technic
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Official Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM thread (Post your pics)! | |
cpe1991 wrote:
technic, I am pleased you have come in as I have tested the RF100-500mm vs 100-400mm II for close ups and had thought of you. It's in https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-100-500mm-vs-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/
The RF100-500mm is significantly better at very close distances and I am looking forward to using it on dragonflies when the weather warms up.
Thanks, much appreciated! First of all it's obvious how much superior the bare PF500 is for closeup. The improvement in the RF 100-500 is encouraging compared to the 100-400II (which is close to unusable for my standards at MFD), especially with 1.4x TC added,
However ... when testing the 100-400II near MFD with banknotes (flat subject in low contrast lighting) it gave me pretty good results because in those conditions the huge spherical aberration of the lens doesn't show and you only suffer some border/corner softness and lower contrast. Results are probably worse in real life (for the zooms) with 3D subjects in high contrast lighting. But the 100-500 has the advantage in weight compared to the 400DO and 500PF. The 11/800DO would be the real winner in weight/size if it can do the job ...
---------------------------------------------
Imagemaster wrote:
The better comparison would be the 800mm f11 against the 400mm f5.6 with converter and 2x TC, comparing cost, size, weight, IQ, and AF. 
Optically they have similar spec but the lack of IS makes the 400mm a no-go without tripod (especially for closeup work).
---------------------------------------------
Imagemaster wrote:
Nothing wrong at all looking for better options. I am just saying that you have been complaining for years that Canon does not make a suitable lens for you for taking photos of dragonflies in flight. I am saying they have a number of lenses that lots of other people find work just fine for that, and there are hundreds of excellent photos of dragonflies in flight that have been taken with such lenses.
Also, why would you think an 800mm lens would be better for such an application, than ones with shorter focal-lengths, when it is both harder to find the subject in the viewfinder and to track it the longer the focal-length of the lens ...Show more →
I don't think a 800mm is superior at all unless I cannot get closer to the subject, which happens. 800mm sure would not be my primary lens because it is indeed very difficult then to find the subject in the VF and track it. It would be a backup lens for mostly stationary subjects where I cannot get close enough. This is more for scientific documentation than for creative photography, and another reason that I want something light and affordable.
---------------------------------------------
cpe1991 wrote:
Yes, it's to do with the focal length differences. What I was doing was to have the camera at a fixed distance from a chart so I could measure the resolution of the chart lines - I wasn't measuring the MTFs but the ability to resolve the lines on the chart. The 100-500mm at 500mm gives a teeny bit better resolution than the 400mm DO II at 400mm even though the prime is 100mm shorter. Put the 1.4xTC on the DO and the increase in focal length resolves more lines.
It's nice having a choice of using the the 400mm DO II or the 100-500mm.
...Show more →
I guess the 100-500 like the 100-400II has off-the-charts focus breathing (= much shorter working distance required), more so than the 400DO and 500PF? My 100-400II is close to 200mm real focal length at 400mm setting and MFD, I would be surprised if the primes are that bad ...
|
