Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
Lance writes ...
Has anyone used a Canon 70-200L F2.8 lens with a X2 converter? Yes, but only when I don't have access to my wife's 400 f/5.6 L or my 300 f/4 L with a 1.4x ... in other words, in an emergency. I try to stop down to f/8 or f/11 when doing this. what is the image quality like? Still pretty good? Adequate but not very good compared to the 400 f/5.6 L. Here's a link to a site that tested the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the 2x vs the 100-400 L IS and the 70-200 w/ 2x lost. The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit so you get the idea ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml Bill |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com... Lance writes ... Has anyone used a Canon 70-200L F2.8 lens with a X2 converter? Yes, but only when I don't have access to my wife's 400 f/5.6 L or my 300 f/4 L with a 1.4x ... in other words, in an emergency. I try to stop down to f/8 or f/11 when doing this. what is the image quality like? Still pretty good? Adequate but not very good compared to the 400 f/5.6 L. Here's a link to a site that tested the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the 2x vs the 100-400 L IS and the 70-200 w/ 2x lost. The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit so you get the idea ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml Bill Worst, in this case, is a relative term. The 100-400L is a pretty good lens, it just suffers in comparison to other "L" lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 (w/o converter) and f4, and the 400 f2.8 and f4 lenses. BTW, it's not the worst lens in my kit, I'd have to say the 16-35L is, but nothing else will do what it does, while there are other lenses and combinations of lenses that will do what the 100-400 will, and in some cases, better. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit
Skip Middleton writes ... Worst, in this case, is a relative term. Yes, I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L, 100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak sister (relative?) in this litter. The 100-400L is a pretty good lens Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting .... I have one of the "good" ones per Roger Clark's tests (at least for center resolution) and with a 1.6x body like the 10D vignetting is OK wide open, with a 1.3x body (1D Mark II) I get too much light fall off at the corners wide open and need f/8, and with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. This is the only non-wide angle lens I own that has a vignetting problem like this so to me it doesn't qualify as a "pretty good lens". None of the other four tele lenses do this. I can even shoot the 500 f/4 L with a 2x wide open with no problem, but not the 100-400 even without a converter. ... but nothing else will do what it does ... That's the only reason I haven't dumped mine ... when I fly to Alaska with space and weight limitations this lens seems to worm its way into the bag beside the 500 f/4 L even though ideally I'd rather take the 70-200 and the 400 f/5.6 (last trip for instance I took the 28-70 f/2.8 L, 100-400 IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the bag still weighed 36 lbs with two pro bodies ...) ... but the IS means I can shoot from a platform or a plane or handheld or whatever with a couple extra stops and the 100-400 zoom range is very handy. Bill |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message oups.com... The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit Skip Middleton writes ... Worst, in this case, is a relative term. Yes, I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L, 100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak sister (relative?) in this litter. It's also one of the least expensive of that lot. I've shot side by side with a buddy who has the 70-200 f2.8/2X combination, and my results were a little better with the 100-400, which is the main reason I haven't gotten rid of it. It's still pretty good, relative to the other L zooms in our quiver, the f2.8 triplets. The 100-400L is a pretty good lens Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting ... I have one of the "good" ones per Roger Clark's tests (at least for center resolution) and with a 1.6x body like the 10D vignetting is OK wide open, with a 1.3x body (1D Mark II) I get too much light fall off at the corners wide open and need f/8, and with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. This is the only non-wide angle lens I own that has a vignetting problem like this so to me it doesn't qualify as a "pretty good lens". None of the other four tele lenses do this. I can even shoot the 500 f/4 L with a 2x wide open with no problem, but not the 100-400 even without a converter. Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem with it with film, did you? BTW, mine is like yours, one of the good ones, based on Roger's tests, too. In fact, if I remember correctly, you and I were part of the discussion with him that his results weren't consistent with what we both got... ... but nothing else will do what it does ... That's the only reason I haven't dumped mine ... when I fly to Alaska with space and weight limitations this lens seems to worm its way into the bag beside the 500 f/4 L even though ideally I'd rather take the 70-200 and the 400 f/5.6 (last trip for instance I took the 28-70 f/2.8 L, 100-400 IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the bag still weighed 36 lbs with two pro bodies ...) ... but the IS means I can shoot from a platform or a plane or handheld or whatever with a couple extra stops and the 100-400 zoom range is very handy. I just carried a bag with the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, all f2.8, the 100-400, 20D and 5D, Sunpak TR-2000 battery pack and spare battery cluster and 580EX. now there's some weight. It wasn't really a practical bag to carry, I was just lugging those things into the camera store to see if I could find a bag that would actually carry all that, plus auxiliary cords, batteries, diffusers, memory cards and filters. No luck, so far... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
