 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007Canon 400mm f/5.6L + TC
That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with 1.4x TC. Any real-life experience with that combo? I know I wont have AF, but what about sharpness and overall image quality? I considered 400mm f/4L but it's both too costly and too heavy. Besides, I dont really need IS as 95% of the time my shutter speed is 1/800 or faster. TIA, Peter Peter <peter@greatnowhere.com> wrote in news:461e8a0e$0$9098 $834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com: > That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However > 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with 1.4x [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I dont really need IS as 95% of the time my shutter speed is 1/800 or > faster. Don't forget,you want to stop down the lens about a stop for maximum sharpness with a TC, and the f-stop increases by 41% with a 1.4x, so stopping down for sharpness will result in f/11. I use not the prime, but the 100-400 IS zoom with TCs, and even with the IS, ISO 1600 results in under-exposure in shaded areas, and on cloudy days, even with shutter speeds only possible with IS.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However >> 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with 1.4x [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > IS, ISO 1600 results in under-exposure in shaded areas, and on cloudy days, > even with shutter speeds only possible with IS. From what I've read sharpness w/TC is much better for primes as compared to zooms like 100-400mm. So I might not need to stop down. Another alternative price-wise is 300 f/4L - that has IS, and coupled with 2x TC should give me the same 600mm f/8. Again, any words of wisdom here? Will that combo be sharp enough? What about 1.4x TC - how's sharpness there? TIA, Peter >>> That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However >>> 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with >>> 1.4x TC. Any real-life experience with that combo? I know I wont >>> have AF, but what about sharpness and overall image quality? >>> I considered 400mm f/4L but it's both too costly and too heavy. >>> Besides, I dont really need IS as 95% of the time my shutter speed >>> is 1/800 or faster. >> Don't forget,you want to stop down the lens about a stop for maximum >> sharpness with a TC, and the f-stop increases by 41% with a 1.4x, so >> stopping down for sharpness will result in f/11. >> I use not the prime, but the 100-400 IS zoom with TCs, and even with >> the IS, ISO 1600 results in under-exposure in shaded areas, and on >> cloudy days, even with shutter speeds only possible with IS. > From what I've read sharpness w/TC is much better for primes as > compared to zooms like 100-400mm. So I might not need to stop down. That's not necessarily true. You're talking about an $800 400mm prime in a world where there are >$5000 400mm primes. Few lenses are at their sharpest when wide open. When you're using a TC, there is no magic. The TC magnifies what the lens itself is capable of, spreading the subject over more pixels, or more grains. If detail is not there, it is not there to spread. It therefore becomes crucial to try to use a lens closer to its sweet spot, when using a TC. You run out of light quickly. > Another alternative price-wise is 300 f/4L - that has IS, and coupled > with 2x TC should give me the same 600mm f/8. Again, any words of > wisdom here? Will that combo be sharp enough? What about 1.4x TC - > how's sharpness there? All three choices (400 prime, 300 IS prime +TC, 100-400 IS) have their compromises. The 400 prime has no IS, and is not going to be very usable hand-held on overcast days or in the woods, the 100-400 doesn't have as good bokeh as the primes (but can ve very sharp in the plane of focus), and the 300 with a TC is going further out of the range than its IS and AF are designed for, to reach a similar focal length. Personally, I wouldn't even consider the 300. I have it, and it has sat at home since I got the 100-400. The 300 is best if you don't need more than 300, and don't need to zoom out when you come across larger or closer subjects, and the benefit ends there. You'll get better images with the 100-400 IS than a 300 IS + TC, IMO. The zoom movement and lock are a sore spot, however. If feels kind of "scrapey", and it collects specks on the inner elements over time (not visible in images, AFAICT). Why is there no 400mm f/5.6 or f/5 IS prime? I don't know. Don't know why there isn't a 600mm f/8 IS prime, either. The choices suck, really. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> I use not the prime, but the 100-400 IS zoom with TCs, and even with >>> the IS, ISO 1600 results in under-exposure in shaded areas, and on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > there to spread. It therefore becomes crucial to try to use a lens > closer to its sweet spot, when using a TC. You run out of light quickly. Where can I get it for 800$? BH has it for 1100$. Besides, it's L glass an I would expect it be really sharp. >> Another alternative price-wise is 300 f/4L - that has IS, and coupled >> with 2x TC should give me the same 600mm f/8. Again, any words of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > are a sore spot, however. If feels kind of "scrapey", and it collects > specks on the inner elements over time (not visible in images, AFAICT). I currently use Sigma 80-400, and it's too soft wide open. http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldman-x/284549207/ Stop it down a notch, and images are OK. The reviews I've read say that Sigma is about the same in sharpness department compared to Canon 100-400... not neccessarily true of course. I've tried 1.6x ProMaster TC on that lens and it's really soft even stopped down: http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldman-x/165662989/ I dont think I actually need IS for these kinds of shots. > Why is there no 400mm f/5.6 or f/5 IS prime? I don't know. Don't know > why there isn't a 600mm f/8 IS prime, either. The choices suck, really. Agreed. We could all use 600mm f/8 prime. Peter > All three choices (400 prime, 300 IS prime +TC, 100-400 IS) have their > compromises. The 400 prime has no IS, and is not going to be very usable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are a sore spot, however. If feels kind of "scrapey", and it collects > specks on the inner elements over time (not visible in images, AFAICT). Hmmm... what about 300 f/2.8L? Should give me 600mm f/5.6 with 2x TC. Some reviews suggest it's perfectly usable combo http://photo.net/equipment/canon/300 Of course it's just a tad outside my price league... but it might be worth to forgo slower primes in favor of saving for a 300 f/2.8 Peter > Hmmm... what about 300 f/2.8L? Should give me 600mm f/5.6 with 2x TC. > Some reviews suggest it's perfectly usable combo [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course it's just a tad outside my price league... but it might be > worth to forgo slower primes in favor of saving for a 300 f/2.8 That's one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, so between it's large aperture and the sharpness wide open, and the IS, it makes an excellent lens for using the 2x TC. It's big, though; not something most people can hand-hold all day. