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

[eml58]

Hi Bdunbar79, I didn't pick up if your Lenses are V1 or V2, I have the 300/400 & 600 all Version 2 Lenses & was having OOF shots more than I cared for, I found out that Canon have released new firmware for all 3 of these Lenses in relation to "better auto focus", Once I had the Lenses back to Canon Singapore & the new Firmware installed to the Lenses, I've found a much better hit rate than previous, anything now OOF I put down to my own poor technique.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks for that CarlTN,

I understand that the DOF is shallow, I wasn't really looking at it from the point of view of creating a good photograph.

I've had difficulty coming to grips with the degree of improvement from a Nikon $600 AF-S lens to the Canon 300 2.8 that was roughly $7k and I guess I've expected higher resolution than I should have. From today's feedback and previous I've basically said to myself that when my gear comes back from Canon, I'll quit fretting about "is it as good as John Henry's" and simple enjoy shooting with it. I guess 6D 20 MP FF and D5100 18MP crop are not as different as I anticipated, and a 70-300 basic lens is quite good for the $600 pricetag (the Canon 70-300 at $400 appears to equal the Nikon).

Certainly I don't have complaints about the lens IQ in other respects.

Jack

 

[CarlTN]

Jack, if you live in, or ever travel to the southeast USA, I would like to try your 300 on my 6D. I think I could determine pretty easily, if it is as sharp as it should be. I'm not sure if your 300 is the version 1 or 2. If it's the version 2 and you're having questions about why it isn't sharp enough, something is terribly wrong with your particular copy (in my opinion). I've rented a Canon version 1 500mm f/4, and it was very soft. The rental place tested it, found nothing wrong, but gave me a discount off my next rental. The version 2 lenses, are unbelievably sharp...most especially the 300 and the 400 f/2.8's.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks.

I have both version ONE lenses.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks CarlTN,

Unfortunately I live near Edmonton Alberta Canada where we still have snow on the ground this year, sadly, unlike you! A pair of robins arrived this week and I can't imagine them finding anything to eat although I'm sure they'll provide a meal for someone else.

This is a version II and the converters are III and I indeed made the final purchase against my better judgment based on the generic comments that abound such as your are saying. It was hard enough finding a shop that would bring it in without paying first! If it only was as easy as comparing identical shots, but it doesn't work that way. I'm hoping my lens is soft and that Canon can correct that but of course that's exactly why I'm concerned - will they, and if not, how do I force the issue.

To complicate things more, I'm only one year into DSLR's via the Nikon D5100, which I praise for the dollar. My daughter inherits it now. I was facinated with Canon's lenses way back in the mid 70's when I had my F1 and couldn't afford much glass. This time I determined to afford some glass and be content with the 6D over the 5D3 and I'm not sorry on that account. Trouble is I'm a bit of a perfectionist - once I realize what is considered good I strive for it persistently.

This photo was AI Servo AF spot metering on the eye, although displays on the left ear. To cut file size it's maybe 5/8 the original width and cropped in height significantly. I'm hoping it might provide some region in focus that you can judge if it's soft in your eyes.

6D 300 F2.8 II 2X III F5.6 1000th +2/3 exp ISO 250 IS was 1 or 3 can't remember - hand held

Jack

 

[CarlTN]

Jack, you live too far north, haha...but I'm sure it's nice up there. I want to tour Montana this summer.

The entire head is not focused, but the tail is closer to being focused. For a shot like this, I wouldn't have been in servo mode. I would have used single shot mode and multiple half press of the shutter to perfect the autofocus. I assume center point was on the squirrel's eye? As you might have noticed, the center point on the 6D, is not as precise in its coverage area, as the square indicator in the viewfinder is. It seems to me, that it simply grabbed the brighter lit, higher contrast portion...the tail...and attempted focus on that.

(Hopefully you have learned to make use of the "focus stop" button on the lens, which gives you a nice shortcut to switch back and forth between servo and single shot focus modes...At this time I'm not discussing the fine tuning of the servo AF via the menu...)

