Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Feb 2010 (Saturday) 03:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1.4tc vs Crop 1.6

 
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 03:26 |  #1

what is the general idea, i was using the 100-300 f4 siggy which is known for its sharpness on a 7D, overall it was not as sharp as i expected. Earlier i had used the 200 2.8II with a kenko 1.4 tc on my 1dmkII (1.3) and was happy with the results.

I have just bought the 120-300 2.8 and dont know if i should get a tc or a 40d/1dmkII.

what is the general consensus as I only have FF, get the tc or a 40d? I need sharp images.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 08:42 |  #2

Sigma 100-300/4 on a 7D should be very sharp. I'll assume you used a monopod. If you did not get good results with that combo perhaps work on your technique before buying more glass. An example posted here might help.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 226
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 09:52 |  #3

I'm a bit confused. Were you using the 100-300 on one of your bodies or someone else's 7D? It sounds like you're comparing one lens and camera with a second lens and camera, not two lenses on the same body, which reduces the variables. Also, you may have experienced individual variations between the lenses, in addition to or instead of systemic lack of sharpness for a given lens design. And then you're asking for help on whether to buy a TC or a different body for yet another lens selection.

Are you contemplating replacing one of your existing bodies with the 7D, should you go that route? Otherwise there's a significant cost difference between the two options, and you'll have a third body to carry around. But you will have f/2.8 across the board. Between the 7D's high ISO performance and its higher burst rate than your existing gear, it'll also extend your capabilities. Replacing the 1Ds2 with it you'll also get a real boost in enlargeability from the added pixel density.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 10:39 |  #4

gasrocks wrote in post #9601510 (external link)
Sigma 100-300/4 on a 7D should be very sharp. I'll assume you used a monopod. If you did not get good results with that combo perhaps work on your technique before buying more glass. An example posted here might help.

heheheh yeah it was with a monopod and I did well over 5000 shots so I have plenty of experience.... It was the overall sharpness that I was not happy with. It seemed the 200 with tc did better.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 10:45 |  #5

Jon wrote in post #9601855 (external link)
I'm a bit confused. Were you using the 100-300 on one of your bodies or someone else's 7D? It sounds like you're comparing one lens and camera with a second lens and camera, not two lenses on the same body, which reduces the variables. Also, you may have experienced individual variations between the lenses, in addition to or instead of systemic lack of sharpness for a given lens design. And then you're asking for help on whether to buy a TC or a different body for yet another lens selection.

Are you contemplating replacing one of your existing bodies with the 7D, should you go that route? Otherwise there's a significant cost difference between the two options, and you'll have a third body to carry around. But you will have f/2.8 across the board. Between the 7D's high ISO performance and its higher burst rate than your existing gear, it'll also extend your capabilities. Replacing the 1Ds2 with it you'll also get a real boost in enlargeability from the added pixel density.

I used to have the 7d as well, returned it because the video was faulty. Im not comparing on the same body as i have never used the 2 lenses on the same body, i sold the 1dmk2 and got the 7d. then for another job i got the 100-300mm which I then sold again. Now I have gotten the 120-300 for a new job but im contemplating getting a 40d rather than a tc. I will not get rid of my bodies that i have. I really need 2 FF for the daily work but would like a "sports" camera of sorts. the 40d gives good file sizes onlything im not suer of is the AF but thats not the q in here, im sure I can finda thread on that... :)

what im thinking with the 40d is the 2.8 rather than 4 but tehn again Id probably shoot at 4 anyway to increase or rather lower the dof.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaleano
Member
92 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
     
Feb 13, 2010 11:06 as a reply to  @ zincozinco's post |  #6

I haven't used the 100-300 zoom but I`ve had a 200 2.8 and the 200 is a very sharp lens. If you like very sharp images at the pixel level, I doubt you`re going to find a zoom that`s any sharper than a 200 2.8, even with a 1.4x attached (assuming they are used on the same camera). So I would base the decision on the use. The zoom is much more versatile than having to take the 1.4x on and off, plus you get a constant aperture.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 11:54 |  #7

Is it ok that I mention taking over 5000 shots tells me nothing about your skill level. Really the Sigma 100-300/4 is a great lens and the 7D a great camera.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 11:57 |  #8

of course its ok. :)

ill digg up an example that chuffed me.

edit: so you think that id get a better result with 1.6 rather than a 1.4 tc? ex 40d vs 1dsmk2+1.4tc on the same lens?


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 12:11 |  #9

here we go, these are lo-res images that accompany the hi-res on cd to client. As you can see the first is taken on the centerpoint but because of nature of the job you can not get closer. it is taken at 300 f4 with a 7d. however to hand to client cropping has to be done. and thats where i think it loses on the sharpness.

edit - upload in reverse order... :( :)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Feb 13, 2010 12:15 |  #10

Looks over exposed to me, with too slow of a shutter speed maybe - his hand with the ball seems blurry. I had a MK III and a MK IIN at the same time I had 2 40Ds. For wildbirds, things you cannot get close to and need long lenses (and good technique, of course) the results from the 40D won almost every time.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
int2str
Goldmember
1,881 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
     
Feb 13, 2010 12:15 |  #11

zincozinco wrote in post #9602534 (external link)
here we go, these are lo-res images that accompany the hi-res on cd to client. As you can see the first is taken on the centerpoint but because of nature of the job you can not get closer. it is taken at 300 f4 with a 7d. however to hand to client cropping has to be done. and thats where i think it loses on the sharpness.

edit - upload in reverse order... :( :)

Based on the grass in front of him, the lens may have been front-focusing pretty badly.
Did you micro-adjust the lens?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 12:23 |  #12

problem is that you have to expose for the face, and they all wear caps :( Other thing for my clients its ALWAYS important that I expose so that the grass is green and lush not dark.... The other problem I had here was that I had to shoot in jpg. There was no support on Apple for the 7d when I had this gig.

Again there is always so many factors its never clear cut is it??

Are you saying the 40 - because of the 1.6 vs the 1.3? I think I might give it a try. I really like the idea of the 40d the fps is fast but not mad and the file size is fast on the computer.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
THREAD ­ STARTER
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Feb 13, 2010 12:25 |  #13

int2str wrote in post #9602565 (external link)
Based on the grass in front of him, the lens may have been front-focusing pretty badly.
Did you micro-adjust the lens?

id say all of him is actually in focus but he is moving his legs. I have Alot of other shots and they are all in focus. Its just sharpness im after, i know they go hand in hand. im guessing ill go 1.6 over a tc.


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
int2str
Goldmember
1,881 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
     
Feb 13, 2010 13:16 |  #14

zincozinco wrote in post #9602610 (external link)
id say all of him is actually in focus but he is moving his legs. I have Alot of other shots and they are all in focus. Its just sharpness im after, i know they go hand in hand. im guessing ill go 1.6 over a tc.

Well, this is just my personal opinion, but I don't think he is in focus. I think your lens front-focused and that's why he's not as sharp as he could be.

Again, just my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Feb 13, 2010 13:26 |  #15

I think the golfer's hand is sharper than his face - I'd say the lens front focused. I'm not surprised.

I had 2 Siggy 100-300 f/4 lenses. Both were very sharp and both front focused on mulitple bodies. That, coupled with the reverse rotating zoom ring led me to sell them and go back to Canon.

My Canon 300 f/4 in comparison, focus right on and give nice sharp results. I'm happy even though it isn't a zoom.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,002 views & 0 likes for this thread
1.4tc vs Crop 1.6
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is michaelscheuren
712 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.