Uarctos wrote:
Is the last image cropped to some extent? What are your thoughts on this lens?
I cropped it a little down to 5157 x 3438 vs 6000 x 4000 full frame of the R3. So far I am impressed with the image quality and the AF speed. The extenders seems to work as good as on my RF 400mm. Still have not used it a ton but so far no complaints. Maybe a tiny complaint that I find the focus preset button not that easy to reach, I do like it better than turning the ring like on the big whites.
It seems to work well with 2x... so probably with 1.4x will be minimal the sharpness drop, I expect to be close to the 200-400 at 400 F4.... so making a 100-300 2.8 and 200-400 4 in one lens, it covers many of my sports/action needs with one lens, mostly Ice hockey, Ice Skating, evening/nights motorsport, indoor/night horse showjumping.
I have the 100-500 when I need more a compact and lightweight stuff like alpine ski, ski freeride, mtb, jets ... if with the 2x is a tad sharper at 600mm 5.6 than the 100-500 at 7.1 I may use it more even for outdoor stuff other than the one that I need to ski or ride down with ;-)
^ I think this lens makes a lot of sense for indoor sports where you can benefit from having 100mm at the wide end and if necessary fall back on higher pixel density for cropping at the long end (i.e. with R5). Even with the 1.4x semi-permanently attached, 140-420/4 is still considerably more versatility on the wide end than the 200-400. It appears Canon's MTFs are holding up to real world use - the 100-300 with 1.4x MTF appeared about as good as the bare 200-400.
I still don't like having to physically add/remove the TC, but I suppose it's a tradeoff for other benefits.
RobAmy wrote:
Another with the 2x from this morning. The detail is outstanding. Look at Flickr for the best detail.
It doesn't appear to be worse than the 200-400 @ 560 with internal TC. Without side by side use, hard to say how much difference there is. I've found the 200-400 w/TC on static subjects where you have time for good camera technique can look very good. Where I feel it suffers is slightly less focus consistency in action situations combined with suboptimal technique. Biggest benefit comparing the two might be the faster inherent AF of the 100-300.
At least for me, I'm not in a rush and will wait to see if anything happens in regards to a 200-500.
Rob: if/when the 200-500/4 materializes, do you think it will interest you? It would seem to be a lot of overlap with the 100-300 and your primes.
rscheffler wrote:
^ I think this lens makes a lot of sense for indoor sports where you can benefit from having 100mm at the wide end and if necessary fall back on higher pixel density for cropping at the long end (i.e. with R5). Even with the 1.4x semi-permanently attached, 140-420/4 is still considerably more versatility on the wide end than the 200-400. It appears Canon's MTFs are holding up to real world use - the 100-300 with 1.4x MTF appeared about as good as the bare 200-400.
I still don't like having to physically add/remove the TC, but I suppose it's a tradeoff for other benefits.
Rob: if/when the 200-500/4 materializes, do you think it will interest you? It would seem to be a lot of overlap with the 100-300 and your primes....Show more →
Oh come on now, we're talking about Rob here. Of course he'll snag the 200-500, he's probably already got it on preorder.
Took delivery of mine on Wednesday. I have discovered that if I remove the lens from my R5 while the camera is still powered on, there is, what I am guessing, is a lose focus element that I can hear 'rattling' around while moving the lens.
If I reattach the lens and then remove it after I power off the body, this rattling is not longer evident. I realize I shouldn't be removing the lens prior to power off the camera but sometime, in the moment, I forget.
My only other lenses are the 15-35 and 70-200 and neither exhibit this type of behavior.
Is this normal for this size of a lens or should I be more concerned and look to replace it?
denrusso wrote:
Took delivery of mine on Wednesday. I have discovered that if I remove the lens from my R5 while the camera is still powered on, there is, what I am guessing, is a lose focus element that I can hear 'rattling' around while moving the lens.
If I reattach the lens and then remove it after I power off the body, this rattling is not longer evident. I realize I shouldn't be removing the lens prior to power off the camera but sometime, in the moment, I forget.
My only other lenses are the 15-35 and 70-200 and neither exhibit this type of behavior.
Is this normal for this size of a lens or should I be more concerned and look to replace it?
I can only assume that removing the lens from the body in this way will eventually lead to catastrophic damage?
Thanks,
denrusso
I believe that is the IS module. It is only parked when you power off the camera. It is certainly disconcerting when you hear it moving around and I agree that I doubt it would be a good thing to have it unparked a lot over time. I just had to get in the habit of powering off before detaching.
rscheffler wrote:
Rob: if/when the 200-500/4 materializes, do you think it will interest you? It would seem to be a lot of overlap with the 100-300 and your primes.
I am not sure if I want the 200-500 at this point but it is tough without true specs. Like Dave said it is me so I may get it to try it
I agree too much overlap. I only really bought the 100-300 to replace the 100-500mm and the 200-400mm. I wanted it for my dogs and kayaking. 100-300mm f2.8 is perfect for Kenzie doggie pics and with extenders it will make a nice versatile lens for the kayak. I am only taking pictures with the 2x because people asked. I mainly will use it bare and with the 1.4x. If I need more than that I will use my 400mm, same goes if I need 800mm or more then just use the 800mm. I really enjoy the 2.8 of lenses now after using the 400mm so much. If they make the 200-500 an f2.8 then take my money
RobAmy wrote:
I am not sure if I want the 200-500 at this point but it is tough without true specs. Like Dave said it is me so I may get it to try it
I agree too much overlap. I only really bought the 100-300 to replace the 100-500mm and the 200-400mm. I wanted it for my dogs and kayaking. 100-300mm f2.8 is perfect for Kenzie doggie pics and with extenders it will make a nice versatile lens for the kayak. I am only taking pictures with the 2x because people asked. I mainly will use it bare and with the 1.4x. If I need more than that I will use my 400mm, same goes if I need 800mm or more then just use the 800mm. I really enjoy the 2.8 of lenses now after using the 400mm so much. If they make the 200-500 an f2.8 then take my money ...Show more →
Rob, the Sigma 200-500 2.8 is available for around $20,000. It comes with a matched 2x tc and weighs about 36 lbs
Jim
I'm pretty shocked at the quality at 600mm with the 2x. Is there a significant amount of post processing going in to getting the appearance of sharpness on these photos or are they already plenty sharp out of camera?
Jesse Evans wrote:
I'm pretty shocked at the quality at 600mm with the 2x. Is there a significant amount of post processing going in to getting the appearance of sharpness on these photos or are they already plenty sharp out of camera?
The image quality is that good. I am just doing my normal processing, nothing special. Here is a turkey shot SOOC just saved as jpeg. This is in crop mode also. I just ran it though Topaz Giga Pixel to increase the size in the image above. This was in the drizzle also.
Without side by side use, hard to say how much difference there is. I've found the 200-400 w/TC on static subjects where you have time for good camera technique can look very good. Where I feel it suffers is slightly less focus consistency in action situations combined with suboptimal technique. Biggest benefit comparing the two might be the faster inherent AF of the 100-300.
