December 21, 2014, 03:34:41 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 - Act444

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:07:13 PM »
Likewise, compare to the 70-300L (similar f4-5.6 aperture range):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

The 100-400 seems to be outperforming the 70-300 here, particularly at 100mm. By 300mm they are quite close, with the 100-400 winning in the corners...

You know (and this correlates with my real-world use as well), the 70-300 really is a bit weak at its wide end...much better once you get past 135mm. At 300mm it's quite good. Contrast with the 100-400, which is strong throughout its range (my test photos confirm this), softening SLIGHTLY at 400mm but still very good.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:02:46 PM »
The 70-200 2.8 ii appears to be better at 100mm. Actually almost considerably better all across the board.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

I think it's more fair to compare to the f4 IS version of the 70-200, being similar apertures:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here the 100-400 certainly is able to keep up (impressive...considering how awesome the 70-200 f4 is)

3
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:42:13 PM »
I'd also like to add, re. handling:

The 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 are almost the same size...according to the stats the 100-400 is 80g heavier than the 70-200 2.8, yet it actually FEELS lighter when I'm using it. I'd say it's probably due to the orientation of the zoom ring in front on the 100-400, it's easier to balance the weight when handholding. I like that better as well....

4
Lenses / Re: How satisfied are you with the 100-400 II?
« on: December 20, 2014, 08:12:34 PM »
Voted 1 - Initial satisfaction is same level as when I first used my 70-200 mark 2.  Both lenses exceeded my personal expectations.  Well worth the wait and pre-order "premium price" for me.  YMMV

I wish someone would take some identical comparison shots with the new 100-400 and the great 70-200 2.8 ii at the same focal length. Such as 100mm and 200mm. I'm thinking a lot of peeps with the 70-200 would enjoy seeing that. (Or not, if the 100-400 blows it away!)  :)

Have both, but haven't compared them head-to-head. However - keep in mind, between 135-200mm you're at f/5, a full 1 2/3 stops SLOWER than the 70-200 2.8...the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 5000...

Having used the 70-200 2.8 a lot, though, I know it has excellent performance at 200 - and after test-shooting with the 100-400, it didn't seem to be noticeably better (or worse) to me at 200...

Perhaps this will help, though - a direct comparison at TDP at 200mm, wide open (f/5 vs. f/2.8!!)...seems close to me

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

200mm, Both at f5.6...can't tell a sharpness difference but the 70-200, being a 2.8 lens, has less corner darkening

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

I'd say in less than good light, the ISO difference will have a much larger impact on IQ than any perceived optical difference between the two lenses...

5
Lenses / Re: $600 burning a hole in your pocket?
« on: December 20, 2014, 07:50:20 PM »
If one doesn't mind going 3rd party, a Tamron 17-50 2.8 is probably the best "bang for your buck" for $600 (it could even replace the 18-55 you're currently using and you'd get constant 2.8 and slightly wider angle). I had the VC version (slightly more if buying retail new) and it's a great lens for the money.

If sticking with Canon, I would agree with the suggestions for the 35 f2 IS. If willing to buy used off eBay, the 24-105 f4 also sells for sub-$600 white-box.

6
Well, decision made (sort of).

My local camera store had one (yes!)...so I decided to grab it. I also decided to hold onto the 70-300 for now since I could not decide what to do yet.

First impressions - never had the old version so can't compare to that....that said, tried it out on my 5D3...finally, a true telephoto I can use with that camera! Even with the crappy lighting in my apartment forcing ISO 6400, images still looked quite clear and sharp. Definitely a winner and money well spent :)

I can say this - this is one of those "shoot with confidence" lenses - seems to be consistently strong throughout the range, even all the way open at 4.5-5.6. But for $2K you'd expect nothing less...

The "zoom throw" or whatever you call it - it's very long. Getting from 100 to 400 quickly requires a long twist of the zoom, so for those who want to go quickly between the range, perhaps the push/pull of the old version is better for that. But - at least it doesn't pump dust nearly as much (and precise framing is much easier).

There is a tightness ring that allows you to adjust the resistance of the zoom mechanism. You can also lock it at any focal length. I notice a bit of "zoom creep" phenomenon on my copy when I have it set all the way to loose (in fact, if I point it directly downward, it will "self-zoom" from 100 almost all the way out...) - don't know if anyone else's is like that.

