Testing: 135L, 135L + 1.4x III, 135L +2.0 III and 200 f/2.8L Samples

135L, 135L + 1.4x III, 135L +2.0 III and 200 f/2.8L Samples

Hi All,

Saw a thread asking 135L with Extender samples, so I just do some shots after work tonight. Hope useful for whatever your guys are looking for.

Cheers...

All 5D2 @ ISO 400. Manual white balance.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865786470​8/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865786719​6/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865676487​3/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865787202​8/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865787409​0/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865787648​6/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865677417​9/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/865677677​7/

Very nice.

How did you arrive at the same framing for the different focal lengths? Distance or cropping?

Your welcome

Try to reframe all the shoots with the similar view by change the tripod height and distant; also the camera angle.

No crop shoots with all the photos.

Dose 135L take 1.4x and 2.0x well?

x_tan wrote in post #15837123
Your welcome

Try to reframe all the shoots with the similar view by change the tripod height and distant; also the camera angle.

No crop shoots with all the photos.

Dose 135L take 1.4x and 2.0x well?

Changing the camera-subject distance will change the perspective in images. It will also change depth of field.

I know, but the same framing still very important as part of the testing.

I'll do another testing with the same distance and angle during day time.
Hope 135L can still do well.

x_tan wrote in post #15837192
I know, but the same framing still very important as part of the testing.

What were the specific goals in your testing? If you're trying to show sharpness, the small web images are virtually useless for making valid comparisons. It would be better to do 100% crops of center and corners for that. You would, of course, need a subject that's at the same distance from the camera all across the frame.

Just playing the devil's advocate here, they all look the same to me. What's the point? You can't extrapolate based on a single image comparison. Chromatic abberations, diffraction effects, flares, etc. only occur in particular conditions.

Thank you for test images! Basicly these images looks almost the same with the extender. In real world the results can be bit different. I've been using the Canon EF 135 f2L + Kenko 1.4 extender for ages. When using the extender I can see a slight drop in image quality (heavier vignetting, small sharpness lost, colors loose some pop, etc.). But I just want to say its rather marginal loss. So in short, the EF 135 L takes extenders rather well in my opinion . Kinda deletes the purpose of EF 200 f/2.8 L for me.. Though the EF 200 f/2 L is another story

SkipD wrote in post #15837409
What were the specific goals in your testing? If you're trying to show sharpness, the small web images are virtually useless for making valid comparisons. It would be better to do 100% crops of center and corners for that. You would, of course, need a subject that's at the same distance from the camera all across the frame.

blu3ness wrote in post #15838124
Just playing the devil's advocate here, they all look the same to me. What's the point? You can't extrapolate based on a single image comparison. Chromatic abberations, diffraction effects, flares, etc. only occur in particular conditions.

All photos are full size, no crop in flickr; anyone can check out the photos in 100% original size. I'm not going to do a 100% crop here as it'll take far too much my time.

There is a chart here all time, anyone can check out as usual.

Tmuussoni wrote in post #15838202
Thank you for test images! Basicly these images looks almost the same with the extender. In real world the results can be bit different. I've been using the Canon EF 135 f2L + Kenko 1.4 extender for ages. When using the extender I can see a slight drop in image quality (heavier vignetting, small sharpness lost, colors loose some pop, etc.). But I just want to say its rather marginal loss. So in short, the EF 135 L takes extenders rather well in my opinion . Kinda deletes the purpose of EF 200 f/2.8 L for me.. Though the EF 200 f/2 L is another story

Your welcome.

I'm agree if we take the photo with the same frame as above shoots, 135L with extender has almost identical results as 200 f/2.8L II. This is more than good enough for me.

This is a very valuable test.

While I didn't do it with the 135L I previously did similar tests and found that the extenders are performing very well image quality wise.