October 21, 2014, 03:28:17 AM

Author Topic: Which supertele?  (Read 5631 times)

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2013, 07:27:05 AM »
Apop
I still disagree and have presented the arguments, and will say no more.

Regarding lenses, the 500mm f/4 IS is a wonderful lens, but when comparing fine details of lenses, it depends what series they are. The series II lenses are even better than the I. So:

500mm IS L vs 500mm II
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The series II has a significant edge, and weighs 3190g vs 3870 (vs 2350 for the 300), as well as having 2 stops more IS.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
The 420 combo is at least as sharp, and looks slightly sharper.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

There is not much difference in IQ, but the 600 combo has greater reach, weighs much less, and has 4 stops IS. On the other hand, a series II 500mm or 600mm will outperform the 300mm II plus extenders, have better weights but at a higher price.

So, you pays your money and takes your choice.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 07:32:15 AM by AlanF »
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2013, 07:27:05 AM »

Kerry B

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2013, 08:21:52 AM »
My main interest is photographing wildlife including birds. I have recently aquired a Canon 300f2.8mkii lens and use it with the new mkiii 1.4 extender. Image quality on my 5Dmkiii is awesome and much better than the 7D combo. The full frame body really does make best use of this lens set up. And yes I am fussy with regard image quality.

I would say without a shadow on doubt that the image quality on the 300mm lens with extender on the 5D mkiii is much better than the bare 300mm lens on the 7D. Even when cropping in the image quality shines.

For sports the 300mm is a great lens, for wildlife in general I have found the 300 to be ideal, we all want more length but have to work with the tools we have. Bird photography does call for longer lenses, however I have learn't over the years only to photograph birds which are within reach. Understanding their behavious is a real bonus.

Those persons with super tele lenses such as those in the 500/600mm bracket will always want more reach.

If cost is no issue then go for the bigger lenses, however in my modest opinion the 300mm with and without extenders is giving the best in terms of quality and range.
Canon 5d mkiii, Canon 1d mk1v, Canon 300f2.8 IS mkii, 70-200f2.8 Mkii IS, 24-105f4, 1.4 mkiii extender and 2 x extender mkiii

Apop

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
    • Apophoto
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2013, 08:22:31 AM »
yeah the 300 with 1.4 tc looks very good indeed, but still 40% more pixels on subject with a 500mm lens

I do really like that the 300 with 1.4 tc can still use all the 39 cross type sensors of the 1d mkiv, where the 500 can only use 19 :(


AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2013, 09:19:50 AM »
My main interest is photographing wildlife including birds. I have recently aquired a Canon 300f2.8mkii lens and use it with the new mkiii 1.4 extender. Image quality on my 5Dmkiii is awesome and much better than the 7D combo. The full frame body really does make best use of this lens set up. And yes I am fussy with regard image quality.

I would say without a shadow on doubt that the image quality on the 300mm lens with extender on the 5D mkiii is much better than the bare 300mm lens on the 7D. Even when cropping in the image quality shines.

For sports the 300mm is a great lens, for wildlife in general I have found the 300 to be ideal, we all want more length but have to work with the tools we have. Bird photography does call for longer lenses, however I have learn't over the years only to photograph birds which are within reach. Understanding their behavious is a real bonus.

Those persons with super tele lenses such as those in the 500/600mm bracket will always want more reach.

If cost is no issue then go for the bigger lenses, however in my modest opinion the 300mm with and without extenders is giving the best in terms of quality and range.

+1
I did the same upgrade from 7D, and as shown in bird pictures posted elsewhere in these forums, in practice, the 5DIII with the 300mm II + extenders is as good as the 7D + 300mm II + extenders, despite the extra reach. Neuro finds the same. The really good thing about the upgrade is the far better and faster autofocus on the 5D III.

By the way, I really recommend the x2 TC III as well the 1.4xTC - the extra reach is worth the outlay.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

asmundma

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2013, 06:21:23 PM »
Thanks again, a lot of good views. Any particular experience with 300 and AF speed?
1DX, 5D3, 5D2, 24L, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 100L  f2.8, 70-200L 2.8 II IS, 85L f1.2, sigma 50, 2x600RT

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2013, 06:37:36 PM »
The 300 series II on the 5D III is close to instantaneous.  The 1.4 TC series III is still too fast AF to notice any slowness, and the 2x is still very fast and perfectly adequate for birds in flight. They were slower on the 7D. 
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

BrettS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2013, 07:15:55 PM »
I use the 500L II since about two weeks frequently and exclusively handheld -> works very well for me.

So you took the plunge on "the monster"?

As did I.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2013, 07:15:55 PM »

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2013, 08:04:46 PM »
Apop
I still disagree and have presented the arguments, and will say no more.

Regarding lenses, the 500mm f/4 IS is a wonderful lens, but when comparing fine details of lenses, it depends what series they are. The series II lenses are even better than the I. So:

500mm IS L vs 500mm II
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The series II has a significant edge, and weighs 3190g vs 3870 (vs 2350 for the 300), as well as having 2 stops more IS.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
The 420 combo is at least as sharp, and looks slightly sharper.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

There is not much difference in IQ, but the 600 combo has greater reach, weighs much less, and has 4 stops IS. On the other hand, a series II 500mm or 600mm will outperform the 300mm II plus extenders, have better weights but at a higher price.

So, you pays your money and takes your choice.

Thanks for the link to comparing the Great Whites.

I am still undecided which one (s) to get.

Currently have the 500F4 IS and have seriously considered the 200-400 (if it ever comes out) and a 600 II.  The problem is that 600 II is big and which makes carrying it on a plane and working with in a safari vehicle in Africa a royal PIA. 