"Skip M" wrote in message news:USX6f.3251 hey skip what are flash exposures like with the 5D. Has the underexposure problem been solved? By the way not all eos lenses provide distance info to the flash system. I have found a list that do Zoom Lenses Canon EF 16-35 mm F2.8 L USM Canon EF 17-40 mm F4 L USM Canon EF 20-35 mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 24-70 mm F2.8L USM Canon EF 24-105 mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 24-85 mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 28-105 mm F3.5-4.5 ll USM Canon EF 28-105 mm F4-5.6 Canon EF 28-105 mm F4-5.6 USM Canon EF 28-135 mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 28-200 mm F3.5-5.6 USM Canon EF 28-300 mm F3.5 - F5.6L IS USM Canon EF 70-200 mm F2.8 L IS USM Canon EF 70-200 mm F2.8 L USM Canon EF 70-200 mm F4 L USM Canon EF 70-300 mm F4.5 - F5.6 DO IS USM Canon EF 90-300 mm F4.5-5.6 Canon EF 90-300 mm F4.5-5.6 USM Canon EF 100-300 mm F4.5-5.6 USM Canon EF 100-400 mm F4.5-5.6 IS USM Prime Lenses Canon EF 14 mm F2.8 L Canon EF 20 mm F2.8 USM Canon EF 24 mm F1.4 L USM Canon EF 28 mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 35 mm F1.4 L USM Canon MP-E 65 mm F2.8 1-5x Canon EF 85 mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 100 mm F2 USM Canon EF 100 mm F2.8 MACRO USM Canon EF 135 mm F2 L USM Canon EF 180 mm F3.5 L MACRO USM Canon EF 200 mm F2.8 L ll USM Canon EF 300 mm F2.8 L IS USM Canon EF 300 mm F4 L IS USM Canon EF 400 mm F2.8 L IS USM Canon EF 400 mm F4 DO IS USM Canon EF 400 mm F5.6 L USM Canon EF 500 mm F4 L IS USM Canon EF 600 mm F4 L IS USM Canon EF 1200 mm F5.6 USM |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
"ian lincoln" wrote in message
. uk... "Skip M" wrote in message news:USX6f.3251 hey skip what are flash exposures like with the 5D. Has the underexposure problem been solved? I wouldn't say "solved" as much as "much improved." It seems pretty much spot on, but some circumstances still fool it, bright ambient room light still causes it to underexpose, but not by as much, and with more consistency, so +2/3 stop does the trick all the time... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak sister Skip Middleton writes ... It's also one of the least expensive of that lot. As I recall (without looking it up) my 100-400 cost $450-500 more than the 300 f/4 L or 400 f/5.6 L and about $300 more than my 70-200 L (non IS) so I can't agree with you here ... the 500 f/4 is a different beast, mine cost almost twice as much as all of these others combined (and well worth it to me). I think the 500 has dropped at least $2,000 since I got mine though. Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting ... with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem with it with film, did you? Yes, I saw this with film too, in low contrast light where it's more noticeable ... somewhere I have a shot of a moose shot on a rainy day in Alaska using Provia 100F with the EOS 3 and this lens wide open at 400 mm and I remember being really surprised and disappointed at the light fall-off at the edges. In bright light it's not as noticeable .... try it on your 5D and see if it's a problem. If shooting RAW the Photoshop CS RAW converter has a useful vignetting tool that corrects for this. Bill |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com... I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L, 100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak sister Skip Middleton writes ... It's also one of the least expensive of that lot. As I recall (without looking it up) my 100-400 cost $450-500 more than the 300 f/4 L or 400 f/5.6 L and about $300 more than my 70-200 L (non IS) so I can't agree with you here ... the 500 f/4 is a different beast, mine cost almost twice as much as all of these others combined (and well worth it to me). I think the 500 has dropped at least $2,000 since I got mine though. I was grouping it with the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, I didn't realize the 70-200 was non IS, my IS version is $400more than the 100-400, when I bought mine, it was less than $1200, not much more than the 400 f5.6 is now... Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting ... with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem with it with film, did you? Yes, I saw this with film too, in low contrast light where it's more noticeable ... somewhere I have a shot of a moose shot on a rainy day in Alaska using Provia 100F with the EOS 3 and this lens wide open at 400 mm and I remember being really surprised and disappointed at the light fall-off at the edges. In bright light it's not as noticeable ... try it on your 5D and see if it's a problem. If shooting RAW the Photoshop CS RAW converter has a useful vignetting tool that corrects for this. Well, it's supposed to be rainy for the next day or so, so I'll try it out. I don't think I ever tried it with film with an overcast, except once, and I cropped the image heavily, so I don't know what the edges looked like... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com