To test it more precisely, try fixed high contrast targets (street signs, etc.), preferably at the average distance you usually shoot at...and outdoors...and in single shot mode (not servo). Then see if it needs any AF microadjustment. Also try various aspects like mirror lock, IS on and off...and mounting on a tripod. We want to isolate whether it's an issue with optics, autofocus (accuracy or mode), stabilization modes, motion, or some combination.

Once I install a TC, the AF microadjustment almost always changes...usually to the extreme in the direction the lens alone required. Even if the lens didn't require any microadjustment, it's possible that once a TC is installed, it still might require some. My version two 2x TC, requires a +20 AFMA, when coupled to my 135 f/2...where the 135 by itself, only needs +2. This TC/combo also varies a bit with distance. If I know I will be focusing closer than 2 meters, I back off a bit on the AFMA. It's inconvenient, but necessary. Still better than manual focus!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks CarlTN,

That's a lot to digest but I understand all you've said to some degree. It's not so much that I don't know as it is I don't think, but isn't that how it tends to be. The focus should have been on the eye but later displayed on the left ear, which as you've said may really have been the tail. Do you think the tail or anything else in the shot aligning with the tail is as sharp as it should be for the 300 2.8 II?

Given the gear is now in Canon's possession I really should just relax and not be probing so much but I can't help being concerned. I had a dream last night where lots of birds were flying all over and a pheasant lit on a guys hand and I didn't have my camera!

Montana is only half a days drive from me and the Canadian Rockies (Banff/Jasper) in a slightly different direction and if you got to Montana it'd be a shame not to go further. I'm about 4 hours from Jasper, which is pretty much straight west. Beautiful country for sure.

So, come up here and help me evaluate my gear, since I can't come to you

Here's a shot of trees in the distance with the 6D 300 X2 - not really sharp - right?

I've modified my test board to include a parallel dominant image right at the center point of the "Mitutoyo" script on the rule. I think it will now work for AFMA when I get my lenses back??

Jack

 

[CarlTN]

Interesting setup, I'm sure it would work...again the main concern, is that you test and set the AFMA at the average distance you're shooting targets (assuming any AFMA is required after you get the lens back from Canon). If that average distance is over 100 feet, you might need a setup with slightly deeper-spaced targets to measure the focus accuracy.

Regarding the tree limb image...I assume it's heavily cropped? If you shot it at f/2.8 (or with the 2x TC, you're saying it's a 600mm image at f/5.6??), then it's possible that is getting near the full sharpness of the lens. It's hard to tell. It does look like some of the limbs are softer than others, by a bit...which is normal (and even desired) at a wider aperture.

One thing is certain...the 2x T/C, even the new series 3 one...will indeed produce an easily noticeable softness at the pixel level, when compared to the 300mm lens with no T/C. This is clearly shown in canon's own published mtf chart comparison. Also, certainly autofocus speed and accuracy will be affected, especially in servo mode. The T/C that is supposed to be the better compromise, is the 1.4x iii. But of course that is "only" 420mm, instead of 600mm.

Again, (I digress but here goes...) The 500 f/4 that I rented (version 1) back in 2011, I used combined with a rented "new" 1.4x iii T/C. The results at 700mm (mounted on either carbon fiber tripod or monopod, and via manual focus live view...since AF would not work accurately no matter what)...were ok for maybe an 8x10 print (when closed to f/8), but that's not saying much. Certainly it was softer than what you have posted so far. Of course this was on a 1.6x "crop" 50D...so full frame "equivalent" was 1120mm. However, as I have realized after buying the 6D, it's hard to equate the difference from one to the other, since the sensor and processing of the 6D, are so vastly superior...that it really does seem it has more than 20 MP resolution...especially in the lower ISO range. Even at say ISO 2500, it doesn't lose as much resolution as the 50D loses, at ISO 800. I might even venture to say the 6D's sensor is superior to the 5D3's. Of course the 5D3 starts out with a few more pixels. I assume their processing is "identical"...but surely there is some tailoring. Of course the 5D3's AF in good light is far superior (and apparently to most every other camera in existence save for the 1DX, and including the 7D), but that is pretty much common knowledge. It's in very low light, where the 6D's AF is either superior, or at least doesn't give up anything to the 5D3. Which is good, since the sensor's output at higher ISO is noticeably better, in my experience.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks CarlTN for the helpful reply.