The decision is further complicated by Canon dropping the APS-H cameras.  I still shoot 1DM4 on safari and for wildlife when I need reach but other 5DM3 is my goto body.  I'll be borrowing a 1Dx soon so if I loose the 1.3 crop from the APS-H sensor, I may need the extra reach.  I am not optimisitic about the 7D M2 - may be okay but the AF may not be as good as the 5DM3.  We will see if fall (maybe). 

A good buddy has the 400 II and recommends that (400 + 2x has more reach than 500 + 1.4x but according to TDP will be less sharp).  Of course the shorter Great Whites have a closer minimum focus distance which is always nice.

Bottom line: I think this will be a wait and see year for me.  See what Canon does, IF of the 7DM2, 200-400, possibly even new 100-400.  And of course save my pennies so that I can buy 2 (if I save hard) great whites next year.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2013, 08:08:57 PM »
If it makes you feel any better, the 1DX file cropped to the same FOV as the 1D4 file has higher IQ.  You don't lose any reach really, if you shoot RAW.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2013, 11:25:25 PM »
If it makes you feel any better, the 1DX file cropped to the same FOV as the 1D4 file has higher IQ.  You don't lose any reach really, if you shoot RAW.

Really??? 18 MP FF cropped to APS-H (which is a 40% reduction in number of pixels) will equal 1D4, even at low ISO?

How will the 5DM3 which has 22 (or so)MP do?

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2013, 11:30:07 PM »
I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss.  Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2013, 01:28:40 AM »
I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss.  Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.

when you say outweighed resolution loss, what ISO and how large do you print?

cervantes

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
    • Focrates
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2013, 02:09:44 AM »
I use the 500L II since about two weeks frequently and exclusively handheld -> works very well for me.

So you took the plunge on "the monster"?

As did I.

I did indeed. And I'm going to post a detailed report on that soon...  ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2013, 02:09:44 AM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2013, 02:53:43 AM »
AlanF's posts make the most sense to me.  I've tried the 500 f/4 series 1, as I have said elsewhere...and the copy I tried, was very soft, and also didn't focus accurately or consistently.  It was tested and supposedly nothing was wrong.  After this, it seems to me the series 2 are the only choice, if you want a big white lens.

I would suggest the 300 and 600 series 2, plus both series 3 extenders...unless you don't ever want to shoot birds.  This combination gives you 300mm, 420mm, 560mm, 600mm, 840mm, and 1200mm.

For much closer subjects, especially in low light, I would say buy the 200 f/2 and forget the 70-200 f/2.8 series 2.  The 200 f/2 has better color than perhaps any other lens in existence, despite those on here who think it's "not such a special lens".  I'm sorry, but yes it is.  I don't own one at this time.

If you find that you prefer to shoot in low light, but your subjects are kind of distant, then the 400 f/2.8 is the obvious choice.  Say, a person at 100 to 300 feet away.  I have craved this lens, but I think for me the 300 f/2.8 makes more sense.  The FOV at 400mm is going to be too narrow a whole lot of the time, for me.

The 500 f/4 series 2 is best for birding (combined with the 1.4x iii as needed), especially if you need to carry it a long way (lighter and smaller than the 600, and not much less reach).

If you would really like a zoom, wait for the 200-400 f/4, probably released this summer.  It seems to me, it would be incredibly handy...and cost less than buying two or more other lenses covering the focal range from 200 to 560mm.  Of course, it's far from being as low-light-capable, as an f/2.8 lens...especially with its TC switched in.

As for autofocus, I personally opted for the 6D rather than the 5D3.  I have found it doesn't take much tweaking to get very nice servo AF via the 6D.  The thread that stated the 6D wasn't responsive while focusing, is just wrong.  I realize the 5D3 choirboys will hate on this, but I'm just stating my experience.  And yes, I've tried the 5D3.  The 6D seems to excel at servo tracking in light requiring ISO 25,600 on an f/4 lens (with center point selected), and absolutely nails it a high percentage of the time (perhaps 70%).  But this climbs to near 100% if you set the servo for accuracy rather than speed for "second shot"...of course this slows the fps...which is fine with me in these situations.  I would rather have all the shots in focus and not waste time and memory on blurred ones.  So in these situations, slowing the fps by 20 to 30%, doesn't seem like much of a loss.  And this is using a much-maligned series ii, 2x TC (I got it free and don't mind using it at all, on certain lenses.  It does hamper contrast and color, but leaves plenty of sharpness intact...on the right lens.  On the wrong lens, it's not quite acceptable, at best).

I of course admit, in decent light, the 5D3 is the one to have.  Or the 1DX for any situation, if you don't mind it's mass and cost.

I also agree, that the new full frame cameras have increased their resolution more so than it seems they should have.  I don't know if this is due in equal parts to the sensors themselves and to the processing...or if it's one more than the other.  Either way...I'm astounded at how much I no longer need a crop sensor for "reach".  (And please no chiding about how I'm "not the first to notice this"...I know I'm not!).

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1504
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2013, 03:10:01 AM »
I shoot with both the 5DMK3, 1Dx & 1DMK4, primarily wildlife, I use the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 V2 & 600f/4 V2, most used Lens has been the 300f/2.8 V2.

For Wildlife (Africa) it's about where your shooting, South Africa & Botswana more the 200/300 Lenses (More Bush), Kenya & Tanzania it's more the 400/600 (Larger Open Veldt).

I rarely use the 1.4x & 2x Convertors, but when I have I find the V3 Convertors work exceptionally well with the V2 Lenses.

You might want to hold off & wait for the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) which I'm hopeful will be finally available mid this Year, I have used the Nikon Version & for wildlife this will be a top piece of Kit I feel.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which supertele?
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2013, 03:10:01 AM »