Actually I think the 2nd Gen IS could detect it was on a tripod and not go bananas. It was the 1st Gen IS that had this issue (of which the 300 f/4 IS is a member I believe).
I remember the discussion at the time, I don't remember if it was really settled - I looked around and didn't find the definitive word from Chuck Westfall or at any Canon site. Your links sure back you up.
I know I mostly used the 100-400 hand held or on a monopod. I just don't think it offered satisfactory performance in both AF and sharpness when a extender was added.
I added a 400 f/5.6 and was much happier, and used it with the 1.4. I sold them both, eventually, as I had a 600mm by then....
I have shot both with IS and without on a tripod. When the camera is dead steady with IS engaged it does affect IQ adversely, especially when shooting static subjects. When the tripod is not locked and the lens is free to move it doesn't hurt.
EB-1 wrote:
I hope they grow fluorite lens blanks faster nowadays.
EBH
The growth rate is more or less fixed, as synthetic fluorite is crystallized via a slow, temperature-controlled process. However, what can be done is to scale up production capacity by using more furnaces, and to improve yield by decreasing impurities and controlling defects. This is probably what Canon has done in order to allow for two large-diameter fluorite elements in each of the new EF Mark II supetelephoto primes, where previously the only lenses to have two were the EF 800/5.6L IS and the EF 1200/5.6L. The small fluorite elements such as those found in the 70-200mm family of zooms and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS are substantially easier and faster to grow.
Fluorite is also relatively soft, so extra care in grinding/polishing is necessary. To a large extent, these elements shouldn't be considered as mass produced--they are actually more akin to being individually hand-crafted. This is why, many years since Canon invested in pure fluorite element technology, no other consumer lens manufacturer is doing the same. Rather, competitors are relying exclusively on the use of fluorite-doped glass (which is marketed under the labels "ED" and "UD"). Canon uses these too, but as they have become more efficient at making crystalline fluorite, they are finding ways to exploit this material in their optical design.
So, the next time you pick up one of your fluorite-containing lenses, take a moment to think about the extremely, obsessively exacting Japanese technician with decades of experience, who carefully and repeatedly inspected and polished that pure crystal (which took months to grow) to optical perfection.
I doubt there's much, in our ever increasingly technical environment, that you don't have to be an arduously trained specialist to appreciate in it's full complexity. But that same narrow focus might cause one to miss the adjacent equally complex wonder. And what about the wider view that encompasses the vast interwoven texture of all these technologies and skills (as you say, in your last sentence)?
I could see this if it was new unproven technology, however, Canon have been making lenses with built in extenders for 20 years or so, they are widely used in the film industry,
wickerprints wrote:
The growth rate is more or less fixed, as synthetic fluorite is crystallized via a slow, temperature-controlled process. However, what can be done is to scale up production capacity by using more furnaces, and to improve yield by decreasing impurities and controlling defects. This is probably what Canon has done in order to allow for two large-diameter fluorite elements in each of the new EF Mark II supetelephoto primes, where previously the only lenses to have two were the EF 800/5.6L IS and the EF 1200/5.6L. The small fluorite elements such as those found in the 70-200mm family of zooms and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS are substantially easier and faster to grow.
Fluorite is also relatively soft, so extra care in grinding/polishing is necessary. To a large extent, these elements shouldn't be considered as mass produced--they are actually more akin to being individually hand-crafted. This is why, many years since Canon invested in pure fluorite element technology, no other consumer lens manufacturer is doing the same. Rather, competitors are relying exclusively on the use of fluorite-doped glass (which is marketed under the labels "ED" and "UD"). Canon uses these too, but as they have become more efficient at making crystalline fluorite, they are finding ways to exploit this material in their optical design.
So, the next time you pick up one of your fluorite-containing lenses, take a moment to think about the extremely, obsessively exacting Japanese technician with decades of experience, who carefully and repeatedly inspected and polished that pure crystal (which took months to grow) to optical perfection. ...Show more →
Thanks for reminding me. I now feel I must trade my 300/4 IS with its lowly UD element for the 100-400 IS with its much more prestigious fluorite element.
This is a great topic!
One of the things that has always felt so much different about shooting with my 500,600 or 800 is that feel that you are working with basically the best that money and technology can buy for its price.
The build on one of these things in a lot of ways reminds me of how Japanese built Samurai swords over the last thousand years with each one hand built taking incredible care.
You really feel like you are using a precision tool that has had a huge amount of time and care invested in it to make it as good as it can be.
I'm sure the 200-400 will be the same and if its image quality is anything like any of my big primes ill be grabbing one quick smart..
Canon long teles are well built, but not like some of the old Leica and CZ lenses. The hood attachment in particular is crude and imprecise. Maybe the new lenses are better.
EB-1 wrote:
Canon long teles are well built, but not like some of the old Leica and CZ lenses. The hood attachment in particular is crude and imprecise. Maybe the new lenses are better.
EBH
I agree with "crude". Canon have gone thru one round of hood mount improvements years ago , but it still doesn't work well enough given the extraordinary high price of those lenses. We shall see what the MkIIs bring to the table.
dehowie wrote:
Mmm i didnt realize the hood attachment affected image quality...
Perhaps not if one shoots in venues where hoods are not used. Yet if one is fumbling around with the lens hood and misses the shot, IQ is definitely affected.
EB-1 wrote:
Perhaps not if one shoots in venues where hoods are not used. Yet if one is fumbling around with the lens hood and misses the shot, IQ is definitely affected.
EBH
A fumbling operation indeed. Never mind missing a shot. How about suffering a loss of the hood by dropping it accidentally into a frigid river.
EB-1 wrote:
Perhaps not if one shoots in venues where hoods are not used. Yet if one is fumbling around with the lens hood and misses the shot, IQ is definitely affected.
EBH
Fair enough however in 7 years of shooting with 4 big L's ive never missed a shot because the lens hood was a hassle!
I must be doing something wrong in my technique..lol.
I have never missed a shot myself because of the lens hood but consider this ... if you see 2 birds or 2 animals fighting ... and you have to grab your camera out of the bag (takes a few seconds) you don't really have time to attach the lens hood ... and it is a fact that the older lens hoods (e.g. 24-70 and 100-400 lenses) SUCK ... they are poorly designed and they stick so sometimes it's very difficult to put on and take off the hood.
The newer lens hoods like the 70-200 II (ala Nikon) are terrific and takes only a couple of seconds to get it on and off.
dehowie wrote:
Fair enough however in 7 years of shooting with 4 big L's ive never missed a shot because the lens hood was a hassle!
I must be doing something wrong in my technique..lol.