Also - f/4.5 doesn't last for long at all. By 135mm you're already at f/5 (the 70-300 doesn't reach f/5 until about 150ish IIRC)...but you don't hit f/5.6 until after 300mm...so this lens DOES have a 1/3 stop advantage at 300mm over the 70-300. As a bonus, it performs just as well at that setting, so you don't have to worry about any quality difference. Where the 70-300 does win out is on size and weight - there is a CONSIDERABLE difference in handling between the two lenses which should be noted.

I have not tried it on the 7D2 yet...but with the weather outside and the lighting in here, though, it'd be useless anyway.

ETA: also...it seems as if the lens is not truly 400mm when focusing on close subjects? Seems to get a bit shorter...

You will very much like it on the 7D2 -- this pairing was built for one another, it seems.   Had 7D2 for a month, and 100-400 V.2 only a couple days.  So, still playing around with it -- but a very sweet combo, looks like.  I find a faster focus when tracking, for sure, and very little 'hunting' -- I've been comparing it with the 100-400 V.1 and the more I shoot it, the better I like the V.2 --

So I've heard...can't wait to try it out once conditions get favorable enough...

____________

Must say, though, I find 300mm on 7D to already be a good amount of reach, been happy with it...useful for all except the birds in the trees (400 would be nice for those). I mainly got this lens for the 5D3 because 70-200mm just didn't cut it for general telephoto shooting on that...and 300 was still a bit short for me on FF.

I also have the 55-250 STM/SL1 combo for use when traveling light - on the 5D3 the 100-400 seems to VERY closely approximate that range - plus far better IQ to boot. It's a very useful range...

I did not test servo performance, but have no reason to think it would be anything less than excellent given its class.

ETA: Quality update - there IS a slight drop-off in sharpness between 300mm and 400mm. Slight, but noticeable.

7
Well, decision made (sort of).

My local camera store had one (yes!)...so I decided to grab it. I also decided to hold onto the 70-300 for now since I could not decide what to do yet.

First impressions - never had the old version so can't compare to that....that said, tried it out on my 5D3...finally, a true telephoto I can use with that camera! Even with the crappy lighting in my apartment forcing ISO 6400, images still looked quite clear and sharp. Definitely a winner and money well spent :)

I can say this - this is one of those "shoot with confidence" lenses - seems to be consistently strong throughout the range, even all the way open at 4.5-5.6. But for $2K you'd expect nothing less...

The "zoom throw" or whatever you call it - it's very long. Getting from 100 to 400 quickly requires a long twist of the zoom, so for those who want to go quickly between the range, perhaps the push/pull of the old version is better for that. But - at least it doesn't pump dust nearly as much (and precise framing is much easier).

There is a tightness ring that allows you to adjust the resistance of the zoom mechanism. You can also lock it at any focal length. I notice a bit of "zoom creep" phenomenon on my copy when I have it set all the way to loose (in fact, if I point it directly downward, it will "self-zoom" from 100 almost all the way out...) - don't know if anyone else's is like that.

Also - f/4.5 doesn't last for long at all. By 135mm you're already at f/5 (the 70-300 doesn't reach f/5 until about 150ish IIRC)...but you don't hit f/5.6 until after 300mm...so this lens DOES have a 1/3 stop advantage at 300mm over the 70-300. As a bonus, it performs just as well at that setting, so you don't have to worry about any quality difference. Where the 70-300 does win out is on size and weight - there is a CONSIDERABLE difference in handling between the two lenses which should be noted.

I have not tried it on the 7D2 yet...but with the weather outside and the lighting in here, though, it'd be useless anyway.

ETA: also...it seems as if the lens is not truly 400mm when focusing on close subjects? Seems to get a bit shorter...

8
Anyone who has the 400 5.6 and the new 100-400 - which one is superior at 400?

I don't have either but the shots I've seen taken with the 100-400 and 400 both I would say the 400 is superior in sharpness and light transmission.  However the 100-400 gives you the zoom capability.  Though how much are you really going to use it at less than 400?

If you already have the 400 5.6 I would say keep it unless you really need the zoom for what you shoot.

Thanks for the response. I don't have the 400 5.6 or any 400mm lens for that matter. However, I do have the 70-300 (L version).

This is a lens I've been awaiting for a while ever since I started with FF cameras. 300 isn't always enough reach for me on a 5D (it's great on a 7D though). So...I am undecided as to whether to trade the 70-300 in for one of the new 100-400s, keep both, or perhaps another lens such as the 300 f4 which might be useful on the 7D2 for campus animals (they let you get surprisingly close sometimes).

The 400 5.6 would be great...if it only had IS. Since I prefer the freedom of handheld shooting...I've basically written that one off.

