This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Really? At $2,800 without the $600 viewfinder I think your point is misplaced. Why wouldn't any camera with a 135 sized sensor put out 135 format IQ?
my mom used to say.. "old pan makes good food!"Well, as Moms usually are, I am sure she was talking about heat transfer from the pan base. Moms are reluctant to take credit and as a result transfer the credit elsewhere.
My theory is that Moms make good food in any pan, or wok or pot or... whatever...
BTW, the same goes for photographs. I am not saying that the pan - oops, camera or lens does not count. The person behind counts more. Naturally, the ingredients count even more...
I would expect image quality to be "stunning" even with the extender in place. I know it is just me...but I do not "get" a lens of this configuration at this cost factor. I guess it gives pros good versatility in certain situations.
...but at that cost with an extender switch..sounds like the lens could be open to some serious maintenance situations down the road. Not trying to be negative...just standing back and scratching my head, based on what I know about photography. It is interesting, to say the least.
actually, I know a lot of bird and sports shooters that would love to have this lens. it's pretty much the ultimate long lens in terms of flexibility, first between having the 200-400 zoom range, and then being able to throw in a 1.4x extender without having to unmount the camera, attach the extender, and then remount the camera.
@infared: Thanks a lot. Yes, time will tell us. So, while the 16-35 is out there, that's a way to go. I wouldn't buy the nikon plus adapter. So I might purchase the classic L WA by summer and see what happens. If I wanna go UW for stars, there is still an 14 f/2.8 MF Samyang at a decent price, to provide as much as exposure value as possible while applying 500/600 rule for moonless nightsky shots.
First thing you need to do is get your lens and camera up to the latest firmware. The lens has to be sent back to canon for the fw upgrade but I would say its mandatory. The image does look like the camera has front focused quite a bit. The front face of the rock seems pretty good. Overall I agree with others that a little post sharpening in DPP or photoshop would fix this image right up. At ISO 100 you can sharpen quite a bit and lot lose IQ.
Regarding DOF, that lens should be tack sharp wide open regardless. Stopping down some can help mask focus errors. Camera AF systems have improved but accuracy is not 100%. When you can stop down a little, do it to improve your keeper rate. I still have to shoot 6 shots or so and pick the sharpest one out of the batch.
Regardless of that the image here should be much more in focus. Send the camera and lens back to canon and let them iron it out. For those of us that are nit picky about focus there is a great tool called Reikan FoCal which will allow you to do your own focus calibration. I use it with all of my lenses and it works quite well. The pro version gives you nice charts and reports as well as the ability to run aperture sharpness tests so you will know at what aperture produces the highest resolution.
You have a great set up. I'm sure the fw fix will take care of the problem as it addresses some AF issues.Hello,
I have a 5d III and the 300mm 2.8 II.
According to test this combination should crate fantastic sharp photos, but I have really big problem that to get sharp pictures.
I normally use the center focus point as single focus point.
I realized that objets that are more than 10 - 15 meters away the hit rate is very low.
I did go through the AF menu from A-Z but I found no solution. AFMA made everything only worse.
I attached one picture of many, that are all no really sharp. ISO 100, 2.8 1/4000
Does anyone of you has similar problems. With my other lenses I never had such problems (70-200 2.8 II, 24-105 4, ...)