Originally posted by dlh This picture is developed from DNG as uncompressed JPEG, and cropped. No "enhancements" otherwise, either in the camera or postprocessing. Just doesn't seem right, particularly contrasted with pictures posted by zzeitg (among others).
Well you've upped the asa and got a 1/500 shutter but the bottom line is the light is dull dull dull, that shutter speed is still not that fast, more than susceptible to vibration and shake affecting the end result, and your shot is still a stop under exposed, as per the histogram (faststone, fyi). While it would be useful to get the RAW into eg LR and see what the max is that can be extracted from the pic (the default jpg is going to reflect the dull light and underexposure), even a quality lens can only do so much when the llght is poor. You can't really conclude much from comparing with zzeitg's sun illuminated finches.
Are you doing the max to make sure you are isolating optical performance from other factors? I'm talking: big solid weighted tripod or, better, beanbag/sandbag on a solid surface like a wall; static subject; remote shutter release (the use of which is not emphasised as much as it should be IMO); good light (sun behind you) = 1/1000 min shutter. Then take a bunch of test pics at 5.6, f8, f11, and also see if there is visible distinction between AF and MF, the latter using magnified live view ideally with a loupe on the lcd (or at least shade the lcd). Pic 2 shows the test subject I put together (wishing I had a stuffed bird!) for my 400mm lens supertest (in progress), the flat banknote is to test resolution of fine detail and mitigate DoF issues - at eg 400mm and 10m distance the depth of the in focus region is
only a few cm.
If there is a discrepancy between AF and MF then you will need to go through adjusting the AF.