oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Your pre-shoot checklist is more important than the shot because without it you won't get the shot.
Practice until it is automatic.
It won't take long

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

Again, thank you to everyone. I will post some pictures soon but this AM shot some sparrow sized birds in shade conditions, iso 800-1600, 5.6-6.3, which kept my shutter speed from 1250 in shade to 2500 in sun. Big difference! For these shots I was 20-30 feet away.
I am not as steady nor are the birds as I thought!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

If you really are at 50-100 feet from your subject, then you should have a DOF of 1' to 4' and you really wouldn't have to worry about DOF being the problem. So it must be that either you are not steady with your hand holding, or you've got a soft copy of your lens or a problem with your camera body. I'd try using a tripod next and see if things become a little sharper. If not, time to send it to Canon and have them give the lens and body the once over. I doubt it would be a micro adjustment since at 50' and f/5.6 your DOF is 1'. A micro adjustment compensates for the lens being off by 1/16" of an inch or less.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

OK, I am a Nikon shooter---I'm over on the "dark" side. However I shoot a lot of birds. As noted 50' from a robin is too far unless you have a 500-600mm lens. If you want feather detail you MUST fill the frame with the bird--or at least be near to that. You cannot crop heavy (30%) and expect to get great detail. Especially if you want those little feathers such as facial fuzz or the fluffy stuff around an owl's eyes. The skill is getting closer, then a bit closer. Tripods are almost a must but so is getting the bird in the right light. Shadows generally kill detail, but too bright light burns out the whites. It all takes practice. Keep notes on settings and compare results until you get what you like.

Happy shooting.

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

I will second this. The brand of your lens is not an impediment to sharpness--holding still is the key. Even at 1/1000 or 1/4000, a tripod is going to help. Get as close as you can. Even using the shooting protocols I have been known to get blurs. Also make sure that you are right on focus--a tad off can make a difference.

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

Your images should be sharp. Generally, the lower the ISO, (e.g., ISO 100), the less noise in the image. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. Lack of a tripod may be the problem. Distance from the subject may also be a problem. Also, at significant distance, any motion in the subject, say from a little wind, could blur the image, even with a high shutter speed. Practice should make perfect.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

That's not needed, rude and other things I would go into here!

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

The Canon 400.56 does not have image stabilization. 400 on 70d is 650. Panning moving birds handheld is relatively easy with good technique. With moving birds you would need good light & Fast shudder speed. In the past I have handheld this lens on stationary wild life, but it takes concentration & skill. With a good tripod would be best & easiest. If as you said no tripod is available lean against a tree or prop your arms against a post if it is available I have leaned down & propped the front part of my body including forearms & the camera on a large flat rock to keep steady. The problem is probably camera shake or movement which requires a method to steady the camera or AF speed that can compensate for that movement or both. Bab

merrittbtuhh Loc: Dallas, Tx

Hello, that's one of the sharpest primes around. Don't hesitate to use 800 iso for still and 1200 in flight. I use 1/2000 with auto iso for in flight with reasonable success. Merritt

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"The pictures I see on UGH appear to be much sharper than mine. I have not been able to test my lens for microadjustment to the camera yet. No tripod until I get home."

To begin with, I am not a Canon user but the lens you are referring to is a very nice optics from what I know.
Sharpness depends more on you than on the lens. I have repeated here several times that any lens will do its part if we do ours.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I appreciate everyone's input. After yesterday's experiences shooting, shutterspeed was my primary problem. I can see that I am going to need a good tripod in the future, or at least a new head. My Manfrotto 190 has been adequate in the past, but that was shooting with a 200 mm or shorter.

Bob Boner

Are you judging sharpness in a raw file or a jpg converted in camera. All raw files need to be sharpened to get maximum sharpness. Sometimes jpgs do too. The equipment you are using has excellent reputations. I have the 400 and it is an outstanding lens. Have you tried shooting from a tripod? Monopod?

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

You said it, ese. The Reconquista is right here in California.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I was looking at JPGs converted in camera but looked at on an HD TV (32"). Because I am in SoCal without a computer or a tripod, I was making a judgement using the tools I had. After shooting yesterday with shutter speeds of 1/1600 and faster, the improvement even on a TV monitor, was quite obvious. The good news is that I feel my camera and lens are more than adequate, it is the shooter (me) that is inadequate.

Kuzano

If you are really testing the sharpness of a lens (or at least it's potential for sharpness) you DON'T do that by hand holding the lens. Particularly a very long telephoto.

You put the lens on a tripod and turn off the VR or IS (stabilization) and you shoot at a focus target on a tree or wall at 25 and 50 feet. That takes you out of the equation and test the lens/camera only. Also you trigger the lens with a remote... no touchy here.

What you are testing is the worst possible scenario... the camera, a long lens (can you say heavy) and you holding this all at eye level with your spindly arms. No intent to insult here. Face it.. all arms are spindly with 3-4 pounds of equipment held at eye level.

Then you're trying to slowly press the shutter, throwing a vertical movement into the mashup of potential shake.

You are not testing the lens. Testing the lens would be as close to absolute stillness as you can get... ie, a very sturdy tripod, perhaps with some extra weight attached under the center column, the center column at it's lowest height, and a remote trigger/shutter release.

We always want to blame the lens. Well remember this, your camera also has a low pass AA filter in it that functions to smear the sharpness anyway. The camera industry has been putting these low pass filters in front of the sensor for years now, on the DSLR bodies.

Only now are the manufacturers taking the Low Pass Filters OUT of the cameras... (Canon is the latest to join this movement)

So for some years in digital we have been paying godawful dollars for good lenses with great sharpness and hanging them on the front of camera's that intentionally smear the sharpness just a bit.

So, first, really test just the lens...tripod and remote release and focus target (can be bought on the internet)

2) Consider a move to a camera that does not "fuzz" the focus with an AA filter to deal with a largely nonexistent problem .... "Moire Patterns".

All of Nikons most recent offering have NO low pass or AA filtering.

Other manufacturers like Olympus, Pentax, and Sony even beat Nikon to the removal of low pass AA filtering.

Canon... MEH!... slow on the uptake.

This post all deals with seriously, how sharp do you want your images to be. You buy sharpness with big bucks and proper decisions on equipment.

Then, you do not compromise it by skipping the most important piece of equipment... a sturdy tripod.

Snap shots are shot hand held

Fine, high quality images are shot with the most stable base for your camera and lens. That is not you.