Canon 300 f/4 L IS with 2x converter test

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg

This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center crop.
I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the editing
performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.

As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
image.

With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field of
view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JohnR66 wrote:

> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality.

You need two points to draw a line.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Use a smaller radius when sharpening. It looks too much like video to me.
-S

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>
> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
crop.
> I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the editing
> performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
>
> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
> color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
> image.
>
> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field
of
> view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
>
> John
>
>

 

[dylan]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>
> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
> crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
> editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
>
> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
> color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
> image.
>
> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field
> of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
>
> John
>
>

Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
compressed ?

some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
and 1.4x for comparison.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:

>http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>
>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
>teleconverter.

That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.

What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.

Was the lens wide open?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[dylan]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:1jbka19uenoncv6staqn3jo2radir9gat5@4ax.com...
> In message <bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
>>http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>>
>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
>>teleconverter.
>
> That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
> with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
>
> What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
> 1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
>
> Was the lens wide open?

Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but probably
varies between users.
Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with fully
open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?

Cheers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dylan wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:1jbka19uenoncv6staqn3jo2radir9gat5@4ax.com...
>
>>In message <bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>>>
>>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
>>>teleconverter.
>>
>>That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
>>with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
>>
>>What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
>>1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
>>
>>Was the lens wide open?
>
>
> Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but probably
> varies between users.
> Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
> they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with fully
> open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?
>
> Cheers
>
>
Yes, the 300mm f/4 L IS is good (at least my lens is). Here is a
recent 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC with some full size crops:

http/www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8962.b-700.html

While this image was done on a tripod, the head was loose so I could follow
the birds. IS was on.

I have 300 f/4 + 2x TC images that are equally sharp.

While I have quite steady hands, I find that at 300 mm and higher, I
get a low percentage of sharp images even with IS. Perhaps that is due
to my use of the telephotos for following animals in action, and I'm
rapidly moving. With a head (Wimberly, full or sidekick) I find
my movements are smoother and the IS works well, giving me
very sharp images.

There are Canon lenses that may not achieve good focus. For example,
I have a 100-400 L IS zoom and it is soft at 400mm though others
have units that are very sharp. I need to send mine back to
Canon for recalibration.

Roger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d8c9jg$sdk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
> news:bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>>
>> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
>> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
>> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
>> crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
>> editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
>>
>> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
>> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
>> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle
>> the color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up
>> the image.
>>
>> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field
>> of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
> Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
> compressed ?
>
> some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
> and 1.4x for comparison.
>
>
The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday items,
like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you concentrate on
the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters, especially the 2x is
always a compromise.

I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi John!

Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet it
reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?

Thanks,

Marcel



"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:vtBqe.933739$w62.664845@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "dylan" <no@mowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:d8c9jg$sdk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
> >>
> >> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon
2x
> >> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
> >> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
> >> crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
> >> editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
> >>
> >> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
> >> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
> >> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle
> >> the color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned
up
> >> the image.
> >>
> >> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel,
field
> >> of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
> > Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
> > compressed ?
> >
> > some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L
www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
> > and 1.4x for comparison.
> >
> >
> The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday
items,
> like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you concentrate
on
> the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters, especially the 2x is
> always a compromise.
>
> I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
> to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
> play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
> John
>
>
>

 

[dylan]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>
>> some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L
>> www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm and 1.4x for comparison.
>>
>>
> The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday
> items, like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you
> concentrate on the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters,
> especially the 2x is always a compromise.
>
> I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
> to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
> play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
> John
>

Agree the image with the 1.4x is slightly softer, but I'm still very happy
with it, some on it maybe down to the 10D. I wasn't trying to say they were
perfect I just expected some better results from your 300 + x2.

Here's a couple more www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm

I'll try to remember not to photo common everyday items ;O)

Cheers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:sYmdncPAbebzdzffRVn-gw@rogers.com...
> Hi John!
>
> Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
> using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
> might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
> capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet
> it
> reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marcel
>
>
Canon's teleconverters have a front element that projects into the back of
the lens so it will not even work with that lens. It won't even fit on my
80-200 Canon, but I knew that going in. Teleconverters are designed for use
with long focal legth lenses, so it may not perform well if it did fit.
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JohnR66 wrote:

> "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:sYmdncPAbebzdzffRVn-gw@rogers.com...
>
>>Hi John!
>>
>>Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
>>using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
>>might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
>>capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet
>>it
>>reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Marcel
>>
>>
>
> Canon's teleconverters have a front element that projects into the back of
> the lens so it will not even work with that lens.


Same for my Nikon TC. The lens needs a big hole to recieve it.


