Can't tell if my lens is broke or if I'm rubbish (1 Viewer)

[Retrodaz]

I have a Canon 600d and a Canon 400mm f5.6 lens.
No matter how hard I try I just can't seem to get super sharp shots. These are from about 20 feet away and it's still pretty poor. Any advice with regards to what I'm doing wrong. They are 50% crops, I don't try with 100% any more.




Anything further away then that and I have no chance and the quality degrades even more. I can't work out if it's my lens or if my technique is appalling. I was looking at spending around £200 on a tripod (recommendations welcome) but I was told that would make no difference to my performance.

 

[hampers]

I think you need to give some info on the camera settings you used, iso, shutter speed, stop, af mode etc. The 2nd one doesn't look far off to me and would certainly improve in processing.

There are many on the forum that use the 400 f5.6, me included, on a variety of bodies who absolutely love it and I think its rare to find a copy that's 'not good', so persevere. Of course there is always an exception though.

As for the comment tripod wouldn't make any difference I'm surprised that someone would say would make no difference. There are people of here who shoot most of the time without and conversely, people who use a tripod most of the time irrespective of how close and settings (I'm in the latter category). £200 would get you a decent one with an appropriate head. It all depends on your requirements. Carbon fibre is lighter and the way most people go, however if you are not intending yomping miles a metal one is cheaper. There are both types in the Manfrotto range that would meet you requirements. I have a cf 055cfx, that is >£200 plus a head. Also have a metal Giottos that was around £200 that I am very happy with. 2nd hand can save you a lot of money, they turn up on here occasionally.

There are many on the forum who can/will offer excellent advice plus check your setting from the EXIF (if included).

Good luck.

Phil

 

[MSA]

Unless you have a very steady hand, a tripod will almost certainly help - there are various "bracing" techniques you can use when hand-holding as well which could also assist.

I'm by no means a camera expert but I have used a Canon with a 400mm lens for many years; I'll be at Hengistbury on Sat am, if you'd like to meet up, send me a pm and we can arrange a time and place. I'll have an ageing Westie with me, just to forewarn you in case you don't like dogs! I could try your lens on my camera as well, as a check on the lens itself.

 

[Xmor]

Have too agree with Hamps that you can achieve a lot more with some post processing. Hope you don't mind but I did a quick process in Photoshop

 

[Retrodaz]

That looks better than mine
The stats are
Iso 200
Shutter speed 500
Aperture 9
Shooting in TV on a Canon 600d.

 

[Xmor]

The stats look OK to me but you may find it better to shot in AV. What file format are you using, RAW or JPeg and what post processing do you use?. If you are shooting in RAW and not post processing the images will always look flat and washed out IMO I honestly don't think you have a problem with the camera or the lens.

 

[Retrodaz]

I shoot in Raw. I typically just press the auto button in lightroom (only have trial version at mo) and sometime use denoise for noise (I didn't on these ones).
I will try AV but most people recommend TV, especially for BIFs (which I enjoy taking).

 

[Xmor]

If your happier in TV then thats fine. The Digital Photo Professional software supplied with your camera is a good RAW processing programme specifically developed for Canon cameras. Best advice I can offer is give it a go. Just play around with it until you get the image you want. I can't comment on Lightroom as I've never used it.

 

[lewis20126]

Maybe you have a "soft" lens. Some people with good copies will try and tell you that these don't exist - believe me - they do. I had the 100-400 IS and could never get a sharp picture. A friend and I tested our 100-400s against each other (using the same camera body on a tripod and photograped a newspaper) - the difference was truly astounding. When both the IS & AF failed (!) I sent the lens away to Elstree and when it came back it was like a new lens - it is now pin sharp. I look back at my old images pre-fix and wish I had sent the lens back sooner!

My advice: test against a friends' sharp copy with a tripod mounted test. If you have a demonstrable soft copy, send it to Elstree.

cheers, alan

 

[Retrodaz]

I did a tripod test (on a rubbish tripod) and members of the rspb forum felt it wasn't soft.
Here's my flickr account for a bit more detail.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/101862661@N04/

 

[Xmor]

Looking at your shots on Flicker I don't think you have a soft lens either. There are some nice sharp shots there. Another thing to bear in mind is what picture style you shot in. Different style have different settings for sharpness, contrast etc. The beauty of RAW is you can change all these in the soft ware provided.

 

[seaspirit]

1/500s with a 400mm lens handheld on a crop body is borderline. Some folks can do it, some don't. Add a bit of subject movement to it and images get soft.

In your example bumping the ISO up to 400 would have given you already 1/1000s and opening the aperture could have further speed it up.

A quick glance over your flickr shots revelas that most images that look sharp are taken with faster shutter speeds of <1/1000s

Tripod or monopod help not only with lens shake it also makes it easier to keep the AF spot on target (that should be single spot in continuous mode).
To find out if your lens hits the intended focal plane shoot some test subjects under controlled conditions, i.e. with sufficiently fast shutter speeds and wide open aperture. Plenty of instructions how to check for front- or backfocus can be found on the web and youtube.

