Lens Challenge - I'm wide 'n' I'm long!

Ok, these are really bad examples, but it still illustrates the point of this thread.
The sequence will be 15mm FE shot at f/2.8, then 600mm shot at f/4, then 600mm + 1.4x shot at f/5.6, then 600mm + 2x shot at f/8, then 600mm + 1.4x + 2x shot at f/11 though it reports to the camera as f/8.

I'll separate each camera body into a separate post. I know this exceeds the 8 per thread limit but hopefully this is useful to someone.

APS-H (1.3x Crop):

Ok, these are really bad examples, but it still illustrates the point of this thread.
The sequence will be 15mm FE shot at f/2.8, then 600mm shot at f/4, then 600mm + 1.4x shot at f/5.6, then 600mm + 2x shot at f/8, then 600mm + 1.4x + 2x shot at f/11 though it reports to the camera as f/8.

I'll separate each camera body into a separate post. I know this exceeds the 8 per thread limit but hopefully this is useful to someone.

APS-C (1.6x Crop):

And to summarize... I was using the Canon EF Extender Mark IIs. I had to raise the ISO in order to get a decent enough shutter speed. Auto converted from RAW to JPG using ACR. No cropping or noise reduction done. As you can see, the 1.4x teleconverter has minimal effect on the IQ. The 2x on the other hand, has considerable effect. I might redo a series like this on a bright day so I can keep my ISO down.

On my 50D:

17-40 f/4L @ 17mm

I'll have to shoot something for this, but do I have to stack BOTH TCs?

Another VERY interesting use of this thread would be to illustrate how perspective is a function of distance and not focal length.

If you crop your wide shot to the same angle of view as your tele shot, you will have the same perspective.

Here is an example from post #16: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=7931265&po​stcount=16

The long one was hard in my instance, I couldnt get my tripod into the corner i was squished in...so I had to do handholding...

I'd also like to point out this was done at ISO1600! Forgive me for the noise since I could not edit and remove it..so no NR applied

Shot RAW, just exported as a JPEG in Lightroom

Sigma 10-20 f/3.5-5.6 EX DC HSM, 10mm, f/8, 1/20, ISO1600

jacuff wrote in post #7933177
And to summarize... I was using the Canon EF Extender Mark IIs. I had to raise the ISO in order to get a decent enough shutter speed. Auto converted from RAW to JPG using ACR. No cropping or noise reduction done. As you can see, the 1.4x teleconverter has minimal effect on the IQ. The 2x on the other hand, has considerable effect. I might redo a series like this on a bright day so I can keep my ISO down.

Thank you so much for all your images. I think that's the definitive concept shown perfectly. I can really easily see the difference between FF, 1.3x and 1.6x crop. And as you said, the 1.4x TC is, to be honest, excellent....while the 2x simply gets a photo. But it's that final shot (1.6x crop + 600mm + stacked 1.4x&2x TC) compared with the first shot (14mm FF) that blows me away, irrespective of the IQ issue. Talk about endless opportunities to be creative!

gary88 wrote in post #7933321
On my 50D:
17-40 f/4L @ 17mm....70-200 f/4L IS @ 200mm

What a lovely pair - and well done for not cropping/straightening that second shot!

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7933332
I'll have to shoot something for this, but do I have to stack BOTH TCs?

Nope! You don't have to....it's up to you.

msowsun wrote in post #7933360
Another VERY interesting use of this thread would be to illustrate how perspective is a function of distance and not focal length.
If you crop your wide shot to the same angle of view as your tele shot, you will have the same perspective. Here is an example from post #16:

True to a point - don't know where that point is, mind you! - since I can't crop down my 10mm shots to mimic any other lens due to distortion effects. Around the centre, yes, can do without it being noticeable, but at the edges? Impossible without corrective software. If you know at which FL the perspective becomes distorted, do tell!

KenjiS wrote in post #7934132
The long one was hard in my instance, I couldnt get my tripod into the corner i was squished in...so I had to do handholding...I'd also like to point out this was done at ISO1600! Forgive me for the noise since I could not edit and remove it..so no NR applied. Shot RAW, just exported as a JPEG in Lightroom. Sigma 10-20 f/3.5-5.6 EX DC HSM, 10mm, f/8, 1/20, ISO1600
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, 400mm, f/5.6, 1/60, ISO1600
I'm really happy with the first shot, maybe I should do real estate photography eh?

