Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L - are these sharp?

[twistedphrame]

oh ok I, don't think it was you're english (which is very good), but more me assuming I read things that I didn't haha

[Oren]

Well I agree with part of what you said JJphoto and that's why I want to hear what Nate has to say about it. In the meanwhile what I can say to you is: don't forget that Nate's pictures are not 100% crops of course + he is much more experienced with this lens and birds photography than me + I *believe* that most of his pictures are ISO 400 or below as he suggested and not 800 or 1600 as the 100% crops above + his hands are probably more steady than mine as well [:P]

[twistedphrame]

Well I agree with part of what you said JJphoto and that's why I want to hear what Nate has to say about it. In the meanwhile what I can say to you is: don't forget that Nate's pictures are not 100% crops of course + he is much more experienced with this lens and birds photography than me + I *believe* that most of his pictures are ISO 400 or below as he suggested and not 800 or 1600 as the 100% crops above + his hands are probably more steady than mine as well [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

way to sell yourself short oren [:P]

[JJphoto]

way to sell yourself short oren [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

I agree with that and thank you guys for the explanation.

[Colin]

For a 100% crop, the first picture is definitely sharp, at least some objects are. The roof edge/gutter, whatever that is, is very detailed. The contrast sucks in both, which will make things look less sharp, and the second picture is so backlit that there's not enough light to really give you much to judge.


I think pictures of things in direct sunlight (plenty of contrast, and higher shutter speed) would provide a better example.