That lens is bloody expensive, but it seems to deliver!
I was definitely not going to buy it, but after seing these results on the digital-picture website I'm seriously having serious second thoughts...
I mean, it holds it's own next to the very impressive 135L, and is right there behind the almighty 200L 2.0...
However, judging by the results from that website, sample variation could be an issue, just like it was from version 1...
Yakim Peled wrote:
Mama mia. And I thought my 300/4 IS was sharp.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I know. It's incredible.
I use the 300 f/4 IS primarily for sports so I really only care about the center of the frame. The 70-200 f/2.8 mkII with the 1.4TC looks like it is as sharp as or sharper than the 300 in the center. It suffers in the edges which are a don't care for me.
What that means is that I essentially get a 100-300 f/4 zoom with the 70-200. Also looks like the 70-200 with the 2.0 TC does amazingly well. If so, that is an incredible boon as well.
Now what I need to understand is if the AF with the 1.4 will handle soccer and alpine skiing speeds. If so, then I an simplify my kit big time - I can pretty much sell my 70-200 f/4 IS, 135 f/2 and 300 f/4. That would be huge.
I never liked the Mk1. Since I use it almost entirely outdoors, the speed wasn't an issue. When I needed that speed, I just went to the 135 or the 135+1.4TC indoors. Now, I won't need to do that - if this works and the AF is good with the TC in place.
- those digital-picture.com comparisons with 1.4 and 2.0 TC are quite amazing, indicates that the II will do fine with the 50+ megapixel cams of the future
- to slee915: those little league shots indicate that your buddy uses dof effectively and composes/crops well
the backgrounds at little league games should usually be bokehed out
your #24 is a good shot and brightening up the face and dropping the exposure overall with a touch more saturation....
thanks for the tips. It was the 1st game so I was busy snapping pics of each kid so every parent has at least 1 pic of their kid batting and reaching 1st base. Now that I got that out of the way, I hope I can spend more time on composition.
Regarding the dof, it will be difficult for me because of the f/4, unless I go for longer FL. But I will start shooting towards the outfield or make sure the subject has more distance to the bg.
The baseball pics look good. Got any others with faster moving objects that are closer in (i.e. narrower DOF)?
If this worked and AF is good, it would be huge - an IS lens that could be used as a 70-200 f/2.8, a 100-300 f/4 and a 150-400 f/5.6 all with IS. Whoa.
See, this is a great comparison example of how camera to subject vs. background distance is very important. Where you and Chris shot from about the same position near first base, his shot has better background blur because he waited until the kid was farther along the first base line, whereas you shot them mostly near home plate (I know, you wanted them at bat too). That placed them closer to the fence in the background making it more in focus. Another factor, though probably slight, is that he's using a FF sensor camera vs. your APS-H. The FF camera will require closer positioning or a longer lens to get the equivalent framing of the APS-H, therefore affecting subject and background distance and blur quality. My general feeling is Chris worked as close as possible to the subjects when wanting to isolate them and also shooting towards the outfield when possible for a cleaner background, and from a lower perspective.
If you want better at bat photos, have you tried shooting from a low angle and inline with one of the baselines, like sitting on the ground and shooting directly against the chain link fence? If you block all light on the fence it should blur fairly well (you could also bring a black marker and blacken that portion of the fence, which will help even more though will probably still be a problem on the backlit side). That way you could shoot with third (or first) base in the background rather than the ugly fence. You'll probably have to shoot from both sides to get shots of right and left handed batters. It will put you closer to them, and the background will be farther away, thus blurring it more. The only question is how much the chain link fence will interfere in shots, but Chris's 8th and 9th images are good examples of this angle. I don't mean this to turn into a critique, but it's interesting to see the different approaches in each gallery. Definitely explore other positions at the next game.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Mama mia. And I thought my 300/4 IS was sharp.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
The 300 f/4 IS is good but not great, and it's relatively old tech (isn't it the second EOS IS lens? and it's still a MkI). It's better than the 70-200 mkI with 1.4x TC, but based on the results with the MkII and TC, proves that Canon could improve on this lens as well. Whether they will is what I'm wondering as I would really like to see a 300 f/4 IS MkII. Maybe one with a bit of a twist to reduce size & weight.
JohnJ80 wrote:
I know. It's incredible.
I use the 300 f/4 IS primarily for sports so I really only care about the center of the frame. The 70-200 f/2.8 mkII with the 1.4TC looks like it is as sharp as or sharper than the 300 in the center. It suffers in the edges which are a don't care for me.
What that means is that I essentially get a 100-300 f/4 zoom with the 70-200. Also looks like the 70-200 with the 2.0 TC does amazingly well. If so, that is an incredible boon as well.
