March 06, 2015, 02:56:16 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 - Plainsman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:50:11 AM »
Wow! LR confirms that the 400DO centre is sharper than the new 100-400II by as much as the 100-400II is sharper than the 100-400I. Take that which way you want!

I've always known that my 100-400I was sharp and Roger Cicala's test proves just that. So doubtful whether I will sell it for the newer one now as I never crop at the corners!

BTW this is the first time I have seen quantitative MTF measurements for the old DO - thanks Roger.

Lenses / Re: 400mm DO II
« on: December 19, 2014, 07:20:40 AM »
Huge improvement over Mk 1.  The fact that Roger is using new test charts makes it impossible to really compare it to other lenses, but, still, it is significantly better than the 100-400 II and 400 DO I.

I would expect that with Canon's perseverance with DO that this will be a hugely improved ens - I mean a really sharp relatively lightweight 400.

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 12:57:59 PM »
Looking at the crops compared to the tamron. They both look about the same at 400 f/5.6 the canon looks better in the corners at 560 than the tamron does at 600. If I didn't already have the tamron then I would get the canon.

Maybe you should wait for the Sigma 150-600 C version. With more LD lens elements it should outperform the Tamron but would be roughly the same weight and price.

It should be very good in the 400-600 range. We shall see - this time next year!!

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 12:30:41 PM »
Looking at the crops compared to the tamron. They both look about the same at 400 f/5.6 the canon looks better in the corners at 560 than the tamron does at 600. If I didn't already have the tamron then I would get the canon.

Comparing both old and new 100-400@400/5.6 the new version as you would expect is very slightly ahead of the old one in the central region - but really nothing much between them.

Optics is one thing but you also have to consider built in robustness as well and this is where the old one wins with the front lens assembly sliding outwards over a single rigid tube - far better than the telescopic design now back in favour.

Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:57:21 AM »
I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype.  It appears the hype was justified: picture quick off the mark.

Looking critically at the crops it seems to me that the Tamron 150-600@600/8 is a tad sharper than the new Canon @560/8. Given the advantage of not having to mess about outside adding/removing TC with ingress of dust etc the Tamron is worth considering - if you want to go beyond 400. Nevertheless this is a fine optic from Canon and for those wishing for a new 400/5.6 forget it - it has arrived in another form.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm II - first impressions
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:19:39 PM »
Sorted out the problem why 400 mm seemed soft. The focal length of the 100-400mm at that distance from the target was 370mm, compared with a true 420 for the 1.4x300 with the prime. The smaller focal took the size of the central rings of the chart below what could be resolved. So, I repeated the shots at 400mm (= 370mm) closer to the target so the image is the same size as that from the 420mm. The rings are now very nicely resolved (phew!). Here are the comparisons with my usual procedure. RAW, DxO 10, PRIME noise reduction, exported into PS. On the left there is zero sharpening, on the right 0.9 px at 100% USM.

I am much happier now. at what distance did you actually take your readings?

If the effective focal length is reduced from 400 to 370 it looks as if it is at close range.

8-10 m

I'll check out the focal length at infinity soon.

Thanks Alan but really I would not bother doing an infinity check - its a Canon so its bound to be as stated on the lens!!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron distance
« on: December 12, 2014, 02:01:32 PM »
Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals reports that the Tamron 70-200 only gives 183mm at the long end which is pretty bad for a reputable lens maker!!

Third Party Manufacturers / Tamron distance
« on: December 12, 2014, 05:15:25 AM »
Just done an image size check of the moon this morning at 600 and the same at 400 on both Canon 100-400 and the 400/5.6.

Image size for the Canons was the same but the Tamron was almost exactly 1.50 times bigger i.e. with the Tamron at distance (say beyond 100m) you get the full 600mm. Obviously this falls dramatically with multi element zooms as your operating distance gets down towards close focus.

Brian Carnahan quotes a figure of 570mm but does not say what the calibration distance was.

The 400 DO could be one heck of a sharp lightweight big prime - being Canon's second stab at it.

I mean an ultra sharp 400 and a very good 560 with 1.4X TC - probably far better than the 300/2.8II at 600 with 2xTC.

We shall see in due course.....

