It's so obvious that either the DP ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops are wrong, or that lens he used is a very bad copy. Every other lens will be better when comparing them against the 800 at that site. Lenses like the 300/4 IS or 400/5,6 will very easy beat it. If you look at his test when adding extenders to the 800 it's getting really ridiculous. With the 2x you can nearly not read the big numbers. (look at the 14 to the left)
Gary Irwin wrote:
My, those are some big pijuns you have down there Peter!
And just to prove that I do shoot BIF on occasion...
Wow, and some BIF that is, with 1.4xTC no less.........
Gary's cormorant shot reminded me of something else of some relevance.
A month or so ago I decided to verify if my superb 400 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII could "emulate" 800L, or perhaps do even better for BIF photography.
My conclusions:
(1) The combo's AF drive speed is lower than bare 800L, although the shorter MFD of the combo offered some benefits. All around, I'd still prefer 800L, if I had to do BIF at 800mm.
(2) The combo's IQ was close but not quite on the 800L level.
Here is a sample image taken with handheld 400 f/2.8 II + 2xTC MkIII.
^^^ Amazing shot there Peter. Excellent detail and colour. Very sharp, especially considering you used the 2.0xTC. That 400/2.8 is a fantastic lens in talented hands.
Thank you, Gary and Shreeni, indeed, bare 400 f/2.8 IS MkII is something else although the TCs take their toll......I've never heard of TCs improving the IQ of a lens.
Sitting on the sideline and waiting for the reports coming in.
The most useful way of asking the question of this topic, in my opinion, is:
In a valid comparison, is it possible to discern that the 800L will offer better image quality than the 600 II + 1.4 TCIII? So far, I have not seen any data supporting that position.
Aug 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
alundeb wrote:
Sitting on the sideline and waiting for the reports coming in.
The most useful way of asking the question of this topic, in my opinion, is:
In a valid comparison, is it possible to discern that the 800L will offer better image quality than the 600 II + 1.4 TCIII? So far, I have not seen any data supporting that position.
I don't belive anybody is saying the 800 is the best. Or saying it's better than the 600II or any other super-tele. But it's not at all like the pics from the DP site
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't belive anybody is saying the 800 is the best. Or saying it's better than the 600II or any other super-tele. But it's not at all like the pics from the DP site
Are you talking about the 600II alone, or the 600II with 1.4X TC III?
Aug 24, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
alundeb wrote:
Are you talking about the 600II alone, or the 600II with 1.4X TC III?
I'm talking about the pics in the link here. And I don't belive they are ok or fair. The 600II could be better. I have only been using the new mkII super-teles at the Bangkok Foto Fair and not in real shooting so i don't really know. But I don't belive it's better when using extender. I have not seen any Canon super-tele with extender being better than another Canon super-tele bare
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I'm talking about the pics in the link here. And I don't belive they are ok or fair. The 600II could be better. I have only been using the new mkII super-teles at the Bangkok Foto Fair and not in real shooting so i don't really know. But I don't belive it's better when using extender. I have not seen any Canon super-tele with extender being better than another Canon super-tele bare
Hi,
I have tested for 2 months..
I see no difference between the 800mm bare and the 600mm II + 1.4 III.
Scientific no !
It's just my experience.
So for me the 600 II and the 1.4 extender is a killer combo.
The 800mm will be sold.
Even the 400mm II with 2x extender III is rather close.
The 1.4 will be better then 2x extender.
If you have to decide !!!!!!
Rent both and try yourself.
Most images here (including mine) are to small to see the real sharpness.
I have not tested these two lenses in question but if the 600II + 1.4xIII extender provides similar results to the 500II + 1.4x III extender, from my own findings, this combo could definitely be a viable alternative to the 800L. I don't believe it will provide "better" IQ though, as the initial link seems to indicate.
There is more to IQ than just center crop sharpness. We also have to take in consideration that extenders will magnify aberrations and increase distortion. Auto-focus will also take a small hit.
IMO it's foolish for anyone to attempt to choose between two premium lenses like the 600MKII+TC VS 800L based on perceived sharpness performance. AF differences? Maybe. (I've yet to see any lens with a TC tacked on that's has as fast AF as a native lens with equal aperture under any circumstances, but I could be wrong.)
Ideally, it's best to choose the lens that meets your needs most without having to rely on TC's, otherwise you are choosing to compromise. Not necessarily a bad compromise, but a compromise none-the-less.
The vast majority of my photographic interests start at 800mm and go longer, so the 600 is a compromise to me. Everyone's different.
Aug 24, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Really nice Kite shots in the review.
Remeber when you write here and compare with the 800. Most of the improvements compared to the older super-teles you write about in the review. Like the better IS or the replacement of the UD glass against another fluorite glass. Those things are already in the 800. And the 800 is much closer in performance to the mkII lenses than the other mkI super-teles.
The 600MKII with TC delivers similar levels of sharpness when compared to the 800 in a careful side by side comparison. The vignetting is a bit less than the 800 but that can be easily corrected in post. Both are great lenses capable of delivering excellent results.
The 600 is the obvious choice for hand held flight photography as it is lighter and better balanced and as mentioned for situations when you need less focal length or more light.
As for the electronics the 800 does have the 4-stop IS but it lacks the latest CPU/AI-servo firmware used in the MKII super telephoto lenses. The new CPU can talk to the MKIII extenders, that in my experience resulted in a faster servo drive and improved tracking accuracy with the TC which enables you to take shots like the one below (also available at HD size).
I will soon update the review with firmware 1.1.1 more images including shorebirds. If I get my hands on a 800 I will provide comparison with the 800.
The reviewer in TDP is not very careful with focus, sometimes his results are not consistent. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on those results.
Another difference between the 800 and the 600II+TC is the number of available AF points. With the 800 the outer AF sensors in EOS 1DX, EOS 5D3 are disabled. I think the reason for this is the vignetting. With 600 II +TC all AF points are available despite the identical aperture.
Here is another example with the 600+TCIII (wide open aperture).
