LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4021 times:
This was somewhat lost at the bottom of another thread. I have been requested that i post it as a main topic. Which seems a good idea
=====
Talking of the 300 mm L f4....
I have a 70-200 L IS USM f.2.8 and its a cracking lens , brilliant and everything i wanted and expected for a lens that costs £1200.00.
Now i also have a 300 mm L IS USM f4. I have been VERY dissapointed with the results so far,seeing as its L glass, IS and £900.00 !!!! All the results so far are very soft and even worse than my fuji point and click. Im pretty sure im doing something wrong or i have a duff lens
I tried the 70-200 today without problem. As soon as i put the 300 mm on the results were awfull. Even taxing aircraft were blured at 1/500 f5.6 !!!!!!!! The pictures of close subjects (ie a cockpit window) are ok'ish. But aything at distance (ie a plane taxying etc etc) are blurred... Not alot of use seeing as i got the 300 mm for distance work.
I know my settings etc etc should be ok as the pictures on the other lenses are fine....I tried to add my 1.4 II Extender and the results got even worse. Is there any test i could try to complete to see if its me being think or infact a faulty Lens ..
Help anyone !!!!
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3967 times:
Simon,
Can you supply us with a full size out of the camera image with the 300mm prime together with the exif information so we can all see the image, conditions and settings to therefore answer, it is hard to analyse a problem with your eyes shut
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3956 times:
Simon
I sent you an e-mail!!
Also not to point out the obvious to you but one thing I have noticed is that you can knock off the AF switch very easily.
Also and this is very important and may be your problem, even when you are in AF you can still manually focus!!! If you touch the black ring and rotate it it will go out of focus, be very carefull how you handle the 300. Try holding it away from the black focusing ring and see what results you get.
Fergul
Edit: Not to say that your problem is a focusing one but just to eliminate this thats all! I have good results from the 300 even with the 1.4cvtr
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3923 times:
Fergul . No the AF was on and i had not touched the focus point. I was also getting the bleep bleep confirming focused + the correct focus points had lit up on the viewer.......
Ben , Good point !! Im at work at the moment so i cannot post the image. I will try tonight
One thing i did wonder. I had the IS on (step 2). When shooting at 1/500 should i have this turned off ??? It does not seem a problem on the 70-200 though ???
Cheers guys
Simon C
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3873 times:
No Problem Simon, hope I wasn't disrespectfull, just trying to help out and sometimes we can miss the obvious. I have the same lens and cvtr and I've only used the 300 with the 1.4cvtr this weekend. So far I have only briefly looked at my photos but they all seem reasonably good. One is quite dark and soft but I may put that down to the weather. I can send you some samples if you wish just to compare photos and settings etc.
I'll have a proper look tonight at some more of my photos with that lens. I haven't used the 300 on its own yet.
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
No problem Fergul. I knew what you ment
I agree sometimes the obvious can be the problem, but not this time
If you could email me a sample picture that would be great. Please don't send loads though as i don't have broadband and it would clog up my inbox if you send me more than 2.
Cheers Simon
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3859 times:
Quoting LHRSIMON (reply 3): When shooting at 1/500 should i have this turned off ???
No, why should you? You can use IS at 1/1600 or every other shutter speed!
IS mode 2 is only stabilizing in 1 direction ( e.g. for fast moving objects ), you can use it whenever you want!
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3836 times:
Simon, have you tried shooting other objects (like a stationary object, your car, your house...), or mounting it on a tripod? Try objects with different distances away from you, so perhaps you can see if trouble only occurs with distances close to infinity.
Cheers,
Eduard
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3830 times:
Could be a duffer, using a 300mm prime does demand differnet camera handling than a usual cam/lens.
Try mounting the camera on a tripod and shooting a stationary object car/fence/sign post that is about 10-20metres away. Use varying apertures at F4/F5.6/F8/F11 and compare results. To get acurate pics shoot with mirror lock up turned on and preferably with a self timer/remote. MAke sure the tripos is sturdy and that it does not move.
If you want my advice on the pics from the lens, email them to me at chris78cpr@aol.com and i'll comment. I have some pics somewhere from a 300mm F4 that illt ry and dig out.
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
Thanks everyone i will try a few test images on static examples / various f stops etc etc ...
James : You say its easy to correct if it is a duff Lens. As im new to this problem could you be kind enough to confirm what steps i would have to go through to replace the Lens.
I gather it would mean posting or delivering the Lens to Canon at Elstree then letting them fiddle with it etc etc.... I gather all this will be done Free of charge seeing as the lens is not even 2 months old !!!!
Thanks all
Simon C
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3770 times:
Simon,
That's about the long and short of it. You've covered by the default warranty on the lens. They'll test it, but may just send you a brand new one anyway.
It may also be worth checking the terms of the retailer you brought it from. They should have some kind of returns policy.
Lyzzard From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
That's strange, I've owned 2 copies of this lens before and they're both excellent. The 300mm doesn't have a history of back focusing problems but why don't you try focusing manually and see what sort of results you get.
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3578 times:
Just a quick update.
I had a look through some old files that i was able to take when i first got the 300 mm and have found a few that i managed to take in the 1 hr of sun there has been at London for the last 6 weeks
Anyway the pictures are FAR clearer than the pityfull results from Sunday. With the help of Fergul and a few emails between us im starting to think that it may not be a faulity lens. But the fact that the 300 mm just needs FAR better conditions to get good results.
My 70-200 f2.8 seems far more happy giving crisp pictures in average light. But the 300 mm seems to be a different story. After looking at a few pictures Fergul took in average weather they also seem to have that soft look about them. Lucky for Fergul he has also been able to try the Lens in good sunshine and again the results are far improved.
Has anyone else noticed the fact that the 300 mm needs really good light to produce clear crisp images....
Thanks all , and thanks Fergul. All good fun
Simon C
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
Simon,
It may well be the fact you're working at 300mm. It's bound to be tougher to get a sharp image at that focal length, especially if the weather's poor and your shutter speed is dipping.
Quoting LHRSIMON (reply 14): Anyway the pictures are FAR clearer than the pityfull results from Sunday. With the help of Fergul and a few emails between us im starting to think that it may not be a faulity lens. But the fact that the 300 mm just needs FAR better conditions to get good results.
Hi Simon,
I have found that you can get reasonable results even in low light. I just step up the ISO a little until I get a suitable shutter/aperture combination and fire away.
This shot was taken on a day at LHR where the light was pretty awful. It was taken with my 300 f4 with the ISO around 200 from memory. I can check at home if you want the details.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 404 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
