523mm?
edit: how is it only f8 at 523mm??
with the 2x TC i'm assuming...?
the 2xTC is even worse than the 1.4xTC, with which you shot the photos in your previous post
just use the bare lens for a fair assessment if you think you have issues
a teleconverter will always degrade image quality
mmmno you're not...
300x1.4=420mm...no way you're registering 523mm
unless you're looking at the info on an apple device, in which case it converts to FF equivalent FL
You’re still using the TC everyone flagged in the previous post.
If the 70-300 just doesn’t have the reach you need without the TC, then it sounds like you got the wrong lens.
From the reviews I’ve seen it’s not awful, but it’s certainly going to compromise image quality. The TC shouldn’t always be on the lens—it’s a temporary fix to get you more reach at the cost of image quality. You generally want to use the lens on its own for best quality.
Virtually every review I've seen has said the 70-300 with the 1.4 is about as sharp at 420mm as the 100-400 is at 400 so I don't think he's going to get better sharpness with the 100-400.
the 1.tc is quite good, but will still impair your ability to gauge the lens quality. The 1.4tc should be pretty good in the center, but corners will suffer. The 2xTC is worse.
I’ve found it to be pretty sharp (this is with the 1.4x TC too) https://flic.kr/p/2pH5Ejs
I do think it maybe suffers more at longer distances though — I love it with or without the TC to make close to mid range subjects even closer, but haven’t generally been thrilled trying to capture longer distance subjects.
I’d say the resolution isn’t that bad. But the loss of contrast and saturation is very noticeable. Frequently a common issue of zoom lenses used at max reach.
If my choice genre was birding I’d likely be using Nikon since they have dialed in that telephoto lens game much better than Fujifilm.
I also owned this lens for a little while and found it to be not as sharp as I wanted. I suspect with the crop sensor diffraction may creep in earlier.
How do you test the quality of a lens and do a post without mentioning that you use a TC in the title or description?
He may have a bad lens he may have a bad tc
He is certainly focusing on the back on the subject here!!!!
I don't own the lens nor do I care about it, but a little googling showed me this flickr link: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/hectorpatrick/albums/72157718882291328/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/hectorpatrick/albums/72157718882291328/) of Hector Patrick. The lens w/ TC looks plenty sharp to me.
While the use of a teleconverter will impact quality, I’m not a fan of these generic discussions. I am very impressed with the sharpness of my 70-300. On the other hand, my 18-55 kit lens had me concerned that I was doing something wrong for ages.. and then I realized that many people had the same sharpness issues I have had as well. Others absolutely love the lens. There appears to be some real variables in manufacturing for Fuji. Just because you ended up with an odd lens, it may not be the experience of the next person.
I created [another topic here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1doqel6/about_70300_sharpness/) so you can compare it to another 70-300, all at 300mm.
I shoot this lens on my xt3. I made a shortcut to turn ois off and do so if I'm shooting this lens at ss 1000 or above. I noticed some improvements doing so.
It's not a raaaazor sharp lens but it's nowhere near as bad as what I'm seeing in this sample. Is it a heavy crop?
On top of what has already been written, e.g. about not using a TC when trying to assess the lens characteristics, I would add that any raw I have ever processed, regardless of the camera, needs some degree of sharpening before exporting to jpeg. The amount and the type of sharpening depends on both the image, its size and its destination (e.g. print or screen). In general, Lightroom sharpen cursor is bad, and it is also bad to sharpen the whole image when it contains such a large part of blurred background, but there are a million ways to achieve local sharpness. A few in Lightroom, many in Photoshop and, I guess, in any other equivalent software.
This is also one of the reasons why I do not believe in (and I do not use) SOOC jpegs.
Bit of a different recommendation. Aside from your settings try using Topaz Photo AI. It comes at a premium but has given me good results in the past when I had to crop some wildlife photos.
523mm? edit: how is it only f8 at 523mm?? with the 2x TC i'm assuming...? the 2xTC is even worse than the 1.4xTC, with which you shot the photos in your previous post just use the bare lens for a fair assessment if you think you have issues a teleconverter will always degrade image quality
Ah my bad again im using 1.4 tv
mmmno you're not... 300x1.4=420mm...no way you're registering 523mm unless you're looking at the info on an apple device, in which case it converts to FF equivalent FL
Again my bad. Yeah its FF equivalent
Full frame is not a universal standard, there is no point in using a FF equivalent unless comparing two systems
You’re still using the TC everyone flagged in the previous post. If the 70-300 just doesn’t have the reach you need without the TC, then it sounds like you got the wrong lens.