9
Anyone who has the 400 5.6 and the new 100-400 - which one is superior at 400?

10
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS Rebel SL1 w/18-55 IS STM $323
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:12:27 PM »
I have the SL1 but it's not my primary camera. However, it is decent enough when traveling light is a priority, or as a small HQ camera to take into events where "pro" cameras wouldn't be allowed, etc...particularly when paired with a lightweight lens like the 28 2.8 IS (or the 55-250 STM if telephoto reach is needed). It's also ideal with the new 24 2.8 "pancake" that was just announced.

In fact, despite having a "fancier" 5D, some of my favorite images were taken with the SL1 

The one complaint I would have is that the dynamic range seems especially limited even compared to other Canon bodies like the 6D. Skies blow out extremely easily and cannot be recovered so have to be careful. A custom mode would have been nice as well, but can't have everything I guess.

Despite those shortcomings though, wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as a second camera or backup. As a primary camera though, I'd probably go for the T5i instead.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d mk2 seems very soft?
« on: November 29, 2014, 07:35:30 PM »
Haven't had a chance to REALLY test out my 7D2 (i.e. at an actual event), but from test shots out and about, sharpness-wise all I can say is that it is significantly improved over the original 7D (which was soft on EVERYTHING), and about on par with my SL1/M. It only "looks soft" if I compare to my 5D3 (which we know is not a fair comparison)...

12
Lenses / Re: With a new 100-400L, is the 28-300L Next?
« on: November 29, 2014, 03:53:24 PM »
The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105.

Or maybe I had a really good 28-300?  I owned two copies of the 24-105, both were very good at the wide end (except for the barrel distortion) and slightly less sharp but still quite good at the long end.  However, the 24-70 II is simply a stellar lens and definitely sharper than the 24-105.

I have experience with multiple copies of the 24-105 as well, and actually saw slight variations in performance too (one had mediocre performance at wide end away from center, another was real good at wide end but meh at 105, and the 3rd (the "sole survivor", so to speak) seems to be the best of the lot (great at 24 apart from distortion, not bad at 105 either). One thing that WAS consistent across all copies is 50mm being the "sweet spot" - the lens is REALLY sharp there...contrast that to the 24-70 F4 where 50mm is the weak link and the difference is obvious even at smaller sizes...

As for the 24-70 2.8 II, I'd agree it's sharper than the 24-105 but it's not perfect by any means...I find it slightly softer at 70mm than the other focal lengths at 2.8...plus, I experience occasional back-focusing with mine in certain situations (which ended up ruining more than one shot) but that's probably for another thread...

I had only one 28-300 so not sure if I had a "good one" or not.

13
Lenses / Re: With a new 100-400L, is the 28-300L Next?
« on: November 29, 2014, 01:22:03 PM »
The 28-300 delivers similar IQ to the 24-105L, and while quite good, after upgrading to the 24-70/2.8 II and getting the 70-300L, I preferred the better IQ of those two lenses and sacrificed the convenience of the 28-300.

Hmm....not quite my experience but then maybe I have a really good 24-105. I picked up a 28-300 at what was then a good price and I found it to be just borderline "good enough" IQ wise...however, the convenience was unbeatable. I remember shooting a two-day event - one day I took the 28-300, the other day taking the 70-200 F4 (and instead using an M/11-22 to cover the wide angle). I was blown away at the quality difference. The 28-300 is hard to beat for convenience but ultimately I decided to let it go mainly due to the IQ sacrifice (and other reasons too).

I think a non-L version is more likely than an L-version replacement. I'd appreciate a smaller, less conspicuous version... I didn't exactly appreciate the excessive attention that lens drew when I used it at public events anyway...

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D II owners, did you need to AFMA your camera?
« on: November 28, 2014, 01:42:32 PM »
My 7D2 was fine with the 70-300L, but the 24-70 (f4) needed adjustment at the wide end (it was front-focusing). Applying a +4 adjustment at 24mm seemed to help a bit, but there appear to be other issues - I'm going to blame them on the lens though, not the camera (because I saw these same issues on the 6D and 5D).

15
Interesting.

This does tell me one thing - the STM version is very much overpriced at this point in time. At $250-$300 it would be worth a look and find a place I think...but as of now you can get white-box Ls for about the same or a little more than one of these new. (For a used one in good condition, even less!)


ETA: Also interesting to compare it to the 24-70 F4 IS:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=961&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 24-70 is better except at 50mm where they are pretty close.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24