Trouble with sharp photo's with Canon 100-400mm IS L glass

I have both Canon L 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 and a Canon 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS). As

luck would have it, I am getting sharper photo's with the 70-200 than the 100-400.

I dismissed it for a while as the Northwestern US is a gray dismal place and and

the higher F stop makes the 100-400 not always practical. However, yesterday

was a rare sunny day and I was sorely disappointed at the outcome after a

afternoon soccer match. I have taken sharp photo's with the 100-400 when on a

tripod with the IS off, but with the IS on, and in the 'movement or action' mode (2) I

get fuzzy subjects even with a shutter at 1000. My 70-200 always delivers, I just

have to crop the crud out of them.

 

I have the same result on the 40D (which I greatly admire) and the 20D (which is

pretty cool until you set it against the 40D). Any Canon know-it-all's out there want

to weigh in? My budget isn't going to allow for a 400 f2.8 at this time, But if the

100-400 isn't going to deliver, I might as well unload it to someone who it is better

suited for.

How about an example? How else do we know what you consider unsharp?

I am curious why this is happening. In your description I am assuming that the 1/1000 with IS was handheld, correct? When you have the opportunity, with the shutter speed at 1/1000 or faster, turn the IS off and see what you get. Typically at fast shutter speeds like this you don't even need IS. Doing this experiment could help narrow down what may be wrong, since perhaps it is the IS which is out of whack.

 

 

If you are happy with sharpness from a tripod without IS then there must be some way to still make use of this lens without a tripod. If it turns out that IS is causing a problem only at fast shutter speeds then your option is to leave it off and perhaps use a monopod, or send it for repair of course since this sort of defeats the purpose of IS.

Joseph, a sunny day like yesterday around here you should have been able to shoot at 1/1000 sec. even at f5.6 (probably at decent ISO 200-400) which means motion blur due to too slow shutter speed is not your problem.

 

I second John's opinion to turn off IS and shoot again in similar condition (or during practices the next few partly sunny days) to systematically isolate what the problem might be. I also concur that at 1/000 sec. (or even at 1/500 sec.) you don't need IS since the shutter speed is fast enough to eliminate typical blurs from shaky camera hand-holding.

 

BTW, lucky NWN blue team gets Roger Levesque to coach. Too bad the forecast doesn't look that good for Snohomish Invite, but it's still better than falling snow!

Here is a classic example. ISO 250, Shutter was 640-1000 on a 40D. I don't have where the Fstop metered to at this time, but likely around the lower end (I shoot TV Shutter priority)

 

Wilson, Yes we are extremely fortunate to have Roger for a coach. Very accomplished player, wonderful coach and one of the most genuine down to earth people I have ever met. Joseph<div></div>

John:

 

yes the lens was handheld. I have found that I can't easily use, even a monopod with soccer. I always get tangled up in them. Due to the smaller resolution requirements for this string, it doesn't show how where #9's arm crosses his body, the edge of his arm is fuzzy. I wanted to think there might be a calibration problem with the camera body, but it only happens with this lens and on both bodies. I'll pray for good weather this weekend (NO SNOW) and try shooting without the IS and see what the result is. Thank you all for your input.

The attached photo was taken of a pile of balls at the event, the center focus point is sharp

JOSEPH<div></div>

"As luck would have it, I am getting sharper photo's with the 70-200 than the 100-400"

 

Luck has little to do with it. The 70-200's are exceptionally sharp lens, the 100-400 is good but not as good, particularly from 300-400.

 

What focal length are your 100-400 test shots?

What Mendel said is true that luck has little to do with it and that 70-200mm f2.8s are very sharp (as evident in your club shots,) but the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS SHOULD really be give you much better sharpness at those decent shutter speed than what you've been getting. We still have few decent days (partly cloudy, but no percips) here for practices so do few shots without IS and see how that fares before tournament this weekend.

I never really liked the 100 to 400 and only after using it once.

 

It was too soft from 300 to 400 for my liking and the varying aperture drove me crazy. But I understand why, those who like it and that`s not the point, I am merely stating my biases, up front :)

 

Regarding your problem: have you considered the x1.4MKII on your 70 to 200F2.8 (and even the x2.0MkII)?

 

This is truly a random grab from many of same last Weekend: OK the lighting was tricky and I had to pull this up about 3/4stop, but other than that it is the JPEG out of the camera: AND we discussing lens sharpness:

 

Tech Specs: 20D; EF70 to 200F2.8L + x2.0MkII; FL 320mm; 1/1000th; F13; ISO 800; Monopod; Manual Exposure; Partial Metering; Centre Point AF; AF Manually controlled.

