PCKit wrote:
I honestly can't tell. When I try to zoom in it loses too much resolution, so I can't see the target clearly at all.
For mine I used the Dot Tune Method developed by an FM member called Snapsy.
Have you tinkered with Diopter Adjustment for showing sharper image in viewfinder to you?
Karl
Karl Witt wrote:
Have you tinkered with Diopter Adjustment for showing sharper image in viewfinder to you?
Karl
I don't think she's talking about taking pictures with her camera. I think she's referring to helping ox0312 and his sample images as to which one worked best in his Micro Adjustments. He had requested help as to which MA setting worked best for AF and she attempted to give him some. To be honest I couldn't tell either. He thought the -4 to -8 range worked best.
I got mine yesterday.
So far i'm not impressed by VC performances. It's nowhere near L class.
It gots something like 2 stop VC, I was expecting at least one more.
You can get sharp shot at 1/125, but it's not that easy.
At 1/60 it's very hard.
1/250 is easy enough, that's fine, I guess you get what you pay for.
Image quality is impressive for the price, even if it's nothing like L prime quality. You get half the quality for 1/10th the price.
Sorry about those shots, that's all the wildlife you can get out there :
Your shots look like you used too slow of a shutter speed for the focal length. 1/60 with a 600mm?
I find even with my L 300mm & 400mm lenses that fast shutter speeds give the sharpest images. 600mm would be more demanding.
I would use faster shutter speeds and let the VC take our your shake. That would likely give very nice images at 600mm
I used faster shutter speeds too. For sure it works.
But we want VC to go lower that 1/600s
It's kinda easy to shoot 70-200L II at 1/20s and 200mm
Or 100L at 1/10s.
So i was expecting 1/60 at 600mm to be easyer. (even if not very easy).
From 1/250 and up, it's mostly the same. It's sharp most of the time.
The amount of work it takes to get sharp image at 1/125 looks a bit too high so far.
I was able to use 200L and 400L II at low shutter speed. It's amazing how easy it is.
I got mine yesterday.
So far i'm not impressed by VC performances. It's nowhere near L class.
It gots something like 2 stop VC, I was expecting at least one more.
You can get sharp shot at 1/125, but it's not that easy.
At 1/60 it's very hard.
1/250 is easy enough, that's fine, I guess you get what you pay for.
Image quality is impressive for the price, even if it's nothing like L prime quality. You get half the quality for 1/10th the price.
Sorry about those shots, that's all the wildlife you can get out there :
That was shot with a 6D (bad weather, crapy light).
There's 1/60, 1/125 and 1/250 shots
Full size is 2560px long
600mm reach is great. Sharpness is a bit higher à f/8 but it's very usable at f/6.2
It's very light.
Balance is nice with 6D.
AF is good.
I think the price is fair. (1400€ out there).
VC is not good enough to ask for more....Show more →
Looking at the downloaded size of shot number 2 (duck), it looks sharper in front of the duck then the duck itself. Your camera/lens combination may be front focusing a bit and/or the f6.3 is giving too shallow of a DOF. From many of the samples I've seen, the lens is not as shapr at 600mm and f6.3. The sweet spot seems to be f8 to f11.
sfink161 wrote:
Looking at the downloaded size of shot number 2 (duck), it looks sharper in front of the duck then the duck itself. Your camera/lens combination may be front focusing a bit and/or the f6.3 is giving too shallow of a DOF. From many of the samples I've seen, the lens is not as shapr at 600mm and f6.3. The sweet spot seems to be f8 to f11.
I think there is something to investigate here. (I got f/8 and fast shutter speeds of the duck that look the same)
Wet feathers give a strange sharpness feeling. Or make AF a bit front focussing ?
If i shoot text, it looks very sharp from same distance.
I think it came from the feathers. it gives a low sharpness feel.
It's a sharp shot. You can see the water drops on the duck. I'm not certain about the front focusing or not as it just might be a fluke. The bird's chest may have lost a little focus possibly because of front focusing maybe? Like you said, it's something to watch. You may wind up having to do the Micro Adjustments that others were talking about.
this 1/250s iso400 in bad light makes me feel it could be a nice result in the real world. That 2 stop VC still adds a lot of quality to the final image.
No Micro Adjustment - Focussed on Eye ( I Guess no Micro Adjust required on 5D3)
Focus hunts a bit... had to take a few shot to nail the focus....probably due to the light and snowfall in the foreground. Definitely, comparable to 400mm 5.6 with 1.4x III tele-converter but still early days.
I'd be happy with this shot. For the 600mm focal length, considering your newness to the lens (and perhaps shooting at 600mm focal length, excuse me if I'm assuming wrongly), the degree of detail is quite acceptable to me.
I just wish mine would get here.
this 1/250s iso400 in bad light makes me feel it could be a nice result in the real world. That 2 stop VC still adds a lot of quality to the final image.
Nice to know about the VC. I get worried using IS on my Canon 100-400mm L lens on slower shutter speeds. For BIF shots I turn off IS and use a shutter of at 1/2000 to avoid motion blur.
I'd be happy with this shot. For the 600mm focal length, considering your newness to the lens (and perhaps shooting at 600mm focal length, excuse me if I'm assuming wrongly), the degree of detail is quite acceptable to me.
I just wish mine would get here.
M
I have been using the 400mm 5.6 prime from the same location. It's not easy in this weather specially with snow fall. I ll try tomorrow with some sun light around.
Lets not forget that for many of the people who are comparing this lens to the 300/400/500/600 lens...
The primes are Always going to be higher MTF than the zoom, so for as good as this zoom it, its Even more impressive for the price! I cant wait to order this guy!
Imagemaster wrote:
And only one BIF shot, and it is not good.
I personally didn't buy this lens for BIF photography. I could be wrong, but I imagine those who did may end up being disappointed.
I believe the lens will perform quite well in good light and with the proper technique for nearly all relatively static subjects. It might even do well with certain sports.
For those folks who don't already own the Canon 100-400mm zoom this lens will be an interesting alternative with an added bonus of about 50% more reach.