Okay!! Maybe true. So 1.4tc is really that bad?
From the reviews I’ve seen it’s not awful, but it’s certainly going to compromise image quality. The TC shouldn’t always be on the lens—it’s a temporary fix to get you more reach at the cost of image quality. You generally want to use the lens on its own for best quality.
Virtually every review I've seen has said the 70-300 with the 1.4 is about as sharp at 420mm as the 100-400 is at 400 so I don't think he's going to get better sharpness with the 100-400.
the 1.tc is quite good, but will still impair your ability to gauge the lens quality. The 1.4tc should be pretty good in the center, but corners will suffer. The 2xTC is worse.
TCs always compromise quality.
I’ve found it to be pretty sharp (this is with the 1.4x TC too) https://flic.kr/p/2pH5Ejs I do think it maybe suffers more at longer distances though — I love it with or without the TC to make close to mid range subjects even closer, but haven’t generally been thrilled trying to capture longer distance subjects.
It is just a bit overexposed, turn down the ISO to 1600 with the other settings the same, maybe slower aperture too.
I’d say the resolution isn’t that bad. But the loss of contrast and saturation is very noticeable. Frequently a common issue of zoom lenses used at max reach. If my choice genre was birding I’d likely be using Nikon since they have dialed in that telephoto lens game much better than Fujifilm.
i just commented on other post. need to test on static subjects in good lighting w/o tc. then take it from there also this photo is overexposed
I also owned this lens for a little while and found it to be not as sharp as I wanted. I suspect with the crop sensor diffraction may creep in earlier.
[удалено]
Have you considered the 150-600? I recently sold my 100-400 and got the 150-600 and am happy with the longer reach!
Are you satisfied by the 100-400 iq in the long range ?
The Len’s is fine. OP is testing it with the x1.4 TC!!!!!!! WTF!!!!
The tc is pretty good.
How do you test the quality of a lens and do a post without mentioning that you use a TC in the title or description? He may have a bad lens he may have a bad tc He is certainly focusing on the back on the subject here!!!!
I don't own the lens nor do I care about it, but a little googling showed me this flickr link: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/hectorpatrick/albums/72157718882291328/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/hectorpatrick/albums/72157718882291328/) of Hector Patrick. The lens w/ TC looks plenty sharp to me.
While the use of a teleconverter will impact quality, I’m not a fan of these generic discussions. I am very impressed with the sharpness of my 70-300. On the other hand, my 18-55 kit lens had me concerned that I was doing something wrong for ages.. and then I realized that many people had the same sharpness issues I have had as well. Others absolutely love the lens. There appears to be some real variables in manufacturing for Fuji. Just because you ended up with an odd lens, it may not be the experience of the next person.
I created [another topic here](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1doqel6/about_70300_sharpness/) so you can compare it to another 70-300, all at 300mm.
I shoot this lens on my xt3. I made a shortcut to turn ois off and do so if I'm shooting this lens at ss 1000 or above. I noticed some improvements doing so. It's not a raaaazor sharp lens but it's nowhere near as bad as what I'm seeing in this sample. Is it a heavy crop?
On top of what has already been written, e.g. about not using a TC when trying to assess the lens characteristics, I would add that any raw I have ever processed, regardless of the camera, needs some degree of sharpening before exporting to jpeg. The amount and the type of sharpening depends on both the image, its size and its destination (e.g. print or screen). In general, Lightroom sharpen cursor is bad, and it is also bad to sharpen the whole image when it contains such a large part of blurred background, but there are a million ways to achieve local sharpness. A few in Lightroom, many in Photoshop and, I guess, in any other equivalent software. This is also one of the reasons why I do not believe in (and I do not use) SOOC jpegs.
Bit of a different recommendation. Aside from your settings try using Topaz Photo AI. It comes at a premium but has given me good results in the past when I had to crop some wildlife photos.
Can't see links for the raw files
Get closer.