> It won't even fit on my
> 80-200 Canon, but I knew that going in. Teleconverters are designed for use
> with long focal legth lenses, so it may not perform well if it did fit.
> John
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:42AAF0E2.30306@qwest.net...
> dylan wrote:
>
>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>> news:1jbka19uenoncv6staqn3jo2radir9gat5@4ax.com...
>>
>>>In message <bH3qe.923896$w62.88550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http/home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
>>>>
>>>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon
>>>>2x
>>>>teleconverter.
>>>
>>>That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
>>>with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
>>>
>>>What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
>>>1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
>>>
>>>Was the lens wide open?
>>
>>
>> Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but
>> probably varies between users.
>> Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
>> they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with
>> fully open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
> Yes, the 300mm f/4 L IS is good (at least my lens is). Here is a
> recent 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC with some full size crops:
>
> http/www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8962.b-700.html
>
> While this image was done on a tripod, the head was loose so I could
> follow
> the birds. IS was on.
>
> I have 300 f/4 + 2x TC images that are equally sharp.
>
> While I have quite steady hands, I find that at 300 mm and higher, I
> get a low percentage of sharp images even with IS. Perhaps that is due
> to my use of the telephotos for following animals in action, and I'm
> rapidly moving. With a head (Wimberly, full or sidekick) I find
> my movements are smoother and the IS works well, giving me
> very sharp images.
>
> There are Canon lenses that may not achieve good focus. For example,
> I have a 100-400 L IS zoom and it is soft at 400mm though others
> have units that are very sharp. I need to send mine back to
> Canon for recalibration.
>
> Roger

Roger,
When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.

Check the Luminous Landscape article:
http/luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

This is the main reason I decided to go fixed focal length.

John

BTW, I love your site!

 

[dylan]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>
>> some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L
>> www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm and 1.4x for comparison.
>>
>>
> The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday
> items, like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you
> concentrate on the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters,
> especially the 2x is always a compromise.
>
> I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
> to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
> play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
> John
>

Agree the image with the 1.4x is slightly softer, but I'm still very happy
with it, some on it maybe down to the 10D. I wasn't trying to say they were
perfect I just expected some better results from your 300 + x2.

Here's a couple more www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm

I'll try to remember not to photo common everyday items ;O)

Cheers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1bMqe.309778$cg1.257085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:

>Roger,
>When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
>about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
>such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
>it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
>300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
>on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
>plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.

I have both the 300 f/4L IS and the 100-400 IS, and my experience has
been that the 400 is sharper than the 300 + 1/4x TC, but only if you
maintain safe exposure times; the 100-400's IS leaves more
high-frequency jitter in the image.

If I use flash, I can stack my Tamron 2x TC and Canon 1.4x TC on the
100-400 at 400, for a focal length of 1120mm, and still get fairly sharp
images. Also true with shutter speeds of 1/2000.

IMO, IS deteriorates rapidly with magnification. I suspect that the IS
is designed to keep high-frequency jitter somewhere right near the
threshold of visibility in normal image viewing (8*10 from full-frame),
and rises above that threshold, as soon as you magnify it. Since this
high-frequency jitter is circular in nature (most of the linear aspect
is removed by the IS), a half-circle at 2x has twice the diameter of a
full circle taken at 1x, even though the exposure is half as long in the
former. I also suspect that some of the HF jitter is artifacts from the
IS, and is not directly from lens shake.

I have come to view IS as something that helps you get a reasonably
sharp image at shutter speeds at which such would be impossible. It is
not, in any way, like using a faster shutter speed, even for stationary
subjects.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <1bMqe.309778$cg1.257085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Roger,
>>When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
>>about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
>>such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
>>it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
>>300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
>>on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
>>plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.
>
>
> I have both the 300 f/4L IS and the 100-400 IS, and my experience has
> been that the 400 is sharper than the 300 + 1/4x TC, but only if you
> maintain safe exposure times; the 100-400's IS leaves more
> high-frequency jitter in the image.
>
> If I use flash, I can stack my Tamron 2x TC and Canon 1.4x TC on the
> 100-400 at 400, for a focal length of 1120mm, and still get fairly sharp
> images. Also true with shutter speeds of 1/2000.
>
> IMO, IS deteriorates rapidly with magnification. I suspect that the IS
> is designed to keep high-frequency jitter somewhere right near the
> threshold of visibility in normal image viewing (8*10 from full-frame),
> and rises above that threshold, as soon as you magnify it. Since this
> high-frequency jitter is circular in nature (most of the linear aspect
> is removed by the IS), a half-circle at 2x has twice the diameter of a
> full circle taken at 1x, even though the exposure is half as long in the
> former. I also suspect that some of the HF jitter is artifacts from the
> IS, and is not directly from lens shake.
>
> I have come to view IS as something that helps you get a reasonably
> sharp image at shutter speeds at which such would be impossible. It is
> not, in any way, like using a faster shutter speed, even for stationary
> subjects.

At high magnifications, diffraction on these lenses becomes the limiting
factor. Consider the 20D/rebel series, which has ~ 6.4 micron
pixel spacing. A f/4 lens with a 1.4x TC becomes f/5.6. The diffraction
spot size at f/5.6 is 7.2 microns. At f/8 is rises to 10 microns,
and f/11 to 14 microns, over twice the pixel pitch. If everything
were perfect, the images would still be soft. One cameras with
6.4 micron pixels, f/5.6 is already limiting sharpness.

Roger