Interestingly the new converters are much more complex, optically, than the previous versions. the MTFs with them look a lot better too (on the various combos shown - only the 300 and 400 for the mkIII converters).
It doesn't look like they will be stackable like the mkII ones were though. Not enough space in the rear of the 2x mkIII to allow the 1.4x to fit, from what I can see.
Sinsear wrote:
What has a protruding rear element? The TC III?
all the canon TC's Mark I,II or III
1.4x or 2x
have a protruding front element that either smashes into lenses that have an element at the rear or that have to small of a hole in the back for the TC element to fit into
You can still stack the converters by putting a 12mm extension tube between them. With many of the supertelephotos you can still focus to infinity because the lens actually focuses past infinity.
gcrimmins wrote:
You can still stack the converters by putting a 12mm extension tube between them. With many of the supertelephotos you can still focus to infinity because the lens actually focuses past infinity.
Interesting.
I've never tried an extension tube between teleconverters, and thanks to you just discovered that it reduces maximum focus distance much less than when only using the tube between the lens and one TC.
Inifinity may be a stretch, but with my 70-200 4 IS it worked up to about 200 meters with a 12 mm tube between two TCs.
Sinsear wrote:
So, in conclusion, the TC's (all versions) WILL NOT work with the new 70-300L?
1.4x TCs will AF with a 1-series body (center point). If the 70-300 does not have a recessed rear element you should still be able to use third party TCs.
The focus scale goes waaaay beyond infinity, this could mean that if you mount a 12 mm extension tube between the lens and a Canon TC, it may retain infinity focus.
One thing I'd like to point out from looking at the MTF charts is that in both wide and tele the meridonial and sagital lines have a similar shape and are very close to each other (closer to in tele rather than wide though). This should mean that the bokeh from this lens will be pleasing rather than harsh (though not guaranteed).
thedigitalbean wrote:
One thing I'd like to point out from looking at the MTF charts is that in both wide and tele the meridonial and sagital lines have a similar shape and are very close to each other (closer to in tele rather than wide though). This should mean that the bokeh from this lens will be pleasing rather than harsh (though not guaranteed).
hmm they look pretty far apart to me, i don't think this will give any sort of prime lens-type bokeh
are you confusing black and blue (wide open and f/8) with merid/sag?
I wonder if this will be faster at 200mm than expected.
Many have said it will be f/5.6 at 200mm since the 75-300 IS and 70-300 IS are, which would be unfortunate and make it tough to trade in a 70-200 f/4 IS for, but look at this:
75-300 IS filter size 58mm
70-300 IS filter size 58mm
70-200 f/4 IS filter size 67mm
300 f/4 IS filter size 77mm
70-300L filter size 67mm
so i'd think it would be f/5 at worst and maybe f/4.5 at 200mm is not too much to hope for (i suppose one could go crazy and hope for f/4 at 200mm since the 70-200 f/4 has a 67mm filter but probably it won't work out like that)
they had to have made it a stumpy compared to the 70-300 IS for a reason, part of it might have been to improve IQ but hopefully part of it was to allow for say f/4.5 at 200mm vs. f/5.6
EDIT: it turns out the 70-300 IS is f/5 so maybe this one could actually hit f/4.5 then?
skibum5 wrote:
I wonder if this will be faster at 200mm than expected.
Many have said it will be f/5.6 at 200mm since the 75-300 IS and 70-300 IS are, which would be unfortunate and make it tough to trade in a 70-200 f/4 IS for, but look at this:
75-300 IS filter size 58mm
70-300 IS filter size 58mm
70-200 f/4 IS filter size 67mm
300 f/4 IS filter size 77mm
70-300L filter size 67mm
Indeed, but even then, I do not think we should expect much better than f/5.6.
For the records, the 100-400 has a 77mm thread (same thread as a 300/4), yet it is already f/5.6 at 250mm. A zoom, with a rather long range requires more compromise, so it should be no surprise.
Even if it is still f/5, that would not make a huge difference for most people.
Xavier Rival wrote:
Indeed, but even then, I do not think we should expect much better than f/5.6.
For the records, the 100-400 has a 77mm thread (same thread as a 300/4), yet it is already f/5.6 at 250mm. A zoom, with a rather long range requires more compromise, so it should be no surprise.
Even if it is still f/5, that would not make a huge difference for most people.
actually it turns out that the 70-300 IS non-L non-DO is actually f/5 at 200mm (not f/5.6) so maybe this new lens might actually manage f/4.5 (and f/5 seems 100% sure now) although your 100-400L do give some reason for pause
skibum5 wrote:
actually it turns out that the 70-300 IS non-L non-DO is actually f/5 at 200mm (not f/5.6) so maybe this new lens might actually manage f/4.5 (and f/5 seems 100% sure now) although your 100-400L do give some reason for pause
Then, if the 70-300 IS non L non DO does f/5, we should be able to hope for the L to do the same indeed. But I would not expect it to maintain f/4.5 until 200mm and go f/5.6 from 2xy mm to 300.
Xavier Rival wrote:
Then, if the 70-300 IS non L non DO does f/5, we should be able to hope for the L to do the same indeed. But I would not expect it to maintain f/4.5 until 200mm and go f/5.6 from 2xy mm to 300.
although one wonders why they would bulk it up from 58mm to 67mm if it ramped up at the same exact rate as the old one
(i suppose one could go crazy and hope for f/4 at 200mm since the 70-200 f/4 has a 67mm filter but probably it won't work out like that)