Interesting. I got my copy last week and went through the same process. Need to do some more testing, getting the tripod out, but strongly suspect the same cause. I've read on other forums that shutter shock "is a myth" caused by "poor technique". I've been shooting for a long time, and camera shake is not a problem that I usually have - and I can't see why I should now. I even wondered if the OIS was working, but I can certainly hear it whirring away.I was wondering if I had a soft copy and was considering trying another. However, after some controlled testing, it seems like the glass is fine and I'm getting shutter shock up to 1/320.
Any other comments on this phenomenon?
Is yours definitely the Mk2 lens (maximum aperture at the wide end 3.5)? I ask because the ropey 100mm+ performance you mention is widely recognised as a characteristic of the first version of this optic, while the second is much more consistent across the range.I recently picked up this lens and find it pretty good from about 14-100mm ish but then I cant seem to get anything sharp at 140mm no matter what I do.. even with the camera sitting on a table with @ 1/640 it is never sharp, ive tried full auto and full manual with manual focus and its pretty much the same result..
Does anyone seem to have a noticeabley soft copy at the long end?
this is a crop of the centre of an image I took this morning from around 8m from target, camera (EM-5) resting on a table, Power OIS disabled, IBIS enabled, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1250 Manual mode and manually focussed right on the spiky leaf point on the centre of the image
Changing to auto mode or different settings in M doesn't seem to make any difference really and the rest of the non cropped image is even blurrier away from centre.. is this normal for a 'compromise' telephoto type lens or does it seem too soft and blurry even taking that into account?
Usually I cull all my holiday snaps by viewing all the OOC jpgs in Windows Photo Viewer first, deleting all the ones that look blurry or out of focus maximised on a 27" monitor as I find this generally eliminates the images that cannot really be improved PP ... almost none of the images I have taken at 120-140mm made it through the culling process while about 95% at lower FL's were fine.. I know its not anything approaching a scientific method but the results seem a bit biased to put it mildly