Hope your close-ups with the Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 are better than mine: This male monarch butterfly was dead in our yard. I placed it on a mum plant and took photos on M with my...

Barn Owl

This male monarch butterfly was dead in our yard. I placed it on a mum plant and took photos on M with my RF6 and my Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. Yes, I used a tripod and no wind was involved. Shutter speed: 1/125 sec-- Aperture13. I was definitely disappointed with the softness of the images. The second photo is what I deemed necessary in an attempt to rescue the pic. I used PS 2024 >Filter>Stylize> Find Edges….and several ranges with Hue/Saturations.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Curious, what's the color space in the first image?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Do you have a filter on it?

I have a different brand 100-400. It was expensive so I put good quality a "protective" UV lens on the front. For a year I felt the images were soft. Once I got rid of the filter, images have been sharp!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Barn Owl wrote:

This male monarch butterfly was dead in our yard. I placed it on a mum plant and took photos on M with my RF6 and my Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. Yes, I used a tripod and no wind was involved. Shutter speed: 1/125 sec-- Aperture13. I was definitely disappointed with the softness of the images. The second photo is what I deemed necessary in an attempt to rescue the pic. I used PS 2024 >Filter>Stylize> Find Edges….and several ranges with Hue/Saturations.

Perhaps diffraction with such a small aperture.
Try wide open.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

It appears to me that the flowers just above the head of the butterfly ARE in focus better than the insect. I'm guessing the focus type was off. A spot focus was called for.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I don't see a problem with the lens

Barn Owl

bsprague, Thanks for your response. I have made it a point not to use a filter.

Barn Owl

Architect1776, I was wanting both the butterfly and the details in the mums.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

You need to be at the f16/f22 end of the least and that is the best you can do with macro or close up.
Close up is putting the "in focus range" in fractions of an inch.
You might want to explore some of Mike Moats info. He has a lot of free info.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Barn Owl wrote:

Architect1776, I was wanting both the butterfly and the details in the mums.

Then accept some diffraction degradation.

MJPerini

As has been pointed out above, many of the flowers look much sharper than the butterfly, so at minimum it is mis- focused. That doesn't mean that there is no fault in the lens, So the best thing to do is set up a test shot that is similar to try to figure out if center point focus would fix it or if there was more vibration than ibis could handle.
Also try f/8 or f11 to rule out diffraction
If you can nail it down with photos as proof, Canon may be able to adjust your lens, but you have to rule out operator error. My experience is that you get much better help from the techs if you can be very specific.
They get lots of 'my lens is not sharp" requests with no backup, and most are user error.

rcarol

Barn Owl wrote:

This male monarch butterfly was dead in our yard. I placed it on a mum plant and took photos on M with my RF6 and my Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. Yes, I used a tripod and no wind was involved. Shutter speed: 1/125 sec-- Aperture13. I was definitely disappointed with the softness of the images. The second photo is what I deemed necessary in an attempt to rescue the pic. I used PS 2024 >Filter>Stylize> Find Edges….and several ranges with Hue/Saturations.

Is it possible that you violated the close focus limitation of the lens? I have this lens and I find it incredibly sharp. Admittedly, I have not photographed anything as close as you have.

rcarol

rcarol wrote:

Is it possible that you violated the close focus limitation of the lens? I have this lens and I find it incredibly sharp. Admittedly, I have not photographed anything as close as you have.

Since posting the above response to your original post, I took a photo of some of the medicine bottles on my bathroom counter. It was taken at 100mm and I photographed it at the minimum focus distance of the lens. I think this image has no artistic value but it is sharp.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rcarol wrote:

Since posting the above response to your original post, I took a photo of some of the medicine bottles on my bathroom counter. It was taken at 100mm and I photographed it at the minimum focus distance of the lens. I think this image has no artistic value but it is sharp.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Barn Owl wrote:

This male monarch butterfly was dead in our yard. I placed it on a mum plant and took photos on M with my RF6 and my Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. Yes, I used a tripod and no wind was involved. Shutter speed: 1/125 sec-- Aperture13. I was definitely disappointed with the softness of the images. The second photo is what I deemed necessary in an attempt to rescue the pic. I used PS 2024 >Filter>Stylize> Find Edges….and several ranges with Hue/Saturations.

First shot is focused on the flowers, not the Monarch.