At 13000 euro/usd the lens should be perfect. Any flaws are not acceptable at this price tag, not even minor ones. The issue with the 600mm f4 IS III is big and restricts one to use it in low light at shutter speeds from 1/50s to 1/250s. I used my old 500 quite a lot around these shutter speeds with perfect results.
With the 600 III I need to bump up the ISO unnecessarily high when I don't need that or I can't do that. I cannot do panning shots around the same ss, I cannot do creative images with slower ss. I hike in the mountains with it so I need a lens that works as it should and not get restricted in any way by the manufacturer.
If I had known these issues, I would have never bought this lens. I don't need a tripod or a flash, nor do I want to spend more money on Canon gear and hoping that it will work. This is ridiculous, Canon should have tested this lens thoroughly before releasing it on the market.
I cannot upload images to show you that with the 5D4 I can take very sharp images at 1/10s (1/8s seems to be the limit for me) to around 1/40s with this 600 and then everything gets unusable up to 1/200s. At 1/250 sometimes I can get a sharp picture and from 1/320s and up all are good.
This 600mm should be the best Canon has to offer. And they should recall these lenses if they are not able to repair them.
I don't think the other two posters read this, nor the original thread... Let me try summarize it, please KINGOFKNGS let me know if I am right:
1. Nobody expects miracles, only in-spec behavior. What's all this talk about subject movement? The camera is misbehaving in laboratory conditions and it clearly shows in the field.
2. Using tripod and under same settings: without IS everything is good, while with IS there is a visible (not pixel-peeping) ghost. It raises a question: where is that mirror slap shake when IS is off? It clearly indicates a malfunction in IS system, whether hardware or software.
Additionally Canon Japan has been working on this and has acknowledged a reproducible issue so hopefully a fix is in the works.
boxigen wrote:
I don't think the other two posters read this, nor the original thread... Let me try summarize it, please KINGOFKNGS let me know if I am right:
1. Nobody expects miracles, only in-spec behavior. What's all this talk about subject movement? The camera is misbehaving in laboratory conditions and it clearly shows in the field.
2. Using tripod and under same settings: without IS everything is good, while with IS there is a visible (not pixel-peeping) ghost. It raises a question: where is that mirror slap shake when IS is off? It clearly indicates a malfunction in IS system, whether hardware or software. ...Show more →
boxigen wrote:
1. Nobody expects miracles, only in-spec behavior. What's all this talk about subject movement? The camera is misbehaving in laboratory conditions and it clearly shows in the field.
Yes, I understand that the IS does not work correctly in this range of shutter speeds. However, those shutter speeds are slow enough that subject movement blur becomes a frequent issue so I would argue in favour of avoiding such speeds in general.
The intentional use of panning at slow shutter speeds (to show movement in wings and not head, for example) is an exception to that and I can see the vibration discussed in this thread would create havoc with such an approach, but again one can use a tripod and gimbal or fluid head (with IS OFF) to get even more smooth pans than one can hand-held, so the issue can be circumvented (unless the angle of movement is such that it is not possible to use a tripod).
2. Using tripod and under same settings: without IS everything is good, while with IS there is a visible (not pixel-peeping) ghost. It raises a question: where is that mirror slap shake when IS is off?
When the IS is OFF, the IS group is probably locked in position so that it cannot move relative to the rest of the lens. Thus if there is vibration, the whole lens more or less moves together.
When IS is ON, motors control the position of the IS group relative to the rest of the lens based on accelerometer readings and this happens under the control of an algorithm that aims to minimize blur in the image plane. However, IS is mainly designed to correct for human hand shake related movements and not shutter shake. The former has lower frequency content than the latter.
By reducing weight, the lens becomes easier to move but also the vibration amplitudes become larger. Also as a side effect of making the lens lighter, it is possible it could have become less stiff and this could mean the acceleration measured inside the lens at some point (where the accelerometers are located) doesn't correspond to the vibration at the positions of the optical elements. If this is the case then it is easy to imagine why an attempt to correct the movement could result in more blur if the elements vibrate out of sync with the accelerometer.
