A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The new 100-400mm seems to work.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 18, 07:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/8/2018 8:50 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg


I'd say that lens was a good investment.


So far I am happy with it. I will probably buy the 1.4TC though the reach I
get now is just fine.
Next I will have to track down an airshow. ;-)

For now here is another of the windsurfer shots:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg


You have a lot of reach. To me the images look a bit soft, with some CA,
and there could be more detail in the highlights. I suspect some
exposure compensation would bring back the highlights.

--
PeterN
  #12  
Old July 9th 18, 07:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In , Eric Stevens
says...

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg

I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting
as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the
fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a
strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first
photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly
justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the
processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I
suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise
or graininess that they have been heavily cropped.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?


I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are
tack sharp.

I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of
view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus
(inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were
blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp.

In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to
motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus
precisely fast enough) - just guessing.


The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.


Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall.
That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue.

--
PeterN
  #13  
Old July 9th 18, 08:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.


Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue.


I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or
pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted
windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a
mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in
gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens.

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #14  
Old July 9th 18, 08:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 9, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.


Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly
tell you if you have a lens issue.


I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or
pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted
windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a
mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in
gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens.

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #15  
Old July 9th 18, 09:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/9/2018 3:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:

The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the
possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up.


Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue.


I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or
pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted
windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a
mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in
gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens.

Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


I see what you mean. In the first image the surfer and sail look quite
sharp to me. As you know, I am not a pixel peeper, but in some of the
other images the subject did not appear sharp. I am not the least bit
bothered when the surf is soft, that conveys a feeling of realism to me.

--
PeterN
  #16  
Old July 10th 18, 06:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.


Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the
impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom.
Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #17  
Old July 10th 18, 05:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg


BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.


Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the
impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom.
Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about.


I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not
notice any CA on this image.

--
PeterN
  #18  
Old July 10th 18, 07:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.


Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the
impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom.
Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about.


I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not
notice any CA on this image.


I didn’t think that I had any CA issue.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #19  
Old July 10th 18, 11:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/10/2018 2:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.

Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the
impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom.
Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about.


I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not
notice any CA on this image.


I didn’t think that I had any CA issue.


I don't think so either.

--
PeterN
  #20  
Old July 10th 18, 11:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/10/2018 2:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg

BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0.

Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the
impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom.
Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about.


I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not
notice any CA on this image.


I didn’t think that I had any CA issue.


I should have added that on the images where I originally thought there
might be some CA, the color fringing could be refraction from the wet
environment.

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSE6: Work-around when Help doesn't work under Windows John Navas[_2_] Digital Photography 3 January 14th 08 11:04 PM
400mm IS Eric Miller Digital Photography 7 January 26th 06 01:14 AM
400mm IS Eric Miller 35mm Photo Equipment 7 January 26th 06 01:14 AM
400mm for 10D b4 Digital Photography 8 October 12th 04 01:01 AM
400mm AF-S $6,200.00 Pixuretakr 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 2nd 03 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.