300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8

[bdunbar79]

I have a technical question to ask the forum. I already have some ideas on what is going on, but I don't really know for sure and wanted to ask, since many of you are so knowledgeable. In advance, thanks.

I tested my 300 f/2.8L I IS vs. my 400 f/2.8L I IS yesterday at a track meet. I felt that I had more OOF shots with my 400 and wanted to see if that was really true or not. So I set up at the end of the back straightaway, and shot runners running towards me (from curve up to about 20-30 yards away from me). I set the lenses both to f/2.8.

I shot with the 300 and the hit rate was unbelieveable. The faces were razor sharp almost everytime. My settings were 1/5000, f/2.8, auto ISO. I was in Servo mode on a 1DX.

I then shot the same settings and the hit rate was much less with the 400. A lot of the focus was missed (can see another area in focus just slightly to the right or left on another runner) or the faces were just soft and there was no real apparent focal point anywhere in the photo. However, it did hit a lot of photos, and again, those were incredibly sharp.

I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter.

Is DOF (f/2.8 is pretty thin) more difficult to manage at longer focal lengths? Remember up until this year I had only used a 300 for sports and didn't buy the 400 until last July. Is IS more of an issue, even at 1/5000? Does the lens focus slower or not as accurately as the 300? I was thinking it's not AFMA since when I shoot golf with it I never have any OOF shots, ever. Of course they are not moving much in golf, so I'm afraid the track problem could be my bad technique with the 400.

Just thought I'd ask since of course as you can imagine, it's sort of frustrating. Thanks a lot!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hi bdunbar79,

Sorry I can't help answer your question but I thought you might be able to help with mine. And since we're talking the same lens I'm pretty confident you'll have a comment.

Less than two months ago I bought the 6D 300 F2.8 II and both extenders III. I only had my Nikon D5100, AF-S 70-300 to compare with (450 eq field of view and not up to Canon L quality) and that lens was not very expensive (maybe $600 compared with $7K) so I was expecting to be impressed and I wasn't. That's not to say that there is nothing better about the 300 2.8 II such as DOF at 2.8 etc. but I was so disappointed with detail sharpness, I interacted with Canon and two weeks ago sent those items back with my 6D body. It's driving me nuts worrying that things won't improve because I don't have any previous experience dealing with Canon, although I hear good things. The issue is not AFMA, it's the resolution in the focused region, sharpness.

So I'm wondering if, with your experience, you'd be able to offer what you think of what I'm getting, or alternately share something that illustrates the detail that you get. The 6D is 20 MP compare to 18MP crop so I guess the D5100 may actually match the resolution of the 6D relative to pixel density - I would have never thought so but .....

I'm not sure if the 6D vs 1Dx would make comparison difficult. Here is one moon shot with the 300 X1.4 from tripod that I took that didn't seem to cut it. I used live view WiFi remote to get focus as close as humanly possible at the highest magnification. Hope this interjection into your post isn't out of place.

Jack

 

[raptor3x]

Could the AFMA be off on the 400?

 

[bdunbar79]

Could the AFMA be off on the 400?

No, I tested it. That was my first thought, and so I shot a golf tournament and hit just about 900 out of 900 razor sharp with the lens. Usually with AFMA you get a random distribution of OOF and in-focus shots regardless of what you are shooting. Thanks.

 

[bdunbar79]

Jack,

I will get to your points shortly. I wanted to demonstrate when the 400 does get it right, as in Photo 1, triple jump and when it doesn't as in Photo 2, the Women's 1500m run.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Here is one moon shot with the 300 X1.4 from tripod that I took that didn't seem to cut it.

You're right. That doesn't cut it. I've gotten much better results with the 300 f/4 and the 1.4X II on a 5DII.

It could be post-processing, though, or atmospheric haze, or other sorts of things. It'd be a good idea to start with some of the classic test shots, such as the proverbial brick wall at high noon. Sturdy tripod, mirror lockup, the works.

Cheers,

b&

 

[dolina]

Are both lens of the same generation?

If they are both Series II white primes then are they both updated with the latest lens firmware?

Are both lens in tip top condition?

Are both lens set with the same switch settings?

A smaller angle of view is more challenging to shoot with than a lens with a wider angle of view.

It could be operator error, you mentioned having more face time with the 300 than with the 400.

Having not shot anything for nearly half a year I do commit rookie mistakes.

 

[Apop]

I had a similar experience when i came from nikon to canon.

I used a d800 and 200-400 vrII, and had really good hit rates with 9 point dynamic focus (or center 5)

When i got a used 1dmkiv and used 500mmf4 IS, i expected to do atleast equally good, since it was a ''pro'' body and a prime lens.

I had a lot of issues to get images in focus both static and ones on the move.
Now things are improving and i use center point only instead of using an expansion with it.

But I think i may have been romanticizing the nikon experience a little bit also ( I had missed focus with that one on some important moments also), and maybe expecting too much of the new camera+lens instead of my needed improvement because it was less forgiving

(DOF calculator showed major difference between d800+400f4 and 1dmkiv with 500 f4 / 700f5.6.)

1dx+300 2.8 @ 30 meters gives :Total 1.68 m
In front of subject 0.82 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.86 m (51%)

1dx 400 2.8 @ 30 meters gives:Total 0.94 m

In front of subject 0.46 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.48 m (51%)

Quite a big difference !

