April 20, 2014, 03:53:42 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - jasonsim

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13
46
Maybe something wrong with your 70-200.


...or maybe with your 100-400.  ;)

The 70-200 II + 2xIII is sharp, it's that the 100-400 is a little sharper @ 400mm, and the 400/5.6 is a little sharper still.  As for a 'bad copy', TDP tested three copies of the 70-200 II, and none of them with the 2xIII beat the 100-400 @ 400mm.

Copy 1

Copy 2

Copy 3

I like Artie, but the thing to keep in mind is that his blog is there to earn money for him ("Please remember to use our links") and the ~$2500 70-200 II + TC combo will earn him more than the other options. 

It seems like several of his posts are actually comparing the 70-200 II + 2xIII to the 400/5.6 prime, and favoring the former for IQ. I'd have to declare shenanigans on that...


I can no longer trust the TDP ISO charts, since my experience with certain lenses is opposite what his charts say.  Example was my Canon 200mm f/1.8L lens.  Mine was super duper sharp, sharper than my 200mm f/2L IS was.  But his ISO charts indicate that the sharpness was very bad (just look at em).  There is sometimes sample variations and so...  he's also using a 1Ds III, which well, I don't think can stand with the 5D III or 1Dx sensors.

My 100-400mm was indeed sharp, but the AF was not nearly as fast as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + extenders.  Sharpness wise, I think they are at very least on par.  So why bother keeping another big lens around.  A similar situation was when I compared my 600mm II + 1.4x with my (now sold) 800mm bare.  Even the 600mm II + 2x was sharper than the 800mm bare and I thought my 800mm was a good copy.

I had a 400mm f/5.6 also.  It was sharper than the 100-400mm, but sharpness is not everything.  The 100-400mm and the 70-200mm have much better color saturation and micro contrast.  Simply put, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II is the sharpest telephoto lens by Canon.  It has fluorite elements while the other two do not.  Its AF is the fastest of any zoom.  And it has the latest gen IS.  Why not take advantage of that tech slap a 2x III on it and be done. 


70-200mmII + 2xIII @ 278mm . 1/1600 s . f/5.6 . ISO 400 . +2/3 EV

47
I'd probably get rid of your 100-400 though, as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the 2x III is better at 400mm; especially on a 5D III. 


My 100-400 @ 400mm is better than my 70-200 II + 2xIII @ 400mm.  Not massively better, but noticeably better.  That's also consistent with TDP's ISO 12233 crops.


Not only me saying this, but Arthur Morris (birdsasart-blog.com) says the same thing and gave the same advice.  The 70-200mm II even with extenders has more resolving power.  Maybe something wrong with your 70-200.


 


Kind regards,
Jason

48
Good choice Andreas!  The 600mm II + the extenders are great for birding.  I'd probably get rid of your 100-400 though, as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the 2x III is better at 400mm; especially on a 5D III. 

As far as hand holding...yeah for a few snaps...I'd suggest a sturdy monopod and tripod.  Even hiking around with the 600 and a monopod can be challenging. Oh and get a gimbal head for it too.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 6D
« on: July 05, 2013, 10:48:08 AM »
*subscribed*

 :D

I have the same decision to make (though coming from an even older 500D)...

I like portraits, and a bit of landscape, but with young kids, sports carnivals, running around at parties, love animals at the zoo,etc.. it just seems other than the top of the line cameras, I have to make a choice and compromise what I want to shoot.

I invested in the 15-85 EF-S which is a great lens, but to go to a 6D I would have to get a 24-105 which is an additional cost as well and from some comparisons I have seen the IQ between then (on the same camera) is quite similar..

I was hanging out for a 7D2, but the more I read it is a real unknown when it will be available and it will also be a top of the line crop with alot of extras I don't need, for a lot more cost. hence thinking I should choose between the 70D and 6D.

