Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: May 03, 2013, 04:07:24 PM »

To all,

Thanks for all your suggestions.  After going through extensive testing, I felt it had to be a problem with the lens itself so I sent it to Canon in late April.  It was returned early last week, and the difference is phenomenal.  I'm finally getting the results I should have gotten in the first place: very sharp images and a significant increase in the number of keepers.

According to Canon, "It was found that the adjustment of the circuit board was incorrect causing inaccurate auto focus." 

Before the adjustment, I was getting about 10 percent keepers.  Now, I'm getting about 70 percent.  The 30 percent I end up deleting are mostly repeats and/or poor technique (excitement causing vibration) with probably 30 percent of those due to an actual miss in focus.  This is probably more in line with how the lens should perform.

Wade

2

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 14, 2013, 10:01:12 PM »

To all,

Here's an image of the Moon I took a few moments ago.  I was in manual focus using LiveView at 4X.  It was still bouncing around a little which made precise focusing a little difficult. It appears the lens in manual focus is fine.  It's AF that's a little whacked. 

Wade

3

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 14, 2013, 09:07:06 PM »

To all,

Thanks for your suggestions.  I'll redo the AFMA, perhaps something similar to neuro's.  At this time, I have it set to 0 which is pretty close to the original calculation from FoCal of -1.  Is it possible to set the AFMA through Canon's software?  It would be ideal to be able to do this as any touching of the camera during the calibration process is going effect the results (i.e. slight changes in distance to target).

I have used the lens/camera assembly attached to a Gitzo GT5541LS/Wimberley Gimbal Tripod Head II in manual focus.  I tried LiveView at 10X, but touching the focus ring resulted in too much movement.  4X seems to work pretty good though.  What experiences have you all had at an 840mm focal length?  The manual focusing results were not as sharp as I would expect from this lens; however, they are better than what I'm getting with AF.

I'm not sure if the problem was heat currents.  Towards the end, the cabin of the truck had pretty much acclimated to the outside temperature; nevertheless, I'll keep this in mind the next time I go out.

I'm still a little concerned about the multiple catch-eye signatures in the second photo.  Individually, they are tack sharp.  There's no way I can move fast enough (i.e. operator error) in a 1/3200 second of exposure to produce five or more catch-eyes on the target.  It's a very strange, but interesting phenomenon.

Wade

4

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 11, 2013, 09:59:12 PM »

To all,

One final note, I believe the catch eye in the second image points to a potential problem.  There appear to be at least five individual catch eye spots.  They all appear to be tightly focused (i.e. near pinpoint).  Typically, if it is user error, the catch eye will drag across the eye or become every blotted. It almost makes me believe there is something happening with the motors inside the lens despite IS being off.  I can't see how you can have five or more focused catch eye spots within a single 1/3200s exposure.  Any thoughts?

Wade

5

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 11, 2013, 09:51:47 PM »

I appreciate the clarification.  I figured it was likely degrading the focus so I made certain during these images that the focus ring was not resting on the bean bag.  Nevertheless, there may be times where it did make its way back onto the bag.

I also forgot to mention I used FoCal for microadjustments and this combination came out to -1; however, I'm beginning to wonder if it was a valid result.  In addition, IS was off the entire photo shoot.

Wade

6

Lenses / Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 11, 2013, 09:31:57 PM »

To all,

I've been having a difficult time getting sharp images with the Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS II USM and the Canon 1.4x EF Extender II.  Basically, I shoot from my Toyota Tacoma with the lens/camera combination resting on a BLUBB (bean bag).  I turn the vehicle off while taking images.  I've tried where the focusing ring is on the bean bag and not on the bean bag.  Will the movement of the focus ring during AF impact the overall image quality?  That is, is the focus ring turned off during AF?  I've tried placing my hand over the tripod foot, over the hood and under the hood for added stability.  While looking through the view finder I find the had over the hood appears to work best.  I see very little if any movement during this phase.  I took around 600 images of the eagle, and saved only 17 marginally sharp images.  This is a terrible hit to miss ratio.  I have attached several images to show the common out of focus images.  What's really interesting is the strange catch light pattern in the eagle.

I've tried every AF combination and AF pattern available on the Canon 1Dx to no avail.

It is possible that the problem lies with me (i.e. poor technique); however, I've read several articles relating to  proper super-telephoto techniques and try following them as best I can.  If anybody lives near Pendleton, Oregon and is an expert at proper super-telephoto techniques, I would enjoy your company for an afternoon along the Foothills of the Blue Mountains.

Thanks,

Wade

7

Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2

« on: January 25, 2013, 04:10:02 PM »

"It's fantastic for astrophotography too."

It is funny how opinions differ 

http://www.welsh-house.net/andy/review200f2.html

I believe the author was a little naive in thinking that the lens would not have to be stopped down for astronomical purposes.  Stars are the ultimate challenge for any lens.  In fact, every lens has to be stopped down between 1 and 2 stops to get good stars in the corners.  As a result, the 200mm f/2.0 still has a speed advantage after stopping down, and the four inches of light gathering ability is nice too.   

Wade

8

Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2

« on: January 25, 2013, 04:03:42 PM »

Fantastic shot of pugsley. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 ii but that sharpness beats it. Seems to me the advantage of the 200 f/2 is that you are potentially getting three lenses in one: a great lense for indoor sports or low light photography, a good portrait lense and with an extender a more than adequate medium telephoto (up to 400mm f/4) for outdoor sports shooting.

Thanks! Yes, it is a very versatile lens; however, its only weakness is its weight. It can become quite heavy after several hours of hand-holding.

Wade

9

Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2

« on: January 24, 2013, 09:28:34 PM »

The 200mm f/2.0L is an awesome lens.  I have both lenses, and I use the 200mm significantly more than the 135mm.  If you can afford it, there is only one choice -- the 200mm. 

It's fantastic for astrophotography too.

Wade

10

Landscape / Re: Quantarid Meteor Shower

« on: January 12, 2013, 01:27:20 PM »

To all,

As promised, here's the composite taken with the Canon EOS 24mm f/1.4L stopped down to f/2.8.  Each image was taken with a Canon 5D2 at ISO 3200 for 15 seconds.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!

« on: January 10, 2013, 09:17:29 PM »

Here are a few of my better shots.

Wade

12

Landscape / Re: Post Your National Park Photos

« on: January 10, 2013, 09:06:22 PM »

Several from Yellowstone National Park

13

Landscape / Re: Quantarid Meteor Shower

« on: January 10, 2013, 08:55:37 PM »

To all,

Here's a composite of several frames taken from Emigrant Hill near Pendleton, Oregon. The camera is "looking" northwest.  It was pretty chilly at 18F.  I was a little disappointed in the numbers, especially after viewing the Geminids in December.  I used a Canon 1D-X at ISO 6400 with the Canon 14mm f/2.8L stopped down to f/4.0.

Wade

P.S.  I'm finishing up a composite taken with the 24mm f/1.4L stopped down to f/2.8. I had it pointed northeast so it captured more meteors.

14

Landscape / Re: Geminids over Pendleton, Oregon

« on: December 17, 2012, 10:06:06 PM »

I can't get this image to open.  Get an error message with both PS and Windows Photo Viewer.

That's weird.  Try right-clicking on the image, click on "Save Image As" and save it to your desktop or some other folder, and then opening it in your preferred picture viewing software.

Wade

15

Landscape / Re: Geminids over Pendleton, Oregon

« on: December 17, 2012, 10:02:53 PM »

Really nice work. I live about 30 miles from this spot.

Thanks! It's a small world.  I drove about three-quarters up Emigrant Hill on County Road 937 to setup my equipment.

Wade