Postprocessing of digital images is a must for best results and Auto in LR is most of the time not doing a good job.

 

[Retrodaz]

I have been shooting typically fast. More and more people have been telling me though that I need to low the shutterspeed as low as possible to get detailed shots and that it should be at least the same as the lens (I put it up normally to 500 as I can't seem to hold camera steady).

 

[hampers]

I have been shooting typically fast. More and more people have been telling me though that I need to low the shutterspeed as low as possible to get detailed shots and that it should be at least the same as the lens (I put it up normally to 500 as I can't seem to hold camera steady).

The minimum shutter speed advised for handholding is equivalent to focal length. I've never heard the argument of keeping shutter speed as low as possible before. Maybe someone else can advise.

As previous posters have said processing of RAW files is essential.

There are a lot of things to eliminate before you go down the soft lens line. The 400 f5.6 has far fewer problems with softness than the 100-400 where I personally had a soft one as well. I got rid!

Don't despair or give up it will come right one way or another. Tripod use will definitely help. Having said that look at Roy C's stuff, he shoots mainly handheld with the same lens and his results are outstanding. He is good at post processing as well. He has posted his workflow on earlier threads. 99.9% of my processing is in Lightroom and I like it, as many others do. Personally I think its a good investment although I have read newer versions of Canon's DPP are also good.

Good luck.

Phil.

 

[kneonlight]

Is the 600D full frame or a crop?
I was told that for my 7D with the 400mm f5.6 the minimum shutter speed should be 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) - therefore your shutter speed of 1/500 may be a bit slow (I never go that slow hand held as I know I am rubbish at holding it still!)

 

[kneonlight]

The minimum shutter speed advised for handholding is equivalent to focal length. I've never heard the argument of keeping shutter speed as low as possible before. Maybe someone else can advise.

As previous posters have said processing of RAW files is essential.

There are a lot of things to eliminate before you go down the soft lens line. The 400 f5.6 has far fewer problems with softness than the 100-400 where I personally had a soft one as well. I got rid!

Don't despair or give up it will come right one way or another. Tripod use will definitely help. Having said that look at Roy C's stuff, he shoots mainly handheld with the same lens and his results are outstanding. He is good at post processing as well. He has posted his workflow on earlier threads. 99.9% of my processing is in Lightroom and I like it, as many others do. Personally I think its a good investment although I have read newer versions of Canon's DPP are also good.

Good luck.

Phil.

Do you happen to know where I can find a thread with Roy's workflow described? This is exactly what I am after at the moment but cannot find it.

Thanks

 

[Roy C]

That looks better than mine
The stats are
Iso 200
Shutter speed 500
Aperture 9
Shooting in TV on a Canon 600d.

If you are hand holding then I would suggest upping the shutter speed to 1/1000 and reducing the aperture to f5.6 or maybe f6.3 (the 400/5.6 is pinsharp wide open).

 

[Retrodaz]

Thanks for all the advice so far. Is it worth me investing in a tripod or should I just get some more practice shots in first?

 

[Roy C]

Maybe you have a "soft" lens. Some people with good copies will try and tell you that these don't exist - believe me - they do. I had the 100-400 IS and could never get a sharp picture. A friend and I tested our 100-400s against each other (using the same camera body on a tripod and photograped a newspaper) - the difference was truly astounding. When both the IS & AF failed (!) I sent the lens away to Elstree and when it came back it was like a new lens - it is now pin sharp. I look back at my old images pre-fix and wish I had sent the lens back sooner!

My advice: test against a friends' sharp copy with a tripod mounted test. If you have a demonstrable soft copy, send it to Elstree.

cheers, alan

There is a world of difference between the zoom lens and the much simpler design of the 400/5.6 prime Alan, bad copies of the 400/5.6 are as rare as rocking horse sh#t but they sometimes do need some MA. I have heard of lots of bad copies of the 100-400, especially the earlier ones but do not think I have ever heard of a bad copy of the 400/5.6 although I guess there must have been a few floating around.

 

[Roy C]

Is the 600D full frame or a crop?
I was told that for my 7D with the 400mm f5.6 the minimum shutter speed should be 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) - therefore your shutter speed of 1/500 may be a bit slow (I never go that slow hand held as I know I am rubbish at holding it still!)

There are different schools of thought on this but I would go along with including the crop factor of the Camera so 1/640 sec. This is actually backed up by canon themselves because on the 7D, if you used auto ISO in Av mode then the Camera will almost always return a shutter speed of 1/640 sec (+/- 1/3 stop). Even then it is a lot to do with the individual hand holding technique - some folk could get sharp shots at 1/500 while others will struggle at 1/1000 sec. I am certainly not as good at hand holding than I was 5 or 6 years ago but then I am past my 'three score years a ten' lol.

I also think that this hand holding at the focal length (crop factor or not) is rubbish. You may be able to get consistent sharp shots at say 300mm or even 400mm but when you start going up the focal length range it becomes ever more difficult - I would not like to try hand holding the 800/5.6 at 1/800 sec with the IS switched off myself!! . Any way that's enough cr~p from me for one night.