If you like your 15-85mm EF-S IS lens (I had one and enjoyed it), then I would go with the 70D.  If the improvements to hight ISO materialize, I too might be interested.  Like you say, the 7D II will be much more especially if they make it with a built in grip (a la 1Dx).  The only thing that worries me about the 70D is the AF performance; I hope it is better than what was on the 7D.  There was no mention if there are any double cross type points in the 19 point array.  That make a big difference when tracking birds in flight. 

50
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 04, 2013, 11:00:39 AM »
Dylan, 

Here is a shot taken with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III on a 1Dx.  It shows some inflight action.  I would say this combo is very usable. 

If you already have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, I would recommend getting a 2x III and try it out at 400mm.  You will be surprised by it's performance.  Faster than a 100-400mm and the IQ is better.

Regards,
Jason

Wow...that is an amazing photo with x2 TC III Jason. Thanks for sharing. Will take your advise and try out x2 TC III on my 70-200. I heard nothing but "WOW & AMAZING & RAZOR SHARP & LIGHTING AF" about 300mm version II.

This could be my next lens ;)

Thanks Dylan.  It is a really great lens and so is your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  Happy shooting!

51
wonder what the used market prices for these will be like in a years time

$40 - 75

Honestly, who knows.  Don't buy it to resell it in a few weeks or months time.  Buy it to use it!

52
Just ordered me one of these with the 22mm lens.  Thanks CR!  Now need to sell my RX100.

53
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 03, 2013, 12:21:27 PM »
Dylan, 

Here is a shot taken with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III on a 1Dx.  It shows some inflight action.  I would say this combo is very usable. 

If you already have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, I would recommend getting a 2x III and try it out at 400mm.  You will be surprised by it's performance.  Faster than a 100-400mm and the IQ is better.



Regards,
Jason

54
Could this mean they are coming out with a new version of the EOS M?

55
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 03, 2013, 01:23:43 AM »
Hi Dylan.  I will look to see, if I have any examples of the AF on a moving subject.  If I don't I would suspect that the AF is very good using the combo mentioned:  5d III + 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 2x III.  I say this because my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x III has no trouble with AF at 400mm.  Here is an example of that combo on a 5D III:


400mm . 1/1600th . f/6.3 . ISO 400

56
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 02, 2013, 08:30:33 PM »
Loving my 300 f//2.8L IS II.  It is so light weight and short compared to the bigger great whites.  And it works well as a 600mm f/5.6L:


 


I did also have the 300mm f/2.8L IS v1 and did enjoy that one too...just it did not take the 2x extender very well.

Congratulations on your new lens!  You will love it!

Kind regards,
Jason

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Gitzo tripod or no?
« on: July 02, 2013, 01:39:57 PM »
I have three Gitzos, a series 2 explorer, a series 2 Basalt w/center column and new series 4 systematic with 4 leg sections.  All have been great and will last a very long time.  They are extremely serviceable and most camera shops will carry them and might have replacement parts on hand.  The new systematic line truly sets the gold standard with innovative features.  After all, RRS modeled their top tripods after the older Gitzo systematic. 

RRS is a great product, I have plenty of their stuff:  two ball heads, clamps, plates, monopod, etc.  They are sexier / prettier to look at, if that is possible to say about a tripod.  They also have slightly better load maximums in their respective series.  These things come at a price premium of course.  I am sure no one is going to miss that once in a lifetime shot because they were not using a TV-34L and instead using a GT3542LS.  :-) 

With the rebates, there is argument that Gitzo could be a better value.  Just depends on what you feel is worth your hard earned money. 

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual Pixel Liveview Autofocus
« on: July 02, 2013, 08:41:49 AM »
Does it have AFMA?

59
Lenses / Re: $1000 .. what to buy
« on: June 17, 2013, 01:05:07 PM »
If you don't need f/2.8 in a wide to normal zoom range, I'm inclined to suggest the new 24-70 f/4L IS, which has some decent macro capability.  Especially, if you are not certain macro will be your "thing".

Short of that recommendation, the 100mm Macro is a great lens and can double at a head & shoulder type portrait lens. 

--Jason

60
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 28, 2013, 11:11:28 AM »
Some from a recent trip to South FL.  Enjoy!


 

 

 

 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13