January 27, 2015, 04:21:33 PM

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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 83
46
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 31, 2014, 07:06:01 PM »
Hi everyone!

This site has been a daily read for me, and the forum has been very useful in researching gear, so I thought I'd give back and share a gallery I put together of shots from the 100-400mm Mk II.

http://www.photosbyadamlee.com/Other/100-400-II/

I had the Mk I for 4-5 years and I loved that lens. I got a lot of really nice photos with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was soft at anything wider than f/8. I tried 3 copies and they were all the same.

I sold the Mk I a few months ago in anticipation of the Mk II being announced. I was hanging out for the TDP review before pulling the trigger on this lens, but a 10% off Boxing Day sale sealed the deal for me.

I'm really happy with this lens. The AF is fast, even with the 1.4x extender on, and the sharpness wide open is impressive. Certainly night and day when compared to the Mk I IMO.

Welcome to CR! Thanks for posting so many shots and leaving the EXIF on them. They are all very sharp. How did you process them? Were they jpegs or RAW? What sharpening did you do?

47
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 31, 2014, 01:17:19 PM »
I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar.

That's because they're both very close to "perfect" (diffraction-limited).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although, it sure looks like the zoom is quite a but better on crop (I know - 7DII versus 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Hmmmmmm...seems the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper...
Hi,
    On full frame, the 400mm f5.6L seem a bit sharper, but on crop, the 100-400 II look sharper. Too bad TDP don't have the test shot of the Tamron 150-600mm for crop camera...

    Have a nice day.

I did not know that lenses change sharpness qualities FF vs crop. Hmmmm.

They certainly do. The sharper the lens, the less the loss of IQ on going from FF to crop. DxO does a good job in comparing the same lens on different bodies if you can navigate their site, and TDP gives quite a bit of information. A lens like the 300/2.8 does really well on crop but a softer one like the old 100-400 takes quite a hit on going from FF to crop.

48
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 31, 2014, 10:49:59 AM »
Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end.  I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need.  I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm.  The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John

Just about everyone who has reviewed the Sigma has complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use - not only is it heavy but the heaviest part, the front lens elements, protrude out very far unbalancing an already heavy lens. The beauty of the Tamron 150-600mm and now even more so the 100-400 II is their portability combined with pretty good IQ.
I wouldn't say they complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use.  Actually, they used it hand held and certainly noted its weight.  I am one of the few with the 150-600S and have only used it hand held.  Sure it is heavy, but I've gotten used to it.  It is a heckuva lens.  Believe me, I am tempted by the 100-400II because of its size and MFD, but so far I am sticking with the 150-600S. 

Bryan's reviews are almost always reflective of my own experiences.  If he loves the lens, I have little doubt I would too.  My only issue is that I really wanted more reach than 400 mm.  So, I am watching the IQ and the AF performance of the 100-400II +1.4TC.  But all that time, I am shooting and liking the 150-600S more and more.

If you can afford it, get both. I cart around as well the 300/2.8 II, which is of similar weight and volume to the Sigma (but with better balance), for when I want the best resolution on kit that can be hand held by me. But, the 100-400 II is just so much easier for travel, much lighter for hand holding and so good that it is more of a pleasure to use. And it takes the 1.4xTC so well that it is competitive at longer f.

The 100-400 II has 4 1/3 stops stabilization (according to TDP, and in my experience too) whereas the Sigma has only ~2.5 according to lenstip (Sigma doesn't state a figure). I bet your image jumps around a bit when you are holding the Sigma at 600mm with IS on - I found it did with the Tamron which has about 3 stops IS. The image is rock solid with the 100-400 + 1.4xTC or the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on my 5DIII.

49
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 31, 2014, 09:00:57 AM »
You should stick with your 70-200 + 2xTC if that's your preferred option. There's not much I can take with my 100-400 at the moment over here, but this is my local Robin waiting for his birdseed. It's pretty dark, iso1600 at 1/125s f/5.6 100-400mm II on 5DIII. There is no direct light on him to give contrast. It's a real 3D bird close up, about 3m away, so not all of him is in focus (I focussed on his eye).

50
The formula is close to correct.  It is just approximating that the image focussing from 50x away is close to the focal length.

51
Bruce in Philly
You write in your blog that the target for FoCal, according to Canon, should be 50x the focal length away from the camera. You then go on to write that: "You will need a larger target for long lenses."  Surely, a target 50x the focal length away from any lens, be it wide angle or telephoto, will give the same size image on a sensor since image size = (object size)x(focal length/distance away), and (focal length/distance away) = 1/50 for all lenses. So, you need the same size target for all lenses.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 30, 2014, 04:29:50 PM »
I am interested in practicalities based on experiment. My basic query to myself over the last week or so has been: for routine lightweight telephoto use, do I use my new 100-400mm II on my 7DII or the 100-400mm + my 5DIII + 1.4x TC III? Bryan of TDP has the 5DIII marginally better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

and I find the same from my own extensive tests with my particular lens and cameras. But, the difference is pretty small. Both out-resolve the bare 100-400 on the 5DIII. Based on my current usage, I would only ever use a high MP FF in its crop mode for bird photography, and the rest of the pixels would be wasted on me. For, the remainder of my photography, I am not pixel limited and so higher MP wouldn't interest me anyway.