I was going to repost the original image but something went wrong. Anyway this previous one is cropped ever so slightly just removing maybe 20% to the right of the trees, which were more centered originally.

I'll get back to this topic in a new thread if an when I get the 6D and 300 back since I have limited samples right now, and I'll be able to post much better then. Others may be interested in the actual resolution one gets with the 6D and the 300, 420, and 600 combinations, so I need to do a better job of it.

Jack

 

[expatinasia]

Wow, talk about hijacking a thread! Seems this one has been more kidnapped than hijacked!

bdunbar79 - have you fixed your issue?

I know in the past you have said that you like to turn AF off. Did you turn it off for both?

Also are you sure you did not change the AF points at all?

I had an issue recently where I had forgotten that I had changed a setting and I just could not get the 1D X to do what I wanted. I eventually remembered I had change a setting, changed it back and all was well.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Sorry, being new to this I didn't realize that I actually was doing it. With hindsight it's obvious enough and it was poor judgment on my part.

How does one make contact with someone who's posted something that is close to what you're interested in but not relevant to that post specifically?

Any other reprimands/admonishments humbly accepted :-[

Jack

 

[bdunbar79]

Wow, talk about hijacking a thread! Seems this one has been more kidnapped than hijacked!

bdunbar79 - have you fixed your issue?

I know in the past you have said that you like to turn AF off. Did you turn it off for both?

Also are you sure you did not change the AF points at all?

I had an issue recently where I had forgotten that I had changed a setting and I just could not get the 1D X to do what I wanted. I eventually remembered I had change a setting, changed it back and all was well.

Thanks.

No I have AF on at all times. I turn IS off and on periodically. I had the same AF point activated as well.

I'm thinking it's DOF. I looked up the DOF calculator and to get equivalent DOF as the 300 f/2.8L at f/2.8, the 400 f/2.8L would have to be at f/5. So it's not going to be easy to fix, shooting runners coming straight at you. Side shots it's never a problem but straight on or even at an angle straight on it's difficult. Since the 300 has twice the DOF at f/2.8, that's probably why I never missed with that lens.

Maybe this is my problem? Thanks for all of your help.

 

[privatebydesign]

An important thing to remember about dof, if your subject is the same size in the frame the dof is the same regardless of lens focal length. The perspective is different, but the dof is constant. http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

Now if you are shooting at the same distance the 400 dof at any given aperture is less, of course, but in your original post you said this "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. "

Also, it is probably the CR forum re-size algorithm but neither of your shots look sharp, however, if on the "missed" shots an adjacent runner etc does have critical sharpness then you are almost certainly looking at a non optimal AF setting for the situation or a technique issue.

This isn't a personal attack, I have been using the 300 for years for surfing and yacht racing, my critically sharp keeper rate for those is 90-95%, even working from a moving boat. I have recently started doing dog herding trials and my critically sharp keeper rate is way down and I am not even moving! Changing lens can be just as dramatic a difference.

Keep improving your technique, I still am after 30 years, and play with the myriad of AF settings the 1DX has, Sportsshooter.com sometimes have people post their complete AF settings for a sport, I know the Sports Illustrated standard 1D MkIII/IV settings were published to give people starting points for different events. If you are not a member join, and ask some questions there, some of those guys really know their AF settings.

 

[CarlTN]

Jack, sounds like a good idea, I certainly am interested in those T/C combinations with that lens!

Privatebydesign, excellent post!

bdunbar, sorry we deviated from your subject.

