-
-
Here is a crop of the image at 100%
-
Very nice shot - I usually have a hard time evaluating an image for sharpness when it's been re-sized down. Thanks for providing the 100% crop! To me it looks pretty sharp, perhaps not as sharp as I've seen some other images @ 100%. But there may be other factors such as wind in the feathers, although the beak also is not as sharp as some images I've seen. I guess you may be the best judge to evaluate if this is the absolute best you've seen from this lens, how consistent it is, and also how does it compare to other lenses you have given the same processing that you do? Also, does it perform a lot worse with a TC? I love your photos btw.
Kevin
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
The lens is sharp enough. The question is does it suit your requirements in all other aspects? Only you can answer that question.
Don't let others in the equipment race spoil your enjoyment of photography and the appreciation of a good image. Sharpness is desired but content trumps pixel sharpness any day in my book.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Lifetime Member
I'm not a big fan of the 400 DO, especially when paired with a 1.4x. The sharpness is only so-so.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
I have to agree with Adrian on this , but it looks good enough for me.
There is always the question- sharp enough for what ? I,ve had loads of pics published which were copies off slides , and the sharpness on them didn't slice any butter !!!
Cheers
JR
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
it looks sharp to me. Is there any default or post processing sharpening here? The first image is tough with the angle of shooting. The question is do you rotate the image so that the sand line appears a perfect horizontal?
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
I usually look at the eye ring and the catch light for sharpness. If the catch light has straight lines or sharp corners, usually it is a very sharp image (well, the eye at least). Hard to say with the catch light, but the eye ring looks quite good.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Super Moderator
This one is much better than the other one, both in terms of sharpness and also aesthetics of the image. this is a keeper now :) It is sharp but not as sharp as a 500 or a 600 lens.
No one noticed, but you have stopped down significantly, more than two stops at f/9. You have to evaluate it wide open and also with the TC's (unless you do not plan to use it with a TC). If the lens is not sharp wide open (f/4), it will be a big limitation if you like to photograph non-stationary subjects.
Any ways, it seems to me you are trying to convince yourself that the 400 DO will do the job of a 500 or 600 for you. IMO It will not. You can spend some time with the lens, and arrive at this conclusion yourself.
If someone already has this lens and cannot afford anything better, of course they can still make good photos with it (photographer makes the photos not the lens), but if you have other options those will give better results.
If you want something light you will get much better results out of a 300 f/2.8 MK II with series III TC's, both 1.4X and 2X.
good luck
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
it seems to me you are trying to convince yourself that the 400 DO will do the job of a 500 or 600 for you.
I'm not looking for the 400 DO to do the job of my 600 f/4 II lens. I've had the 600 lens since the summer of 2012 and I absolutely love it. However, there are times when a shorter focal length would be useful; lighter would be nice too.
If you want something light you will get much better results out of a 300 f/2.8 MK II
That is exactly what I'm considering. I'm going to have CPS ship me one to test. I've owned the 400 DO since 2007 and I've enjoyed it as a great "walk around" lens. However, you (and others) are teaching me how to look more critically at image quality, especially sharpness. I can see that getting tack sharp is important with bird photography. I haven't obsessed about it before but now I am.
-
Super Moderator
The 300 f/2.8 MKII is a gem. All of the images in the article below were created with that lens, since you own a 1DX the AF is still super fast with the 2X III, that means you have a usable, super light, 600mm f5.6 combo when your 600 II is not at hand. I would not hesitate in getting one if you can. It is a very popular lens, even if you don't like it you can sell it quickly with little loss.
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...wls-of-ottawa/
-
The only lens that I would replace this lens with is the 200-400mm lens.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll consider it. However at 10.4 pounds the 200-400 is heavy! It weighs only 1 pound less than my 600 f/4 II. In contrast the 300 f/2.8 II weighs 7.6 pounds. That is almost as light as my 400 DO. Still, the range of focal lengths from 200-560 would make it more versatile, so I will consider your suggestion. Thanks!
-
There is always the question- sharp enough for what ?
I agree! I've been skeptical of obsessing too much about sharpness. However, I'm increasingly selling large prints. When you print a bird photograph 6-feet wide you will notice if it is not tack sharp.
-
The question is do you rotate the image so that the sand line appears a perfect horizontal?
I debated that too. However, this image is square with the horizon line, it is just that the beach was sloping.
By-the-way, you can see the horizon line in the reflection in the birds eye.
-
Wow! The owl pictures are stunning!
I noticed that all of the pictures were taken at f/4. How often do you use the 300 f/2.8 II wide open?
Were you using mice as bait to lure them?
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 12-22-2013 at 09:17 AM.
-
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by
Henry Domke
Wow! The owl pictures are stunning!
I noticed that all of the pictures were taken at f/4. How often do you use the 300 f/2.8 II wide open?
Were you using mice as bait to lure them?
Hi Henry,
I had to stop down for a bit more DOF because the owls were close to us, you can use the lens wide open even with a 2X TC. And yes we used bait (feeder mice) to attract the owls.
best
Henry Domke thanked for this post
Reply With Quote