 

WW<div></div>

And where that came from:<div></div>

In the picture posted above `Fuzzy Focus`, upon interrogating the EXIF data, I note that the Tech Specs are:

 

 

40D; FL 360mm; 1/640sec @ F5.6 @ ISO 100; Auto Exposure, Tv; Manual White Balance.

 

 

If I had this shot and was required to use the 100 to 400 on a 40D I would have pumped at least to ISO 800, more likely ISO1600, and taken the shot at something like:

 

1/1250sec @ F11 @ ISO800

 

or (more likely)

 

 

1/1000sec @ F13 @ ISO1250 (whatever, but you get the gist . . .)

 

 

AND I would have used a monopod: (320mm on a 40D hand held @ 1/640 . . . you gotta be on the limit, even if you are good.)

 

 

AND I would not be using IS, during the soccer game.

 

 

My basic point is, the 100 to 400 is working bloody hard at 300mm to 400mm, that`s a statement of fact. So it is behind the eight ball in this region to begin with, therefore you need to give it all the assistance you can.

 

You had enough light; and you had enough shutter; why shoot at ISO100 (and 1/640; and insist on hand held) and force the poor lens to work so hard wide open and put all that extra pressure on yourself, to get keepers at 1/640?

 

The 40D is quite OK to push to ISO1600: geez I can get ISO1600 out of my 20D easily, for quality 6x4 even a good 10 x 8: all I need to do is nail the exposure, and maybe know a bit about sharpening too.

 

With respect, I believe that technique (in many areas) is contributing in many aspects, to the outcomes, with which you are dissatisfied.

 

WW

> (320mm on a 40D hand held @ 1/640 . . . you gotta be on the limit, even if you are good.)

 

SHOULD READ:

 

(360mm on a 40D hand held @ 1/640 . . . you gotta be on the limit, even if you are good.)

 

WW

You indicated in your post that you are using IS mode 2 which is designed for panning. My

suggestion is to try IS mode 1. I find it works better for soccer, football, etc, on my 70-200

f2.8 with 1.4X

Great stuff guys, I have been apprehensive about using higher iso's due to noise. probably a throwback from when I shot (a lot) on film. I'll keep working out the details. Thank you all. JOSEPH

I like to leave my ISO on 400, as a ready for anything setting. I find it only marginally noisier than 100. In good sunlight I'll bring it down, usually to 100, but 400 seems a good baseline. Jumping to 800 in a pinch is a good ploy. I've heard it's best to stick to 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600, that the other's are some how interpolated. Those being all full stops, gives you lots of adjustment room.

 

<Hey, is the "Contrib. an Answer" font a little bigger? I think so ;)>

The answer!!! How many pros do you see shooting with big glass without a monopod???

 

You need to get used to it.

 

i tried a 2x converter on my 70-200 and 'lost' some potentially great shots.

 

You need to use a monopod with this lens.Period.

 

Put the 70-200 on your 20D and the 100-400 on your 40D(& on a monopod!).

 

Steve

Steve, indeed if we're shooting 400-f2.8, 500-f4, 600-f4, etc., a monopod is a given when shooting sports, but I definitely wouldn't call the 100-400 IS "Big glass" at all and in fact it is very, very hand-holdable. While a monopod might help, it is not necessary for 100-400 IS when shooting at +1/500 sec. trying to stop motion (in fact IS isn't necessary for that situation as well.) OTOH if you're shooting a non moving subject at shutter speed below reciprocal shutter speed to focal length hand-holding rule of thumb, then monopod/tripod and/or IS will help.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671388">These</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=566108">these</a> were all shot hand-held without monopod (mixture of 70-200 f2.8, 300 f2.8, etc.)

<p>

Meanwhile, back to original poster's issue, the IS mode choice that Kenneth pointed out might indeed be the culprit.

Wilson, et al:

 

I agree that the incorrect choice of the IS mode can render poor results.

 

I also agree that you (and others, and, humbly stated me also) will pull keepers with a 400mm lens on an APS-C body @ 1/500 hand held (i.e. sans monopod).

 

But with respect to all: I do not think the majority can achieve this regularly and consistently. Hence my comment at 360 and 1/640 on an APS-C body, you have to be at the limit, even if you are good.

 

The `inverse FL rule` is indeed a rule of thumb, and for 135 format, cut the FoV to that of an APS-C body and bingo . . . escalation of the rule of thumb.

 

Notwithstanding all the above: the image posted was shot at 1/640sec and Joseph specifically noted this was his concern with it:

 

` Due to the smaller resolution requirements for this string, it doesn't show how where #9's arm crosses his body, the edge of his arm is fuzzy.`

 

IMO and experience, a shot of a soccer player with transverse movement of the arm along the plane of focus (whilst running or shooting), requires minimum 1/800 to 1/1000 to freeze its (the arms) motion.

