loss of sharpness 100-400 using R5 and adapter

[bobbieturner1]

I have been noticing my bird shots are not as sharp as they use to be using the Control ring mount adapter EF_EOS R for the 100-400L vii lens. I decided to do a test comparison between the R5 and the 5Dm4. I kept all settings the same on both cameras. When I manual focused I used the LCD magnifier to be exact. At first I thought it may be the lens. But comparing between both cameras, I definitely see I get sharper photos with my 5D! Are we losing something when we put the adapter on? see the photos below. Is it the adapter? communication? 

[Canoncan59]

Owning 5D 3 and 5D 4, I am disappointed in my R5, at least handheld in comparison. Ive done mechanical shutter and electric. All tested with this lens. R5 are the least sharp. Tried IS on and off. At 100% crop the first one of a burst is not bad , but the focus seems to go softer after that. Adjusted settings as per some pro bird photographers. Using back button focus with mf-on, plus eye tracks no on the * button. Focus grabs fast on the 5r but soft

[Canoncan59]

Quick update I went out again today and this time my buddy and I switched lenses, with our R5s. I took his RF 100-500, and he took my 100-400 with my adaptor. ( he’s had no R5 issues) As predicted all hand held , his were softer than he’s used to, and mine were the best I’ve taken with my R5. Note we were shooting outside and in freezing temps of 12 degrees. So our camera shake may even have been exaggerated. Bye bye 100 to 400 , just ordered the RF 100 to 500. I understand not everyone has that luxury. 

[johninbigd]

Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

[Waddizzle]

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

[johninbigd]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

---

I don't have this particular lens. I mostly use Tamron and Sigma primes and I do not use an y filters. Here's what I have:

* Tamron 35mm f/1.4
* Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 85mm f/1.8
* Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2

I get fantastic results with these lenses on my EOS R. They're crystal clear and sharp. I've yet to get even one single shot on the R5 with any of my lenses that comes close to the shots I get on the EOS R. It's very troubling and I'm not sure what to do at this point.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@johninbigd wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

---

I don't have this particular lens. I mostly use Tamron and Sigma primes and I do not use an y filters. Here's what I have:

* Tamron 35mm f/1.4
* Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 85mm f/1.8
* Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2

I get fantastic results with these lenses on my EOS R. They're crystal clear and sharp. I've yet to get even one single shot on the R5 with any of my lenses that comes close to the shots I get on the EOS R. It's very troubling and I'm not sure what to do at this point.

---

https://edit.photography/canon-r5-sensor-misalignment-issue-confirmed-no-sharp-images-with-any-lens/

Maybe give Canon a call. 1-800-OK-CANON

[Canoncan59]

Jury is in for me. Tested my RF 100-500 , today without the 1.4 RF tc. That’s next. No comparison to my 100-400 II. For me the R5, 100-400 II PLUS 1.4 III, and the adaptor. Was not a winning combination. 100-500rf was. 

[jwolfe]

I have a new R5 and am disappointed with the sharpness of the images. I had very sharp images with my 500 mm f/4 L and also the 100-400 mm L lenses. Now with same set up, using tripod ,spot focus on birds. Tried with Image stabilization on and off on the lens. Tried with iso from 100- 4000 and none are as sharp as with my 5d mark IV. Canon has suggested than Llightroom Classic may be problems with converting from CR3 to DNG so I did several shots with CR3 and opened in DPP4 but images still not sharp.  I have seen posts stating that some R5's have sensor misalignment. I sent my R5 back to Canon Repair faciltiy about 2 weeks ago and they are still evaluating. Has anyone had their Canon sensor repaired by Canon? Very frustrating!

[johninbigd]

---

@jwolfe wrote:

I have a new R5 and am disappointed with the sharpness of the images. I had very sharp images with my 500 mm f/4 L and also the 100-400 mm L lenses. Now with same set up, using tripod ,spot focus on birds. Tried with Image stabilization on and off on the lens. Tried with iso from 100- 4000 and none are as sharp as with my 5d mark IV. Canon has suggested than Llightroom Classic may be problems with converting from CR3 to DNG so I did several shots with CR3 and opened in DPP4 but images still not sharp.  I have seen posts stating that some R5's have sensor misalignment. I sent my R5 back to Canon Repair faciltiy about 2 weeks ago and they are still evaluating. Has anyone had their Canon sensor repaired by Canon? Very frustrating!

---

I wanted to do this, but Canon wouldn't help me because I only have Tamron and Sigma lenses and couldn't prove that I wasn't just having a problem with them, perhaps some incompatibility with non-Canon glass and the R5. Perhaps they're right. I'm not sure. I need to borrow or rent some EF or RF glass to do some testing. Otherwise, Canon won't do a thing. So, for the time being, I'm stuck with a camera that is really nice to use but that produces subpar results. Or I just use my EOS R and get superb results. Getting the R5 has been a pretty bad decision, so far. A pretty expensive mistake, at least until I can figure out this problem.

[wq9nsc]

I could understand misalignment being the issue if part but not all of the image was sharp due to the lens not being perfectly parallel to the sensor.  But I would expect a small selected focus area, typically used when using a telephoto lens, to be perfectly sharp and in focus since a claimed advantage of mirrorless is the image sensor also functions as the focus sensor so the micro adjust feature of DSLR bodies isn't necessary.

If the camera is providing good results with some high quality glass but not with others is odd.  It will be interesting if Canon divulges more about what is going on with sensor misalignment and if it is actually a manufacturing issue with the sensor itself if nothing is perfectly sharp.

Rodger