For me it was even bigger of a difference:
Total 0.65 m

In front of subject 0.32 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.33 m (51%)

Now , and previously

Total 1.33 m

In front of subject 0.65 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.68 m (51%)


It's about half what i was used to , so my error(and the camera error) is less forgiven.


I used : http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html for the DOF numbers.


As for the moon shot, i think atmospheric conditions play a major role there !, bad seeing can even make a 400 f2.8 look bad compared to a 120-400 sigma lens

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks guys!

I will meticulously go through what I've been doing with your ideas in mind.

And holy crap regarding the DOF! See I knew somebody would know this. Thanks.

 

[bdunbar79]

So here's another problem. If the subject is coming towards you, and Servo mode can't keep up with that shallow DOF for the 400 lens at f/2.8, the runner will move right out of the focal plane. This is something else I was considering regarding technique.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I understand the moon isn't the best sample but it was a perfect night for clarity FWTW.

Because I have modest means I did my best to check things out at the photo shop before purchasing and here are some comparitive shots we did. I've cropped to decrease the file size and downsized as little as possible in a couple that were over 4 MB. The shots are with the 300 F2.8 II plus extenders and the other is the D5100 with 70-300 @300. Shouldn't I be getting better relative to the D5100 with the Canon 6D and these expensive lenses??

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

300 F2.8 II

 

[Jack Douglas]

300 F2.8 II and 1.4 III

 

[Jack Douglas]

300 F2.8 II and X2 III

 

[Jack Douglas]

BTW Focus was on "Liquor Depot". Now that I've posted this I sense that I should have started a new thread - my appologies. I'm new to this and my thought was simply to make contact with bdunbar79. Feel free to clue me in if I've committed the unpardonable sin :-[

Jack

 

[Apop]

The 300 with extender images look far far better to my eyes compared with the 70-300.

But if you aren't happy with the increase of sharpness vs cost i can understand that.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Apop,

For sure the quality of the shot is better in all respects but I guess I've gotten somewhat hung up on the fact that there didn't seem to be that much difference in detail. There is a little "open" sign on the store window that really improved with the lens stopped down - especially its color.

I've never made such a big purchase on camera equipment and I guess that's what happens when you start second guessing your purchase. My friend is a much more experienced photographer and he was hesitent as well and is still debating getting this 300 lens.

Jack

 

[Apop]

Well it is true that 10x the price is not even close to 10x the sharpness you get.

The other day i was looking at the difference of 650d+300f4+1.4tc (672mm with 18mp) @5.6 vs 1dmkiv @500f4 (650mm with 16 mp) and at first glance was surprised how 'close' the 300 with tc on a 1.6 crop body was to the 500 f4, however when taking 50+ shots with both it was clear that the 500 was quite a bit sharper and the even tho the autofocus and tracking is not bad on a 650d, the 1mkiv is on a different level. Also the noise is more pronounced on the 650d ( not the mention it had an one stop disadvantage also)

In the end having better equipment will give you a higher % chance of making the shot you are really after, but it is still limited by yourself. , for the examplewhen i take a 1 second burst there might be 1 really good image from the 650d+300+1.4 converter(from 5 frames), but the chance that i have more than 1 good image from the 1dmkiv +500 (from 10 frames with half the iso also) is enough for me to justify the extra cost.

But it's still a numbers game , it is possible(not likely) that i dont have any good image from the 1dmkiv , while i have 2 out of 5 very good images from the 650d.

More likely is that i have a 40% hit rate with 650d and 2 nice images, vs a 60-70% hit rate from the 1d giving me 6-7 nice images (just making up numbers , but it's the way i look at it).

But, A 300 f4 IS might be a much better purchase if you looking for a good canon prime at a more ''affordable'' price.

Naked 300 f4 is pretty close to the 300 2.8 when both looked @ f5.6, als the 300 f4 can handle a 1.4 teleconverter pretty nicely!

I was also looking at a 300 f2.8 , but decided to go for an used 500 f4 ( partially because it was less expensive and can give 700mm)

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Apop,

Seems you're going through what I did a couple months back. Because I'd heard nothing but raves about the 300 2.8 I bought it anyway. The money is spent and the expensive lesson learned. Funny, I could be so foolish to think that there was anything close to a proportional relationship between price and quality - it's more like a exponential of diminishing returns. I think it's reasonable to assume that Canon will do their checks correctly and tune if needed and when I get it back I just have to shoot to the best of my ability and be happy.

Do you think that a crop camera such as the 7D II is supposed to be (LOL) could have good low light capability and give the higher resolution that I'd be happier with (I could use more reach). Or do you think that those of us that like to look for detail we didn't even see in the original shot, would be better served by the next generation full frame with higher MP. I think pixel peeping is silly except in the context of taking the best shot you have of bird X and then looking to see more of the detail of its features (educational).

Here's the 6D and 300 giving some detail - but is it up to spec?? Thanks again. Perhaps others will benifit from my mistakes. I do like the 6D.

Jack

 

[CarlTN]

Jack, this last photo of the bird is plenty sharp at its eye...you just have the aperture open too wide to get the whole bird sharper than it is.