The older lenses don't show this (or are less sensitive to it) because there is more mass (leading to subdued vibrations) and possibly also greater stiffness (which reduces the asynchrony of vibrations between the point where they are measured and the optical system of the lens). Anyway, this is my theory of the origins of the problem.
It clearly indicates a malfunction in IS system, whether hardware or software.
IS has limitations, light weight lenses have limitations. A part of the skill set of a photographer is to know the limitations of one's equipment and work around them to get good results. I like to use a tripod myself although it slows one's movements, it can also help steady them. And best of all, I am free from the limitations of image stabilization technology. I am also investigating the use of flash in wildlife photography to get around situations where the lighting is dim and to improve sharpness of the main body of the subject while allowing the movement to show in the available light component of the exposure.
By all means discuss this issue with Canon and see if they can come up with a solution. I suspect the solution that will be found most effective is the use of electronic front curtain shutter. In the meanwhile, one of the five suggested wayarounds can be applied.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
This sequence of photos were taken handheld at 160 sec with Canon 1DX II and Canon 600 III.
No adjust were made to the photos.
Comments welcome.
Pius
Do you think they are blurry?
Would be nice to have a 5DIV for the real test...
Are these crops or full 20 megapixel images? These look fine to me, but I'm presumably seeing a 20 megapixel 5 X 7 inch (or less) photo on my MacBook Pro Retina Display.
The problem I'm having with the 1DX II and 600 III is significantly less than 5D IV and 600 III, however when looking at 100% crops, there clearly are issues with the 1DX II and 600 III combo in the majority of photos. This is particularly noticeable if the images are compared to shots at 1/320.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Do you think they are blurry?
Would be nice to have a 5DIV for the real test...
Here are a couple photos with my 1DX2/600III combo. I realize I'm showing single images from the series, but they're representative of what I'm typically seeing. The blurrier photos is at 1/160, the sharper at 1/250. These are 100% crops and I did no editing other than cropping. The sharper of the two photos may be a *tad* front focused, but it gets the idea across.
These are shot handheld and through the viewfinder.. just did them awhile ago in my backyard.
I choose a rabbit because it freezes soon as I point the lens at it...
A butterfly will move with the slightest breeze,
Pius
I'm glad yours seems to be working appropriately! I messaged the Canon rep late Friday and he was out of the office. Hopefully he gets back with me tomorrow about what Canon Japan has found. I hope it's an answer that addresses all of the bodies people have commented as having issues, 5D IV, 1DX II, 5DSR, and 7D2 so far. I'm not sure if my 1DX II/600 III problems are one offs limited to my gear or if there may be others affected as well. I have not seen a single 5D IV user able to demonstrate consistently sharp photos, shot through the viewfinder with IS on, at 1/160. We'll see what Canon says!
Pius Sullivan wrote:
These are shot handheld and through the viewfinder.. just did them awhile ok in my backyard.
I'm with you on this problem, because I have had blurry photos on a tripod at 500 and 640/sec with a totally still subject like an owl and can't explain it to myself...
Have you ever had similar issues with any other lens? I've used multiple superteles and have never had any behave like this.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I'm with you on this problem, because I have had blurry photos on a tripod at 500 and 640/sec with a totally still subject like an owl and can't explain it to myself...
Have you ever had it go out of focus and lock up, the only way to get it back was to tun off the camera and pull the battery. I have experienced that 3 times when tracking a bird in the sky.
That’s never happened to me. I have had the IS make a loud noise that occurs after I’ve disengaged the IS and have started putting the lens down to my side. It seems to happen when there is a big change in position of the lens as the IS is disengaging. Pius Sullivan wrote:
Have you ever had it go out of focus and lock up, the only way to get it back was to tun off the camera and pull the battery. I have experienced that 3 times when tracking a bird in the sky.
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
That’s never happened to me. I have had the IS make a loud noise that occurs after I’ve disengaged the IS and have started putting the lens down to my side. It seems to happen when there is a big change in position of the lens as the IS is disengaging.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Have you ever had it go out of focus and lock up, the only way to get it back was to tun off the camera and pull the battery. I have experienced that 3 times when tracking a bird in the sky.
Pius
This issue might be worth mentioning to Canon, that is an issue in the field. Maybe if they hear enough issues, they can fix them.
