October 26, 2014, 04:59:06 AM

Author Topic: New lens... err body?  (Read 5693 times)

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2011, 04:52:34 AM »
Wouldn't have the high iso capability - essentially a tweaked 7D with the 1D4 sensor

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2011, 04:52:34 AM »

ianhar

  • Guest
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2011, 05:45:08 AM »
Good plan although from a different direction - the 100-400 won't depreciate as much as the 7d financially.

Yes and thats what is stopping me from placing the order already :)... Got to think about this. Maybe if the 7D2 is not so awesome, I can pick up a 7d for a lower price?

In Aus they are now selling on sale for around 1200!

Which sucks because I am wanting to sell my gripped one at the moment, and am reluctant to let it go that cheaply. Buttttt that's the problem with aps-c bodies and I guess bodies in general.

ANYWAY - I have heard very good things about the 100-400.... maybe get some new shoes so you can sneak closer and don't need the reach hahahaa.

Damn which store is this niccyboy?

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2011, 09:46:57 AM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2011, 06:28:45 PM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III
The 70-300L can definitely not take canon extenders. Check out the shots below. See how the glass in the extender extends 'beyond' the flange (thanks to TDP for the pic).
And I couldn't find a pic of the 70-300L so i took a quick one myself, sorry about the quality. That's at 300mm, minimum focus distance. The glass extends back from the flange the other way. Put those 2 together = crunch.

Apparently there are Kenko extenders that fit the 70-300L. Some translate the aperture, and some dont. (ie, at 300mm f/5.6, a 1.4x converter gives 400mm f/8. Some (i think the cheaper ones) still tell the camera 300/5.6 and AF works, some tell the camera 420mm/8 and AF doesn't work. I wish I knew which ones did what, then I'd buy one)


Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14758
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2011, 07:27:49 PM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III

Ahhh the Internet, fountain of Truth.   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4522
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2011, 07:57:02 PM »
Howdy I have the kenko C-AF 1.4X teleplus pro 300DGX it works with all lenses fully translates the aperture I used it for ages on a 28-300 L and it is awesome (I since sold that lens and got a 300f4L IS instead, some softening of the image wide open but drop it 1 stop in good light and iq is still awesome. I've tested it on all my lenses even works on the 16-35 not that i actually use that combo but it does work really nicely with the 50mm f1.4 and gives very sharp f2 images
APS-H Fanboy

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2011, 11:14:08 AM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III

Ahhh the Internet, fountain of Truth.   ::)

The source was: Shutterbug Magazine.

Aug 2011 issue

The reviewer was Farace or something IIRC.

Edit: found it on the "internet" too. Here's the URL for it:http://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56l-usm-long-short-it
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 11:19:23 AM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2011, 11:14:08 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14758
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2011, 12:02:06 PM »
Thanks for the link.  I agree with the one comment posted to the review - that was a pretty bad misrepresentation.  As Dr. Croubie points out, the rear element of the lens is right at the back.  I think he mis-typed when stating it's at 300mm - I think it's at 70mm and the rear element moves further 'in' (away from the lens mount) as you zoom to 300mm - at least, that's how most extending zooms behave (except the 24-70mm which uses a reversed design).  So, it's 'compatible' at longer focal lengths, but not 'compatible' (= lens damage) at shorter focal lengths.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2011, 09:44:25 PM »
...I think he mis-typed when stating it's at 300mm - I think it's at 70mm and the rear element moves further 'in' (away from the lens mount) as you zoom to 300mm - at least, that's how most extending zooms behave...
Well, yes and no.
a) I'm bored.
b) It just started raining so i've got nothing better to do than take photos inside.
c) I just got my first-ever speedlite in the post from ebay (a 430EXmk1) that I wanted to try out, i put it on the floor pointing at the rear element to reflect to make it easier to see.
d) The 70-300L is not a "normal" design, it's got 'floating elements' all over the place. At 70mm, the difference between macro and infinity is not much. Leave the focus at macro and zoom to 300mm, the rear element will come out a bit (200mm or so) then go back in by 300mm. At 200 - 300mm, the difference between macro and infinity is more than a few cm travel into the body.
e) In a way, that article is right. you *can* physically mount the 2x TC onto the lens, there's nothing stopping you. *BUT* you can only focus at infinity, and above 200mm or so. Focussing any closer than 5m @ 300mm, or infinity @ <200mm (a guess because I don't have one in from of me) will be crunching stuff. He may have meant "it was obvious I would have to shoot using manual focus" because of the aperture, but also because if AF hunts it's going to break something.
f) It's probably ok to use a t/c if you put an extension tube in between the t/c and lens. But then you're at macro only.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 09:50:32 PM by dr croubie »
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2011, 09:46:28 PM »
(and the two others at 210mm or so, when the element is closest to the sensor at macro-focus)
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14758
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2011, 10:45:38 PM »
Thanks! 

I think the take-home is that it's not compatible.  I mean, you can mount an EF-S 10-22mm on a 1D III, if you remove some plastic and don't use 10mm...but I wouldn't call that compatible, either...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2011, 07:29:27 PM »
Thanks for the link.  I agree with the one comment posted to the review - that was a pretty bad misrepresentation.  As Dr. Croubie points out, the rear element of the lens is right at the back.  I think he mis-typed when stating it's at 300mm - I think it's at 70mm and the rear element moves further 'in' (away from the lens mount) as you zoom to 300mm - at least, that's how most extending zooms behave (except the 24-70mm which uses a reversed design).  So, it's 'compatible' at longer focal lengths, but not 'compatible' (= lens damage) at shorter focal lengths.

An apt theory.. since it will be used for longer lengths anyway, it could work. 

Dr. Croubie: Thanks for the extra pics, I would not have understood it well without them.

Is lens damage really a concern? I mean there's plastic hitting glass, so unless someone is careless, I would think the risk is limited if used with the knowledge that the floating lens hunts, No AF to be used and should keep the zoom at 300mm?... I guess not worth buying a brand new 2x over the 70-300mm unless one had one lying around....
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 07:37:42 PM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens... err body?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2011, 07:29:27 PM »