RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,866
8,944
Thanks Alan,

I picked up the 400 DO II and a 1.4x III. I am having an issue with focus consistency. When the bare lens or the lens with the 1.4x hits focus it is sharp, unfortunately, the hit rate is very low (especially with the 1.4x). Even with large stationary targets like a parked car's licence plate. Greater than 50% are slightly out of focus, even with good lite conditions.

I use servo focus with back button focus with eye-tracking or single spot.

Could this be an issue with the IS? Any ideas?

My R5 has amazing focus consistency with the rest of my lenses including the F 1.2 lenses.
Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.
 
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.
Thanks Alan,

In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2l6pym6so9rfxi7/AACBCk8_6ttw9lljcPDBWm3va?dl=0

Thanks again,

Sean
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,866
8,944
Thanks Alan,

In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2l6pym6so9rfxi7/AACBCk8_6ttw9lljcPDBWm3va?dl=0

Thanks again,

Sean
Sean
I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
Alan
 
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
I was using f8 because I was waiting for the owl to take off and didn't want to have the owl move out of focus as it launched.

I agree that under this scenario, clean background, good light, there shouldn't have been an issue. Some images were focused well but way too many did not. I am going to upgrade the lens firmware and do some additional testing.

Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • _F2A8141-Edit.jpg
    _F2A8141-Edit.jpg
    183 KB · Views: 54
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
Sean
I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
Alan
Hi Again Alan,

I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".

The results were better, the focus was never off. there was variation with >70 with the TC hitting and nearly all with bare lense.

This folder shows the variation in focus and sharpness, does it seem reasonable?

 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,866
8,944
Hi Again Alan,

I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".

The results were better, the focus was never off. there was variation with >70 with the TC hitting and nearly all with bare lense.

This folder shows the variation. Is it reasonable?

They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron
Mar 6, 2021
6
0
They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.
Thanks again,

How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces).

How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,866
8,944
Thanks again,

How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces).

How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.
I don’t use the 1.4x much on the R5 as the 2x works so well, and that has a very high AF consistency. The 1.4x has very good IQ and maybe a consistency of 90%+.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tron and usern4cr
<-- start Taboola -->