[audiobomber]

So let me know what do you think - Lens IQ not as it should be or I just need to improve.

If you want to post full resolution, you could do it on Picasa.You don't actually need to show full res, 100% crops work just as well, but we need exif (aperture, shutter speed, ISO).

[luftfluss]

Each photo has an area of good sharpness. Are you using center-point focus or letting the camera decide on the focus point? For instance, in the photo of the squirrel, the tail looks sharp but the face is soft.

The shot of the building, there's haze. It looks decently sharp, but the further away the subject, the more the atmospheric conditions come into play.

[FruitLooPs]

Each photo has an area of good sharpness. Are you using center-point focus or letting the camera decide on the focus point? For instance, in the photo of the squirrel, the tail looks sharp but the face is soft.

The shot of the building, there's haze. It looks decently sharp, but the further away the subject, the more the atmospheric conditions come into play.

I agree, the lens resolves well - just not necessarily in the area that he was expecting. The so-so swan shot has the ducklings quite acceptably sharp.

Squirrel shot, tail/leaves in the background are in focus not his face (which focus point are you using?)

It is hard to tell ultimate sharpness with the images of the size posted, but I would really check BF/FF with a chart to see if its accurate and adjust in-camera if you have this function. It appears to back-focus to me.

Also taking shots @ F8 with low shutter speeds is a recipe for motion blur - probably not ideal when you're using them as sharpness examples. These seem to have been coped well with by the SR though.


photozone.de shows some pretty impressive MTF resolution figures for the lens in that price range even @ 300mm - edges are a bit worse but still acceptable. It actually out resolves my medicore 135-400mm sigma @ 300mm in the center range by a smidge but the edges fall short.

[Ranitomeya]

I don't have the lens, and the reduced resolution makes it a bit difficult to see, but all of these look as sharp to me as I would hope for. Regarding the first two, the problem seems to be that the focus is not where you expect it to be. Take the second image, for example, and look at the young swan in the middle. Isn't that one quite sharp?

[kh1234567890]

Also taking shots @ F8 with low shutter speeds is a recipe for motion blur - probably not ideal when you're using them as sharpness examples. These seem to have been coped well with by the SR though.

What are you on about ? Looking at what's left of the EXIF the shutter speeds are fast enough. There is no motion blur.

The problem is that koraldon does not quite appreciate the thin DoF of long telephotos. Selecting the right part of the subject to focus on is the trick. A bit of post-processing tweaking would also help to make the images look sharper.

[FruitLooPs]

What are you on about ? Looking at what's left of the EXIF the shutter speeds are fast enough. There is no motion blur.

Also taking shots @ F8 with low shutter speeds is a recipe for motion blur - probably not ideal when you're using them as sharpness examples. These seem to have been coped well with by the SR though.

My statement was advice for future testing based on the information posted by koraldon quoted below - I am aware that there is no motion blur in the photos provided ..

Most of my photos are f/8, with long exposure times, and handheld (w/SR).

I did not examine the EXIF information because he has already stated from his post that the shutter speed was slow and at a high f-stop handheld. I might've looked at the EXIF for confirmation if I *did* see blur/softness instead of just misplaced focus.

I stated simply the combination of settings he was using & being handheld is likely to induce motion blur, which is not an ideal scenario for testing the sharpness of his lens - I didn't say that there was motion blur in the shots shown because there isn't . As I actually stated in the first place..

[kh1234567890]

Whatever ...