53
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:14:35 PM »
I was expecting this lens to beat the 400mm f/5.6 at 400mm but Bryan says IQ is similar. Not much of a saving space wise in one's camera bag either.

Yet one cannot ignore the seemingly superb AF system or the zoom capability.

I need to think long and hard now.

Coming from the 400 5.6L to this lens, I can say the 2.5 inches makes it feel quit a bit shorter in the bag. I can pop my 50mm lens in the extra space now. I love the versatility of this lens compared to the 400 prime. Haven't shot enough birds yet to see if the AF is that much faster or same. The biggest difference between them is the IS. I shot last weekend in heavy cloud cover and was shooting in 1/160 to 1/320 shutter speeds, which would have been messy with the 400 prime, unless on a tripod. The pictures blew me away as I am so used to high ISO or blurred images in the past in those situations.

+1
I have been taking photos of small birds a meter away in bushes at 1/20 s hand held. Try that on the old f/5.6. First, you couldn't get nearly that close and for further away targets you would have to go 4 stops higher in iso to get to a fast enough shutter speed.

54
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 30, 2014, 03:07:59 PM »
Mr. Carnathan certainly loves Canon!

Too bad this lens is sharpest at the wide end.  I have a 70-200/2.8 II that fills that need.  I was hoping for very sharp at 400mm.  The new Sigma is looking better and better.

John

Just about everyone who has reviewed the Sigma has complained that it is too heavy for hand-held use - not only is it heavy but the heaviest part, the front lens elements, protrude out very far unbalancing an already heavy lens. The beauty of the Tamron 150-600mm and now even more so the 100-400 II is their portability combined with pretty good IQ.

55
Anyone else have problems with the latest version of Focal and OS Yosemite for the Mac? I upgraded to calibrate my new 7DII with Focal on a MacBook Pro, and the program kept crashing.

56
Focal works well. I have used it for all my telephotos on 7D, 70D, 5DIII and most recently on the 7DII.  Obviously, it's best value if you have several lenses and bodies.  For cheapness, a cross on the side of a box and a ruler sloping at about 30 deg works and is not too tedious for one lens and one body. 

57
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 26, 2014, 01:47:58 PM »
"Lubitel" is meant to come from the Russian "Lubyitel". meaning amateur, dilettante, connoisseur etc. But, I reckon it is a portmanteau word derived from the Russian "Lublyu", I love, "tel", telephoto.

58
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 26, 2014, 03:38:14 AM »
I read CR first.  Lots of key points come up, like don't put in the CF card sideways into your new 7D II, which aren't in the manual.  Then Google. 

59
Lenses / Re: Lens 'resolving power' vs sensors.
« on: December 25, 2014, 11:40:55 AM »
If you listen to salesman they'll try and scare you into believing you'll _need_ new optics.  Be careful.  They want the sale and don't care about reality or truth.

I see that plenty of people have provided an explanation of sensor resolution.  jrista's sensor resolution list is correct.

From my perspective and many years of looking at USAF Resolution Test Chart results (scroll down to "Resolution in Photography" on the right side of my blog - http://photosketchpad.blogspot.fr/) that APS-C/FullFrame sensors are currently the limiting factor to resolution for lenses shot from wide open down thru f/11.

Said succinctly, commercially available optics are more than sufficient to the task when matched to any new Canon Wonder Camera of around 50mpixel.

Hello experts.
I keep hearing that current Canon lenses are not 'good enough' for newer/better sensors. I would really appreciate a lesson on how this works.
Thx...

There are some less sharp lenses that perform tolerably well on full frame (eg the 100-400mm L version 1) but are not nearly as good on crop, whereas some lenses like the very sharp 300mm f/2.8 perform very well on crop. DxO mark quantifies these differences in their measurements, and you can see the degradation in IQ of the softer lenses on the TDP site tests. I have found the same in my own experience. Are you saying that this is all nonsense and that the sharpness of current lenses is of no importance as they are not the limiting factor in resolution?

60
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 24, 2014, 05:43:25 PM »
TDP has just published image quality of the 100-400 II on the 7DII. The quality is remarkable for a crop, and the 100-400 II on the 7DII at 400mm (fov = 640mm) and f/5.6 is actually better than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm f/8 on FF.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

At 300mm (fov = 480mm) f/5 it beats the Tamron at 500mm f/6.3 on FF.

This squares with my own measurements of the 100-400 II on the 7d II vs the 100-400 I on the 7D, where the new combo wins hands down (my 100-400 I was admittedly soft).


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 83