Fred, I'm interested in knowing why you believe this is not correct. I'm certainly surprised by the result and I would like to know whether it's accurate or not (I hope some day to acquire the 800mm lens -- but would not consider it if it really is outperformed by the 600mm II + 1.4X).
The comparison image @ TDP ... 600+TC seems to show more CA/fringe than the 800 ... so there might be some "trade-offs" being incorporated that for some will be acceptable.
Of course, I'll only see this vicariously through test shots @ TDP as my beer budget can't even begin to fathom owning either of these.
BluesWest wrote:
Fred, I'm interested in knowing why you believe this is not correct. I'm certainly surprised by the result and I would like to know whether it's accurate or not (I hope some day to acquire the 800mm lens -- but would not consider it if it really is outperformed by the 600mm II + 1.4X).
John
Mainly because everyone who owns an 800(me included) hav stated numerous times the images he got with the test 800 where far from what the lens delivers.
Either a bad copy which I doubt as I've never heard of a " bad copy" of a super or poorly setup test.
Also consider how badly his 600L mk I performed in testing too. A sample of 1 is not a basis for a scientific conclusion to lens performance.
As they say, if you are going to have a 1.4x TC glued to a lens, it's always better to get the longer slower native lens. If you only plan to use the 1.4x occasionally, then the shorter faster glass has merit.
Aug 24, 2012 at 05:36 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
BluesWest wrote:
Fred, I'm interested in knowing why you believe this is not correct. I'm certainly surprised by the result and I would like to know whether it's accurate or not (I hope some day to acquire the 800mm lens -- but would not consider it if it really is outperformed by the 600mm II + 1.4X).
John
The 800 in his pics is very soft. In real life it's about the sharpest lens there exist. And as sharp as all the other super-teles without any extenders attached. It has been discussed many times here.
This is how the 800 + extender look in real life shooting. And it's a little bit better without extender of course.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's obviously not correct. Nuff said...
Yes, I also agree that, generally, that comparison is not good.
However, unless he screwed up something in his test procedure, perhaps his 800L is a wonky copy, so his results are valid for his wonky copy of 800L.
I think he also had a wonky 200 f/1.8 a few years back, and we exchanged emails on that because I didn't feel that 200 1.8 should be so much inferior to 300 f/2.8 IS MkI in sharpness, and he was also very surprised by the results he was getting.
It's a difficult business he is in, and he should perhaps go back to those tests which seem "fishy", and repeat with a different lens, even if he has to borrow it. That's what PZone fellow often does.
Before I bought my 800L from my dealer (Canadian commercial sales guy) I discussed the need to return it should it not perform up to par (i.e. given some of the complains I read on the internet about some copies of this lens being soft). He indicated Canon appeared to have some quality control issues with the early units, but in recent years he's had no complaints from purchasers. FWIW my copy, which is only a few months old, is as sharp as I need it to be.
Assuming TDP did their testing when the lens was newly released, I wonder if they simply got a poor copy? I also wonder if they perform a MA on it first?
Aug 24, 2012 at 08:12 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Gary Irwin wrote:
Before I bought my 800L from my dealer (Canadian commercial sales guy) I discussed the need to return it should it not perform up to par (i.e. given some of the complains I read on the internet about some copies of this lens being soft). He indicated Canon appeared to have some quality control issues with the early units, but in recent years he's had no complaints from purchasers. FWIW my copy, which is only a few months old, is as sharp as I need it to be.
Assuming TDP did their testing when the lens was newly released, I wonder if they simply got a poor copy? I also wonder if they perform a MA on it first?
Similar to what Gary has said, while my 800L (the 2nd one I've owned so far) may not be the sharpest telephoto lens I've got, i.e., not quite as sharp as my 400 f/2.8 lenses, I consider it to be of sufficient resolving power and a truly excellent IQ all around.
