Hey guys I'm joining in with my new Canon FDn 300mm f2.8L (newer UD glass type), which I bought on impulse because the price was right.
I knew the lens would be big, but it's ridiculously so. My NEX-5N looks like a rear lens cap on this monster. That's problematic for me, as I never have a tripod with me. My solution for now is a bean bag, The Pod, which attaches to the tripod collar. I can go down on one knee, rest the lens on my leg, and tilt the screen up. This gives enough support to avoid shake. Or I can just rest the lens on anything nearby.
I don't have much to show yet, but I can tell you the IQ is world class from the few shots I've taken so far. It's really razor sharp wide open, but DoF is a bit hard to control.
Theese are the first test shots (of nothing special) wide open.
When I saw the shot above I thought where is the CA Neither shot has been corrected for CA, but I applied some local sharpening.
I'll post more soon.
Edit: A question for others who have this lens. It came with a "Regular 1x" filter in the filter holder. Should I leave it in, or remove it? Is it just a UV filter, or what is it for?
wilco23 wrote:
Thanks for the sample photos. I want to see image from L version now.
Here are a few tough ones, the "L" version really is pretty good (along with my 300's, 400's, and 500mm). CA is not an issue...support (gimbal mount or C-F monopod with RRS tilt head) is the real image killer. Of course, that is assuming you can get your subject in focus...
briantho wrote:
Hey guys I'm joining in with my new Canon FDn 300mm f2.8L (newer UD glass type), which I bought on impulse because the price was right.
I knew the lens would be big, but it's ridiculously so. My NEX-5N looks like a rear lens cap on this monster. That's problematic for me, as I never have a tripod with me. My solution for now is a bean bag, The Pod, which attaches to the tripod collar. I can go down on one knee, rest the lens on my leg, and tilt the screen up. This gives enough support to avoid shake. Or I can just rest the lens on anything nearby.
I don't have much to show yet, but I can tell you the IQ is world class from the few shots I've taken so far. It's really razor sharp wide open, but DoF is a bit hard to control.
Theese are the first test shots (of nothing special) wide open.
When I saw the shot above I thought where is the CA Neither shot has been corrected for CA, but I applied some local sharpening.
I'll post more soon.
Edit: A question for others who have this lens. It came with a "Regular 1x" filter in the filter holder. Should I leave it in, or remove it? Is it just a UV filter, or what is it for?...Show more →
People say that rear filters are "part of the optical formula" and therefore should be left in. The 300/2.8L has user adjustments for infinity which go way way beyond where infinity actually is. I dig that feature BTW! Anyway I've critically tested with and without the rear filter on a number of lenses and there is absolutely zero difference - Zero, zip, nada, nothing. So it's totally up to you whether to leave it in or shoot without.
I think the thinking on the part of the manufacturer is that if there is a clear filter in place then when the user swaps out to an ND, PL, or other filters then there won't be any need to adjust focus or readjust the infinity stop. Also having one in there labeled 1x might make people want to buy something that says 1.4x.
Bifurcator wrote:
People say that rear filters are "part of the optical formula" and therefore should be left in. The 300/2.8L has user adjustments for infinity which go way way beyond where infinity actually is. I dig that feature BTW! Anyway I've critically tested with and without the rear filter on a number of lenses and there is absolutely zero difference - Zero, zip, nada, nothing. So it's totally up to you whether to leave it in or shoot without.
I think the thinking on the part of the manufacturer is that if there is a clear filter in place then when the user swaps out to an ND, PL, or other filters then there won't be any need to adjust focus or readjust the infinity stop. Also having one in there labeled 1x might make people want to buy something that says 1.4x. ...Show more →
Good that you did these tests so I won't have to.
I'll have to buy a 1.4x... but which one? The lens came with an Edmika 0.5mm adapter installed, so FD or EOS mount is possible, and I have NEX adapters for both. Which one would you recommend?
Damn, I just looked at the prices for the EF version... it almost costs more than I gave for the lens.
I dunno. I've looked very briefly several times for alternatives to put in there but all I ever see is ND, IR, and CPL filters. I only assume there are diopters available. But if buying a diopter I would only want one made by Canon (or Zeiss... something like that).
But hey... I already have Contax Mutars I and II... I could mount that on my camera, and then use a C/Y to EF adapter to mount the lens... Why didn't I think of that? Gonna try it now.
Edit: Bummer. I need an adapter that goes the other way, that is mounting an EF or FD lens on C/Y. I'll look in to it.
Good point on the CPL, I have no idea. I bought one for $8 and have used it on the Tamron 55BB 500mm mirror, and the UW Rokkor 18mm lenses. It worked OK. I didn't rotate anything and there's no mechanism to do so even if I wanted to - it's like a regular single part UV filter with no moving parts. So I'm at a loss <shrug>
EDIT
If you just wanna use a TC like that the Canon FD ones are good and also cheap. The 2x ones do degrade the image noticeably but very slightly and we're already dealing with a near perfect image in the 1st place so it's not that bad. The 1.4x ones don't seem to degrade the image in a humanly noticeable way. Either can be had for around $50 or so.
briantho wrote:
Nice photo, I thougt it was 2xA that was recommended for 300+.
No, actually the 2X-B is especially recommended for the 300mm f2.8L, and that is from Canon, Inc. The 2X-A is used with lenses 300mm or greater, except for the 300mm f2.8L. I have all three FD T.C.'s (1.4X, 2X-A, 2X-B) and a 7 element Kenko MC 2X. The best optical results come from the 1.4X, which is to be expected.
Neither shot has been corrected for CA, but I applied some local sharpening.