Now what I need to understand is if the AF with the 1.4 will handle soccer and alpine skiing speeds. If so, then I an simplify my kit big time - I can pretty much sell my 70-200 f/4 IS, 135 f/2 and 300 f/4. That would be huge.
I never liked the Mk1. Since I use it almost entirely outdoors, the speed wasn't an issue. When I needed that speed, I just went to the 135 or the 135+1.4TC indoors. Now, I won't need to do that - if this works and the AF is good with the TC in place.
It could work, but how much do you value the light weight and portability of the f/4 IS? Other than its optical superiority over the f/2.8 IS MkI, this is primarily what I like so much about it. But if you're primarily shooting sports, aren't lugging it all over the place on hikes/trips and don't really need f/2 much, then the 2.8 IS MkII makes a lot of sense.
The weight is nice with the f/4 IS but I'm after the f/2.8 which improves the performance of the AF system too. I also get to simplify my kit big time. But, how knows, it's a lot of money.
I just can't get over it though (presuming fast AF) - if the IQ is that good with the TC's that makes for one heck of a flexible light weight set up: 70-200 f/2.8 plus 2 TCs.
rscheffler wrote: The 300 f/4 IS is good but not great, and it's relatively old tech (isn't it the second EOS IS lens? and it's still a MkI). It's better than the 70-200 mkI with 1.4x TC, but based on the results with the MkII and TC, proves that Canon could improve on this lens as well. Whether they will is what I'm wondering as I would really like to see a 300 f/4 IS MkII. Maybe one with a bit of a twist to reduce size & weight.
Well, all I can say is that I also have the 135/2 and do not feel it is superior to the 300/4 IS. I think I need to go home and do some pixel peeping to be sure.
Sample shots from 1Dmk3 with new 70-200mm 2.8 L IS mkII + 2X TC. No post processing so that you can see what it is useable in noise reduction afterward. The noise ninja can clean up and sharpen up easily with these files.
From my experience, it works far better than the mk I and 135L with 2X TC.
mk I with 1.4X TC gives acceptable image quality but the mk II version is definitely good with 2X TC when you needed it. Does it replace the 400mm 5.6 L ? Not really. However, you can just have a mightly all-in-one lens when you are travelling.
I usually removed the tripod collar as it feels much lighter hand held the camera. Some photos taken with 2XTC at wide open
Sure if F4 IS might be good but not good for 400mm F8. It tends to be too dimm for anything as 6.3 is the cut-off point for me even though it is just half stop brighter.
Hopefully this helps to those who's considering the upgrade.
s23chang wrote:
Sample shots from 1Dmk3 with new 70-200mm 2.8 L IS mkII + 2X TC. No post processing so that you can see what it is useable in noise reduction afterward. The noise ninja can clean up and sharpen up easily with these files.
From my experience, it works far better than the mk I and 135L with 2X TC.
mk I with 1.4X TC gives acceptable image quality but the mk II version is definitely good with 2X TC when you needed it. Does it replace the 400mm 5.6 L ? Not really. However, you can just have a mightly all-in-one lens when you are travelling.
I usually removed the tripod collar as it feels much lighter hand held the camera. Some photos taken with 2XTC at wide open
Sure if F4 IS might be good but not good for 400mm F8. It tends to be too dimm for anything as 6.3 is the cut-off point for me even though it is just half stop brighter.
Hopefully this helps to those who's considering the upgrade....Show more →
JohnJ80 wrote:
How's the AF speed with the TCs in AI Servo?
J.
On the MKIV with the 400 f5.6L and 500 being a "10" I'd rate the 70-200 with the 1.4 at 8-9 and the 2X at 8. The 2X is pretty good until it has to hunt, then it's a train wreck. Prefocusing on that combo when trying to shoot small BIF is really the ticket, it's fine then.
stanj wrote:
If you look at my earlier post, you'll see that I have posted a 1Ds3 raw file at MFD, and one close to that. It works very well.
Thanks Stan, didn't see that one and you are right, nothing to complain about there. BTW... I was quite impressed by the tricycle shot as well and appreciate you posting the images.
rd4tile wrote:
On the MKIV with the 400 f5.6L and 500 being a "10" I'd rate the 70-200 with the 1.4 at 8-9 and the 2X at 8. The 2X is pretty good until it has to hunt, then it's a train wreck. Prefocusing on that combo when trying to shoot small BIF is really the ticket, it's fine then.
That really amazes me. Like I said, I use the 300 f/4 IS for sports but it would be *really* nice to have a 100-300 f/4. I'd been looking at the 100-400, but it just seems so slow to me. This lens, with a TC would be pretty good if the AF speed is there and I'd be avoiding the cost of the 100-400 as well.
I'm going to have to get my hands on one of these and try it out with the TC on some very fast moving subjects. One of my big applications would be alpine ski racing (slalom and GS).