Moon shot @600/6.3/50D....fairly low in the sky and picking up some air turbulence:

The new 100-400 looks good on MTFs but when we get the reviews I suspect it will be reported that image quality falls off "slightly" at 300-400 just like the Nikon 80-400VR.

In fact with your 70-200 you've actually covered the range from 70 - 280 with a very good optic. For 280-400 get the current 100-400 classic (second hand or stock clearance - taking advantage of the price reduction).

The 135 f2 is only one stop better and could be replaced soon with an IS version. So maybe you need to have a rethink and certainly not make a move until you see some reviews.


OK, I know it's versus a Nikon, but even so: the Sigma 150-600 at 600mm easily beats the Nikon 300/2.8 + 2xTC!

Looking at the Sigma's superb MTFs measured by lenstip on a 5DIII, I can believe that. If only it wasn't so heavy, it seems a remarkable lens.

ps more detailed in

They also noticed some focus breathing...I am hoping at longer distances, this will not be much of an issue.  That is one item I am watching (I have not yet canceled my pre-order).

Also, I know it is heavy, but the way I look at it:
EF 300 f/2.8 plus 2x TC with hood: 100 oz
150-600S: 101 oz

Bottom get to 600 mm, you will be carrying some weight. That does make the Tamron and, assuming here, the 150-600C, remarkable.

The reviewer states specifically that there is focus breathing at 9 feet, and the Sigma is only on a par with the Nikon at that distance. But, at 50 feet there is insignificant breathing (as yu would expect) and the Sigma beats the Nikon.

I can't wait to see side-by-side comparisons of the new 100-400L ± 1.4xTC, Sigma 150-600 S and C, Canon 300/2.8 II + 2xTC and Tamron 150-600mm.

Actually it said at 40ft and 600/6.3 it is razor sharp i.e. a huge improvement from the close focus (9ft) readings. So extrapolating beyond 40ft this could be an exceptionally sharp lens for mid/long distance photography BIF, aircraft etc. Hope so!

So reviewers please try and check this lens out at more realistic distances.

Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 14, 2014, 11:40:00 AM »
Throwing this out there for the sake of discussion, but is anybody worried about the performance of this lens?

My thought process is this.
- 4x on a lens does lead to some inherent difficulty in getting an ultra sharp shot throughout focal range
- extended time in between lens generations, including a delay in what was supposed to be the debut date earlier this year, suggests that there might be manufacturing QC issues, or at least difficulty in improving IQ

Canon publishes the MTF curves of this lens as well as the old one, and you can clearly see the curves are better on the new one.
The IS has been modernized, lens coatings are now updated to eliminate reflections off digital sensors, even if IQ wasn't a whole lot better, it has a lot more going for it.
That close MFD means I can put on a 1.4X TC and get some close ups of small creatures, flowers and birds like Hummingbirds that are not so shy.
The major US camera stores have a 30 day return policy, and often longer for Christmas items, so there is no risk except for return shipping cost.
Unlike a body that is obsolete in 2-4 years, this lens will be the current model for 10 years, probably 15.

...have you looked a the MTFs for the 400/5.6?

Not very good are they - yet this is a highly rated little lens even today.

My point is you should not judge a new lens which is not even in the shops yet by its MTF

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II Sample Images
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:08:20 AM »
...we should not get to excited about this lens before a lenstip type review.

Basically this is the Nikon zoom in white - expensive and I guess not all that sharp.

Technical Support / Re: 60D Front Focusing
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:58:49 AM »
Since you're wondering, my lenses are (all Canon) 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. The issue seems consistent across all of them.

Gotcha! With thin dof (i.e. probably more expensive) lenses, Canon wanted you to use a more expensive camera body like the 7d and removed afma on 50d->60d. Thanks, Canon!

They re-introduced afma with the 70d. If all your lenses show the same behavior it seems they are rather Canon-"standard" and your camera body is off. You can ask Canon service for a cost estimate, but with the 60d it's probably not "worth it". An equivalent solution would be to sell your 60d (to people with slower lenses) and rather put the service cost into buying a 70d.

...or buy the 50D (real bargain)...or sell the lot and switch makes.

It was the most stupid thing Canon ever did to deny the the 60D AFMA - marketing nonsense.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10