Common Grackle (I think) at local Zoo

[dalethorn]

If that lens was not capable of being focused at 200mm, then they probably would not have sold it. It may not be the sharpest lens in the world, but if a shot is in focus on a soft lens, it is still obvious that it is in focus, and with digital you can sharpen it up even more if need be. Being 400mm equivalent on that camera body, sorry if I missed a detail, but perhaps camera shake was the problem.
Anyway, I reccomend buying a good sharp lens, that way you can't blame your equipment.
This was shot through my back window with Canon 70-200 2.8L IS.

Thanks for that.  This topic and what precedes it goes back a ways.  From the beginning, the lens can't auto-focus even as well as the 420 mm (35 mm equiv.) lens on the P&S Panasonic FZ-50.  It's a crappy lens, and the whole point of this thread (from what I read of Jeremy's posts) is to attack the messenger rather than the message.  The conspicuous absense of mention in both DPReview and Cameralabs' thorough reviews, at a time when it was only one of two lenses available, and thus very important, tell a lot.

[dalethorn]

One fact that's conveniently forgotten by Jeremy and others is the "feature" that Pana set in the G1 to prevent you from taking the photo when the camera "thinks" it isn't in focus.  This occurs in autofocus even when the camera is resting on a solid support, and pointing at a still object 20 ft. away. Once you turn that feature off, the trouble starts. Perhaps Jeremy thinks that that's a good feature, but it sure shows design intent. As I said previously, "functioning as designed."