThOnda

I have 2x converter (canon compatible) you can try anytime it suits you.

You have to realise that converters usually don't have any coating on the lenses, therefore they are much more affected by all optical faults of the lense and by the light passing through the lense.

Borderfox

I wouldnt worry about that shot with a T/C, looks grand for wide open. another alternative is the sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX, superb lens and you still keep your zoom.

eas

Borderfox wrote: »

I wouldnt worry about that shot with a T/C, looks grand for wide open. another alternative is the sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX, superb lens and you still keep your zoom.

I agree, exactly what I'd expect from the same set up + settings.

Ricky91t

Borderfox wrote: »

I wouldnt worry about that shot with a T/C, looks grand for wide open. another alternative is the sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX, superb lens and you still keep your zoom.

Sooooooooooo expensive though!

Ricky91t

Ok here's where I'm seeing issues, Wide open @ f/2.8 no TC

Not Very Sharp



Exif:

Camera Make Canon
Camera Model Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
F-Number f2.8
Focal Length 200 mm

This was also mounted on a Tripod!
Sharp:

Camera Make Canon
Camera Model Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Exposure 0.00062 sec (1/1600)
F-Number f2.8
Focal Length 200 mm

This was hand held

I know there's a difference of 1/600 in the shutter speeds, But TBH 1/1000 is very quick already and it was tripod mounted(the dog was quite still)

eas

why shoot at 2.8 when you have so much light? Bump it up to f4 and things will sharpen up considerably, 5.6 & you'll start to see what a lens is capable of.

Ricky91t

eas wrote: »

why shoot at 2.8 when you have so much light? Bump it up to f4 and things will sharpen up considerably, 5.6 & you'll start to see what a lens is capable of.

Usually when I shoot something the backgrounds are very 'busy' and the depth of field at wide open usually eliminates that..

oshead

These look fine to me. Every lens has a sweet spot and very few lenses sweet spot is when it's wide open @ 2.8. I have the 24-70mm 2.8L and I'm not too happy with @ 2.8. But stop it down to f5.6 or f8 and for a zoom, it's tack sharp.

If I were you i'd concentrate on how to sharpen images adequately in PP. All images need it, some more than others. Spend the next while researching sharpening techniques. A few methods that I use regularly are High pass, Unsharpmask and the odd time smart sharpen.

eas

really, in either of your examples you'll see very little difference between 2.8 + 4 in the backgrounds. Regardless, the ever present universe of photographic compromise is what you're talking about. Do you want sharp images or OOF backgrounds?

I think you're expecting too much from your lens. You can't take a 100% crop of such a small area of a 8mp frame with your settings and expect to see perfectly sharp images.

Ricky91t

eas wrote: »

really, in either of your examples you'll see very little difference in the backgrounds 2.8 + 4. Regardless, the ever present universe of photographic compromise is what you're talking about. Do you want sharp images or OOF backgrounds?

I think you're expecting too much from your lens. You can't take a 100% crop of such a small area of a 8mp frame with your settings and expect to see perfectly sharp images.

I don't expect a 100% crop to be sharp, But I was just using it as an example, I just feel that if I ever needed to print it large scale the lens wouldn't be good enough..?

I may be expecting a lot but it seems there are lenses that can offer that, and I assumed an L lens might offer exactly what I required.

Ballyman

Ricky91t wrote: »

I assumed an L lens might offer exactly what I required.

It will but at a massive cost compared to what you have. It's hard to know whether it's worth the expense or not, especially if it's not going to pay it's way.

eas

Ricky91t wrote: »

I don't expect a 100% crop to be sharp, But I was just using it as an example, I just feel that if I ever needed to print it large scale the lens wouldn't be good enough..?

I may be expecting a lot but it seems there are lenses that can offer that, and I assumed an L lens might offer exactly what I required.

Don't get me wrong, I think your lens can produce much better results then these samples, just not the way you're choosing to shoot with it.

Borderfox

As said above a prime will always give a better result even with a t/c attached. I spent all day shooting with the 70-200 f2.8 today and love the results out of it, super versatile lens and built like a tank.

At a recent CPS event I had a try of the 300 f4 and loved the size of it (really compact with a built in hood) shots out of it looked really nice too but the Sigma is on par with it and is also f2.8.

Ricky91t

Thanks all for your comments! I'm just wondering could anyone comment on the sigma 100-300 f/4 ? Due to my birthday(and some other good news) I could stretch to a used one of these!

After having a look on pixel peeper they seem pretty sharp, And the AF is quick..

Any comments?(Also, I'd probably be able to keep the 70-200 as a more compact f/2.8 zoom)

Borderfox

The Sigma 100-300 f4 is an excellent lens also but it wont be as good as a prime. still a good choice though and all the reviews rave about its sharpness

RoryW

Ricky91t wrote: »

Due to my birthday(and some other good news) I could stretch to a used one of these!

Were you in waterford recently ?????

Ricky91t

RoryW wrote: »

Were you in waterford recently ?????

Sadly no... If I was I'd be buying more than a 100-300 f/4 :pac:

Borderfox

Best place for samples http://www.pixel-peeper.com/articles/lens-quality.php

100-300 f4 samples http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=252

This is shot with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX which should be similar to the 100-300 f4, original shot is on pix.ie if you want to have a look

Ricky91t

Borderfox wrote: »

Best place for samples http://www.pixel-peeper.com/articles/lens-quality.php

100-300 f4 samples http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=252

This is shot with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX which should be similar to the 100-300 f4, original shot is on pix.ie if you want to have a look

Thanks for those links and the photo!

Have already been looking at pixel peeper it seems to be a very sharp lens!

Now all I have to do is wait from a Visa debit card(i'd have for ages but never activated it) to activate and I can buy the lens. Hopefully no one will buy it before then! :eek:

Ricky91t

I've just ordered a Sigma 100-300 f/4 from http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

The condition isn't the best but it works fine and the optics are far and I got it for €460 inc delviery from the UK.. (I was watching one going for €650, which was in better condition.. but I love a bargain :eek: )

I should have a batter sports lens and when paired with my 1.4TC a half decent wildlife lens or a lens for sports during Sunny days.. Thanks all for the help

Ricky91t

My used sigma 100-300 f/4 arrived today costing me a little over €400 inc p&p, I wasn't expecting the best results as it was very cheap but I'm actually very pleased with the images and the sharpness

Image 1:

Crop:


Image 2:


This were all shot wide open, With my 1.4x TC at 420mm and I have to say I'm delighted

Covey

No. 2 is not sharp, but that looks like it's down to you and not the lens. Looks good enjoy!

Ricky91t

Covey wrote: »

No. 2 is not sharp, but that looks like it's down to you and not the lens. Looks good enjoy!

Down to me?It's straight off the camera..
They all are.

Covey

Ricky91t wrote: »

Down to me?It's straight off the camera..
They all are.

I think you're not quite getting the fact that the camera is a machine and you're the operator.

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

Down to me?It's straight off the camera..
They all are.

Listen to Uncle Covey.
If it were all to do with the Camera and not us there would be no David Bailey's!!