I don't know who took this, but it's everywhere.
This is Sky Sports Italia. You can prob translate the caption...
This is Sky Sports Italia. You can prob translate the caption...
No, not movement, though that was my first thought. It's been my hobby for 40 years, so I've used many different lenses, but this is twice as long as anything I've previously used. I've got plenty of with and without shots, and the difference is clear. This was from the same spot in my garden a few days ago:That looks like movement rather than blur?!
I love, love, LOVE the 100-400mm btw. Not my sharpist lens, but incredible range in such a small body.
I had a similar issue with a polarizer on a Minolta 80-200. It wasn't motion because I tried with a tripod as well. Everything seemed slightly out of focus with the polarizer, but in focus without, and also in focus on manual. I wondered if the filter somehow affected the AF readings, but I don't know how.Any preferences on here here for using / not using a UV filter on your lens at all times? I've always put one on for protection, so when I noticed a mark (luckily, only a splash) on my brilliant new Canon RF 100-400m glass, I bought an admittedly cheap filter.
It was awful on the long zoom - the camera is a Canon R7 with an APS-C sensor, so we're talking about a 640mm equivalent. I've attached with/without pix for comparison, will send the filter back and do without. I suspect any filter would degrade the image quality at that magnification, but I'm surprised how much.
In hindsight, I had a similar problem with another lens about 10 years ago, and I’m now wondering if that was also the filter!I had a similar issue with a polarizer on a Minolta 80-200. It wasn't motion because I tried with a tripod as well. Everything seemed slightly out of focus with the polarizer, but in focus without, and also in focus on manual. I wondered if the filter somehow affected the AF readings, but I don't know how.