Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?

« on: May 23, 2013, 10:00:17 AM »

The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster.  Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight.  So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.

While not as straight forward as some postings would indicate, the basic fact that a typical flat black object will reach a higher temperature  in the sun that a typical white painted object is correct.  The black traps more of the suns energy, the white reflects it.  That is why things like propane tanks are painted white.  You can verify this yourself on a sunny day.  Put one hand on some ashphalt surface and the other  on same grass alongside it.  The asphalt will be much hotter than the grass, guaranteed.

Near-white concrete will also feel far hotter than grass. Try it - also guaranteed. The transfer of heat is far more complicated than just colour.

2

Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?

« on: May 22, 2013, 05:04:20 PM »

The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster.  Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight.  So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster. 

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 20, 2013, 06:23:31 AM »

Someone please explain this f/8 brouhaha to me: my 5D3 + Kenko 1.4x tele-extender + 400 & 70-300 auto-focus (at f/8, pre-firmware update) all day long. I just downloaded the firmware update and will install it later today, but I've been auto-focusing just fine at f/8 for some time. Am I missing something?

The Kenko locks up the 5DIII when used with the latest generation telephotos, and you have to remove the battery to restart.

4

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 02:38:57 AM »

 If you are not doing professional work and you are travelling light on vacation, take an SX50 and enjoy your trip without any worries.

5

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:57:19 PM »

Carl
The kingfisher is only 300 pixels high and 190 pixels at its widest! I didn't sharpen it at all. Here it is again with moderate sharpening with USM at 1 pixel and 100% at a 100% crop of 439x438 pixels^2. I made a mistake with the exposure for this and had it at 1/5000 s and iso 1000. At 1/500 s and iso 100 I could have sharpened it more with low noise. Attached is something more representative, a 739x534 100% crop of the head of a sparrow at iso 640, 1/1250 s and f/5.6 with the the 2x TC on the 300mm.

6

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?

« on: May 16, 2013, 12:19:54 PM »

I originally did not like the idea of a push-pull design, but have changed my mind after using my 400L for a few years.
Some of the advantages that this design made available when it was designed are:
 
     Short Storage length, shorter than the 70-200mmL
     Close focusing, for filling a frame with small birds which often let you get close.
     Is has worked for me down to 1/20 sec, far better than the IS on my 400mm f/5.6.
 
 
Newer lens technology now allows for shorter lens designs, better IS,  all with close focusing.  I'd certainly welcome a new model that  had those attributes, push pull or not.  I'd prefer the smallest one, whichever it is.
 
My 400mm f/5.6 is too long to easily store, and won't focus closely, plus a lack of IS can be a issue for stills where light in not its best.  Having to use a high shutter speed requires high ISO's unless I have bright light.

+1

7

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 16, 2013, 12:06:47 PM »

Carl
See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0

The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.

8

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:32:45 AM »

Finally, nothing special - just a photo I took over the weekend at 600mm and f/5.6 of a kingfisher. The bird is just a small blob in the centre. A 100% crop gives a reasonable photo. With the 100-400 or the 400mm f/5.6, it would just have been a blur as a crop.

Well, as far as I am concerned, the lens was worth the price as the improvement over existing lenses was more than incremental. And, it is good enough for me and I shan't be buying the 200-400mm or the bigger whites. But, a new 100-400mm might tempt me!

9

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:26:32 AM »

Normally, I use the 2x TC for bird photos. You'll see from these examples that it was opinionated twaddle that all 2x TCs are rubbish. The pair here are of a Dunnock. The first was taken last year with the 100-400mm on the 7D. It was the best of 10 shots and passable, but the fine details are lost. The second is with the 300m x2 at f/5.6 on the 5D III. Both are 100% crops.

10

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:20:24 AM »

The sedge warbler was taken as a jpeg with no sharpening or processing. The next are all from RAW files form my 5D III, with minimal sharpening and noise reduction. This pair of full size then 100% crop are of my grandson playing cricket last weekend. I used the 1.4xTC and f/4. Every shot was focussed spot on. For those of you who don't know cricket, the boundary is quite a distance from the wickets and you need a super telephoto lens.

Again, the full image reduced to 1200x800, followed by a 100% crop. This is a good 420mm lens for sport.

11

Lenses / What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:14:09 AM »

Justin, after some forthright comments from me, challenged me to do a review of the 300mm f/2.8 II. I am not up to writing a review but I will say why I bought the lens and give a few examples of how it has performed for me. Perhaps this thread will encourage others to submit their thoughts and photos.

I drifted into bird photography after going on safari 3 years with a 7D and brand new 200mm f/4 L IS, then progressed to a 400mm f/5.6 L and then 100-400mm f/5.6 L. After a birding holiday in Brazil, I was introduced by a Belgian to the birdpix.nl site where I submitted photos. Most were rejected for being too soft, and I was astounded by the quality of the mainly Dutch amateurs with their big white primes, usually 500mm but with the occasional 600mm or 400mm f/2.8, plus teleconverters. I needed to upgrade my gear.

After much thought and studying all the websites I plumped for the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is not the favourite lens of bird photographers, for my personal following reasons. Firstly, I do not use a tripod but always do hand held as I like to wander around with my camera swinging from my hand or sit in a hide.  The 300mm is far lighter than the big 400, 500 or 600mm and is very easily carried all day. It is heavier than the f/4 400 DO but that is the same price and has little better IQ than the f/5.6 400mm and only two stops of IS. Secondly, the Canon MTFs and the TDP tests showed that the lens was exceptionally well matched to the new 1.4x and 2x TCs. So, the 300mm with the 2xTC is an exceptionally light and effective 600mm lens, and f/5.6 isn't too slow.

I collected the lens from Jessops on a Saturday morning a year ago and immediately rushed out before AFMAing and took some bird shots. The following full size (reduced to 1200x800 for uploading) and 100% crop from the middle (800x880) was about the 10th photo I took and just blew my mind as I had got no where near this quality before. It is of a sedge warbler collecting insects for its nest - 300mm, f/2.8 Canon 7D. I'll follow these with examples with the 1.4x and 2xTC.

I hope these show that the 300mm f/2.8 II provides us with outstanding 300, 420 and 600mm primes.

12

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:53:49 PM »

I spend too much time editing scientific articles, and it can spill over.  OK, I'll write a "Perspective" some time on how the 300 mm f/2.8 II transformed my photography. 

13

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:07:39 PM »

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there. 

14

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:28:13 PM »

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about. 

15

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:36:53 AM »

Andy Rouse is such a great photographer that he would have got equally superb shots from the 100-400mm L as the lens wasn't being pushed to its limits of resolution.