skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Interesting I just did a first tentative test using 135L and Canon 1.4x TC II, Canon 1.4x TC III, Canon 2.0x TC III.
I find that focusing must be done perfectly which is very tricky, sometimes out of 10 liveview 10x zoom attempts some are much better than other tries and often just one or 2 of the 10 are better than the rest. Doesn't give one a lot of confidence in these tests, mine or others.
Anyway first Canon 1.4x TC II vs III, with the total aperture set to f/5 and again this was with a 135L, wanted something that could focus closely enough for a straight down at a bill on the floor and I figured the 135 is supposed to be very sharp stopped down just a little. I will try with 300 2.8 IS and more distance later:
Looking at the jpgs the main thing that stuck out was that the new one adds far less lateral R/G CA. Looked like it had at least 3x less.
Sharpness seemed pretty similar. Give it across the frame to the III but by the tiniest of hairs.
Some people say they have trouble telling the 100L and 100 macro apart. I could tell those apart. In this case I think the difference in the center to more than half-way out to the edge looks to be definitely less than between the 100L and 100.
One thin, black dust line looked noticeably crisper in the center with the III but perhaps it was just because it happened to align perfectly on some photosites, along it did angle a bit, or maybe it shows that the micro-contrast is a trace better with the three, on most details it was super hard to tell and close even at 400% view aside from that black dust line, although subtle things in favor of the III could be seen at 400%, maybe a slight hint of a more biting feeling at 100% but slight.
It seemed like the far edges and corners was were it became a bit easier to notice the sharpness differences with the new III. From the L and R edges to about 20% in and the corners is where it was a bit easier to notice the difference in sharpness, still not night and day, aside from getting a bit more towards the corners or at least edges away from dead center.
The far edge and corners were still a little blurrier compared to how the bare 135L did the far edges and corners, especially the corners.
The III corners seemed to have more of a veiling green haze hint, upper left at least, even while a little bit sharper, not sure what that was about have to look into it, if not for that it would be easier to say the III does better there for sure, maybe it was just the camera angle changing just a hair and some reflectance of the inks since they can be reflecty at the wrong angle?
The whole large corner region had barely more detail than upsizing the raw 135 image (the story could change at greater focusing distances though), but the TCs gave very noticeably more detail than upsizing the bare 135 elsewhere in the frame.
Using ACR to correct CA, suddenly one very obvious advantage of the III went away.
For jpgs in-cam or film the lesser CA on the new model really is pretty noticeable but once you apply CA fixing (I needed +12 for II and +3 for III while the bare 135 needed +2) then it really evens that right up.
If you go to 200-400% view you can see that worse CA of the II is polluting the fine color purity a bit as on the micro writing "100"s on the bill they seemed to be made out of only dark black green pixels but on the ones taken with the II you could see some red and green and pink dots/tiny lines mixed into the main shade of the text, left over artifacts from the CA. On a magazine print some of the tiniest blobs of printed color were perhaps slightly more pure with the III because of this. This is getting fairly picky though  .
1. Shooting in cam jpgs or film the 1.4x III definitely seems to be worth it. Shooting RAW, it because a lot more debatable. $150 more is a lot for mostly kinda small improvements. I need to test out better though and on more important lenses for it's usage such as the 70-200 f/4 IS and 300 2.8 IS.
2. The Canon 1.4x TC of either type will not stack with each other OR even with the 2x III.
Now on to the 2.0x TC III:
my results were simply awful, shooting it at f/5 and the 1.4x III at f/5 the upscaled 1.4x III photos had a heck of lot less veiling haze (kinda like 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 under harsh lighting look) and more detail, I could swear! Stopping the 2x down a stop to f/7.1 improved it a lot, especially the haze (and keeping at f/5 both both tests did mean it had to use the 135 a stop closer to wide open, granted) but it still seemed to have worse macro contrast and I really think it was a toss up as to which had more total detail and I'm still not sure the 2x III did!
Either the 2x TCs totally stink, even the fancy new III version, or the talk that no TC is ever a bad copy is a simply a terrible myth! (EDIT: or maybe there is some weird interaction with the 135 f/2 that makes it simply awful when used on that lens as some suggest. If it doesn't do better on the other lenses it is going back as defective.)
Edited on Jul 03, 2011 at 02:49 PM · View previous versions
|
But I may have an unusually good copy of the zoom.