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< $Why is there no 400mm f/5.6 or f/5 IS prime? I don't know. I don't *know*, but I can *guess*. I don't think Canon sells an awful lot of this lens; it's far, far easier to find people who have used one of the 300s or the 100-400 than it is to find people who have used the 400/5.6. Whatever the development costs of a new version would be, they'd have to be amortized over however many Canon thinks they can sell. If that market is small, then each individual lens has to cover a higher portion of the development costs. Add in the extra price for IS, which is a few hundred bucks, and I wouldn't be surprised if a 400/5.6L IS USM would cost twice what the 400/5.6L USM does. And if it has a small market at its current price, it would have a much smaller market at twice the price. $ Don't know $why there isn't a 600mm f/8 IS prime, either. That one's easy. All Canon EF lenses are f/5.6 or faster because slower lenses prevent AF from working on the vast majority of EOS bodies. Even those bodies which retain AF at f/8 only do so by reverting from 45-point AF bodies to 1-point AF bodies. SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ > $ Don't know > $why there isn't a 600mm f/8 IS prime, either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bodies. Even those bodies which retain AF at f/8 only do so by > reverting from 45-point AF bodies to 1-point AF bodies. OK, I kinda suspected that. Then, why isnt there 600mm f/5.6 prime? There is f/4, so f/5.6 is definitely possible. I also found references to 1200mm f/5.6 in Canon's support library... that is one huge sucker! Peter > I also found references to 1200mm f/5.6 in Canon's support library... > that is one huge sucker! expensive too. > >> That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However > >> 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with 1.4x [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > TIA, There is some data here on the 300mm f/4 with and without a 1.4X TC. http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm If their number are to be believed it looks like the 300 with a 1.4 TC would be about as sharp as the 400 without a TC. Scott Scott I have the 400 F5.6 and use it for "flight" photography hand held and its very good. I have tried adding the Canon 1.4 tc and then using it for the same purpose and am continually frustrated. Put it on a tripod and if your technique is good then its back to being an excellent lens. My technique is only good about 2 in 10. I have seen shots by people like Arthur Morris and others who achieve excellent results with the 400 and a converter so I know that the lens is capable, its a matter of the operator. I took it to a rowing regatta along with my 70 - 200 but found I needed two cameras set up as the 70 - 200 was fine at the end of the race and the 400 fine for quite a lot of the race. quicker to have two bodies than swap lenses. I will probably purchase the 100 - 400 as it seems the ideal lens for that type of sport and I look like photographing quite a lot of rowing along with my horse show work and the 100 to 400 look good for both regards Don >> >> That glass gets some good rep, and does not cost arm & leg. However >> >> 400mm is not quite enough for me, and I'll want to couple it with 1.4x [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Scott >> Another alternative price-wise is 300 f/4L - that has IS, and coupled >> with 2x TC should give me the same 600mm f/8. Again, any words of wisdom >> here? Will that combo be sharp enough? What about 1.4x TC - how's >> sharpness there? > There is some data here on the 300mm f/4 with and without a 1.4X TC. > http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm > > If their number are to be believed it looks like the 300 with a 1.4 TC > would > be about as sharp as the 400 without a TC. According to their numbers that's indeed the case. My Sigma 80-400mm actually gets better resolution rating than Canon 100-400mm... :-O Peter > According to their numbers that's indeed the case. My Sigma 80-400mm > actually gets better resolution rating than Canon 100-400mm... :-O By whom? Reports of the 100-400 sharpness vary greatly. Older lenses seem to be softer, in general. It is mainly people who have had them for years that complain most about softness. I've seen sample 100% crops from tests that were softer than my 100-400 with a 1.4x and 2x TC combined. The 100-400 also seems to be optimized for short focusing distances, so it might be a better small-bird lens, for instance, than one that is better for shooting heavenly bodies. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> According to their numbers that's indeed the case. My Sigma 80-400mm >> actually gets better resolution rating than Canon 100-400mm... :-O > > By whom? http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_80400_4556os/index.htm Compare to http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm Peter Peter <peter@greatnowhere.com> wrote in news:4623b27d$0$9094 $834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com: >>> According to their numbers that's indeed the case. My Sigma 80-400mm >>> actually gets better resolution rating than Canon 100-400mm... :-O [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm Well, those samples look a bit soft to me, as a 100-400 user who always has a 1.4x on the lens. The comment that it is sharpest at 100mm and gets softer up to 400mm suggests something is wrong. The lens is supposed to be sharper at 400mm, according to Canon's MTF charts, and that is my experience as well. I suspect that there are a lot of bad copies out there. Here's an extremely teleconverted (4x; 2x x 1.4x x 1.4x) sample from my 100-400: http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/65837842 Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< $> Don't forget,you want to stop down the lens about a stop for maximum $> sharpness with a TC, and the f-stop increases by 41% with a 1.4x, so $> stopping down for sharpness will result in f/11. [...] $ From what I've read sharpness w/TC is much better for primes as $compared to zooms like 100-400mm. So I might not need to stop down. You might not. But you very well might. I used to have the 300/4L IS USM, and the Canon 1.4x II teleconverter, and while I would not hesitate to use the lens on its own wide open, I found the results of the lens+TC wide open to be noticeably softer. Stopping down a stop fixed that. I don't know the 400/5.6 from personal experience and don't know how it works with the 1.4x, but I wouldn't be surprised if it, too, would benefit from being stopped down when used with a TC. SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.