 

[applecider]

Jack shooting with the big whites especially with extenders demands some attention to technique if you want to print tack sharp images. I learned this the hard way

As noted in previous posts one must;

-pay attention to depth of field, its a camera lens not magic

-have realistic lighting expectations even with IS consider keeping shutter speeds above at least the length of the lens don't be afraid to raise iso to 800-1000 or even more esp with the 6D to keep shutter speeds high enough

-use a tripod whenever practical

-consider using live view and shutter lock up, moon pictures benefit from this a lot

-It would be helpful to me at least if when you post for help you include your shot settings.

-Read some of the successful long lens shooters like Art Morris and CR's Gary Samples, Art at least does not expect every shot to turn out.

Your squirrel shot seems to have had several things against it starting with a shallow depth of field, and a cluttered view with branches in front of the squirrel too many things to focus on. The tree shot looks fine to me except an area in-between the first and second big branches from the ground there is a foggy area? there.

Here are two of mine handheld with 300 2.8 ii with 1.4iii shot at f5.6 1/1600 iso 1000 just to show what that lens combo can do. The stationary wood duck is plenty sharp to me maybe improve able with lower iso. The second shows I think the depth of field, and perhaps a slightly slow shutter speed giving the wing tips blur (not really a bad thing). These were the best of probably five each so four throw aways per keeper, some for composition as well as technique.

 

[CarlTN]

Applecider, those are quite nice, and your advice is excellent. You're lucky that you can shoot wood ducks in mid day light. The only time they come out around here, is late dusk and early dawn. With a few exceptions, here's one March a year ago. It was still very late afternoon light. A rented 400 f/5.6 prime on my 50D, hand held. Cropped 50%, but then scaled down about 70%. I like my new 6D much better, but I really need a ~600mm lens to go with it, for birds. I've gotten some decent bird shots recently with a 120-400 zoom. It helps a lot if I can get close, obviously.

Again, this is off the original topic, so apologies to bdunbar79.

 

[bdunbar79]

No it's fine. All discussion is open. I just asked because I had shot soccer and football with the 400 and hadn't had the trouble I am with track. Thanks.

 

[applecider]

Carl thank you for your kind words. The woodies were at a park and if not tame then less wild. And a little secret better Beamer is her name. Gains maybe a stop or so, and cuts the shadow areas. Don't think I mentioned that before.

 

[kaihp]

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?

bdunbar79,

Just how closer were the runners when you used the 300mm?

Assuming that you want the subject to fill approximately the same amount of the frame, you're likely to shoot at, say, 30ft with the 300mm but at 40ft with the 400mm. And if you do that, you get the same DOF from those two combinations (6").

BTW, I think you've just explained why I've had problems in getting tack-sharp images shooting motorcyclists on a track, when using my 400mm too

 

[CarlTN]

Ok, no problem bdunbar79. Am I to assume that the problem with your slow focus...is that your 400mm f/2.8, simply focuses slower than the 300? It seems like it might, if the focus elements are heavier...there would be more mass and inertia involved, especially during servo autofocus. Or it's possible these elements aren't that much different in size...I don't know. It might just be the efficiency of the motors that move the elements, is better with those found in the 300 v1, than with the 400 v1.

And Bdunbar79, this might sound silly, but...does the 1DX allow for exposure compensation in manual mode (like for when you leave ISO in "auto")? Seems like that would come in handy. I don't like not being able to compensate, when I know the image has too many aggressive highlights, or if it's the opposite, with an overall lack of contrast.

Applecider, you're quite welcome. Interesting that you're using a better beamer there. Yes, I would say those ducks must be quite tame...if they're not only in a "people park" in daylight, but also will tolerate a better beamer firing at them, haha. It must be like a walk on the red carpet for them! Makes me want to pet one. We had pet Mallard ducks, when I was growing up.

And privatebydesign, sportsshooter.com is an excellent suggestion. First I've heard of that site. If they have any advice for the "lesser" full frame cameras, that might help me.