 

I shoot a lot of swimming now, but used to run the sideline covering Rugby Union.

 

As other examples from looking form the side, at the movement of arms: a Rugby Winger in full flight . . . arms can still blur at 1/1000 and I need minimum 1/640 to 1/800 to freeze a butterfly stroke from the side.

 

So IMO, this particular problem is shutter speed related, in that it was not sufficient to freeze the moving arm.

 

I also agree, and stated originally that I would shoot the whole game without any IS on, at all.

 

In regard to the 70 to 200F2.8 + x2.0MkII, I know many do not like this combination, but I do get constant results, (and from a non, 1 series camera); as in the example above.

 

Not as good as a 300 or 400 f2.8L, but good enough to print 10 x 8 and sell.

 

WW

William, no disagreement with you regarding needing 1/1000 sec. to stop fast arm motion as you described (great insight about swimming styles and shutter speed BTW,) and the point about working at the limit of inverse-FL-rule is also well taken. I just wanted to make a clear point that for the 100-400 IS lens, you don't need a monopod to stop action, because the +1/500 sec. shutter speed required to stop action simultaneously eliminate image blur from shaky hand-holding. OTOH just because of sheer weight, you definitely need a monopod when shooting sports with 400-f2.8, 500-f4, 600-f4 while, to me, 300-f2.8 can be used with or without.

<p>

As for Joe's "Fuzzy Focus" photo (with #9,) the EXIF says Canon EOS 40D, 360mm, ISO-100, f5.6 at 1/640 sec. shutter-priority (Mendel's comment immediately comes to mind regarding using higher ISO and had I shot shutter-priority that sunny day, I'd keep it at 1/1000 sec. considering the long end of FL.) Although the 1/640 sec. might have contributed to the blurry arm of #9, but I highly doubt that as all his other photos in team site are either consistently sharp or consistently blurred and by judging a little from the out-of-focus backgrounds, it was pretty easy to pick out which were shot with his 70-200 f2.8 (tack sharp) and which with 100-400. I might be wrong, but it is most likely that his previous less-than-sharp photos were result of something else (probably IS mode) other than too slow of a shutter speed.

> but I highly doubt that as all his other photos in team site are either consistently sharp or consistently blurred and by judging a little from the out-of-focus backgrounds, it was pretty easy to pick out which were shot with his 70-200 f2.8 (tack sharp) and which with 100-400. < (WT)

 

Wilson:

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Specifically in regard to the above extract from your reply:

 

Either I missed that information in this thread, or, you have been more investigative than I.

 

Either way, it matters not.

 

Considering the quote from your last post, and thereby noting we are considering a very large sample group, rather than only the one image I was addressing:

 

Yes agreed: I too reckon IS was generally playing havoc across all the 100 to 400 images, (even if the arm was frozen (or not) by the shutter speed in the particular frame shown here as an example).

 

In this regard my advice would still be to turn off the IS; and shoot at the higher shutter speeds, 1/000, 1/1250, and 1/800, if necessary.

 

BTW, I agree with all your first paragraph, too, regarding weight and monopods etc.

 

Thanks again for a very prompt and professional reply, and also the polite manner in which you addressed, either my oversight the information, or, revealed that my investigation was lacking.

 

It is always interesting (and a pleasure) to read your thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

WW

This was taken today at about a five hundredth, f 7.1 ISO 1600. IS was on. Lens 100-400 @400. I have both lenses and the 70-200 is sharper but not much at 200. If you can get to F8 400 is pretty good. They are two different lenses and in my mind for different purposes. Sorry I don't have a sport pic with the 100-400 handy. I find the color produced by the 100-400 really good. The picture except for cropping and sharpening was unedited.<div></div>

By the way that was a fifty per cent crop

I also turn the IS off for sports and birds on the wing or any fast action. The lens is ten years out of introduction, I think soon to be replaced, so the IS is not very sophisticated. However, I really do like it for a lot of uses in good light or with flash. I think, as others have said, that a monopod is almost mandatory. I get arm weary very quickly. It has more to do with endurance than it does with picture quality. I lied. I just checked the EXIF. It was ISO800. I try to get as close to 1000th as I can. When I shoot indoor swimming I have to use 1600 and sometimes flash. No monopod with a twelve year old, fully functioning, sharp as the day bought, 70-200 2.8L. My all time favorite lens. Places like Harvard and BU are pretty dim and contrasty.

Dick:

 

I like the orange . . . and the orange, cute: nice shot.

 

Regards

 

Bill

Thanks---Dick