Please!!! I beg you!!!!! Don't do it - or your lovely camera-fan girlfriend will run away screaming!

But back to you pictures, and it took me a moment to even find the mug! You and I both have 10 ~ 400 in our bags, so I'm glad to see you posting.....isn't the difference between those two extremes ( = choice of perspective) a real winner!

skygod44 wrote in post #7934321
Please!!! I beg you!!!!! Don't do it - or your lovely camera-fan girlfriend will run away screaming!

But back to you pictures, and it took me a moment to even find the mug! You and I both have 10 ~ 400 in our bags, so I'm glad to see you posting.....isn't the difference between those two extremes ( = choice of perspective) a real winner!

lol!

And yeh..even I did...My problem was being wedged in the corner i couldnt see the viewfinder too well and i kept looking up and going "oh...%&%# something i dont want is in the shot" going over, tweaking the room a bit and returning to snap a few more...

With the 100-400, Well the problem was keeping steady...1/60th at the equivalent of a 640mm lens just reminded me how good the IS is in the 100-400 happens to be, even if its only rated for 2-stops!

But hey, it also reminds me why I have a 10mm lens in my bag! Truthfully, indoors is a pain without a UWA to me

KenjiS wrote in post #7934425
lol!

And yeh..even I did...My problem was being wedged in the corner i couldnt see the viewfinder too well and i kept looking up and going "oh...%&%# something i dont want is in the shot" going over, tweaking the room a bit and returning to snap a few more...

I know! It's just a great lens. I suppose the new one (if/when it appears) will have 3 or 4 stops, but I don't care. Mine is right up there as one of the best lenses I've ever owned or borrowed.

But hey, it also reminds me why I have a 10mm lens in my bag! Truthfully, indoors is a pain without a UWA to me

That was EXACTLY why I sold my 17-85 kit lens and eventually bought the 10-22. As we discussed elsewhere, I know I'll get more glass at some point, but having access to 10mm, some in between, and then up to 400mm (without TC) for me, is a real pleasure.

skygod44 wrote in post #7934459
That was EXACTLY why I sold my 17-85 kit lens and eventually bought the 10-22. As we discussed elsewhere, I know I'll get more glass at some point, but having access to 10mm, some in between, and then up to 400mm (without TC) for me, is a real pleasure.

I know id like a couple fast primes...the 24 f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4 are definates...and maybe a 100 macro as well [or the Sigma 150mm macro] and if i got the money, the 85mm f/1.2

I contemplate the Tokina 11-16 sometimes..but I think id miss the extra 1mm on the wide end...Maybe ill look at the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 though...

I think about the Canon 24-70L sometimes as well..I could see needing the faster AF sometimes...but my little Tamron is sharp as a tack and otherwise a really good lens that I find it hard to justify!

KenjiS wrote in post #7934512
I know id like a couple fast primes...the 24 f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4 are definates...and maybe a 100 macro as well [or the Sigma 150mm macro] and if i got the money, the 85mm f/1.2. I contemplate the Tokina 11-16 sometimes..but I think id miss the extra 1mm on the wide end...Maybe ill look at the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 though...I think about the Canon 24-70L sometimes as well..I could see needing the faster AF sometimes...but my little Tamron is sharp as a tack and otherwise a really good lens that I find it hard to justify!

Gear talk is fun, but sooooo tempting! And I know that until I get a second body, I really don't need any more glass. Oh, but I would recommend the 50 1.4 and 100 macro to you. The 50 adds a whole new dimension regarding DoF, and the 100 is a legend in it's own lifetime!
Oh and I agree....1mm on an ultrawide makes too much of a difference, so I'd never want to go above 10mm (1.6x crop) or 16mm (FF).

Here's my contribution. 24mm (24-105L) and 280mm (70-200 4.0L with 1.4 converter). As requested, no PP at all.

I rarely use either end of the range I have in my bag. so it was a good exercise. I'll either start using my lenses more or something will make it's way to the sell forum!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

skygod44 wrote in post #7934533
Gear talk is fun, but sooooo tempting! And I know that until I get a second body, I really don't need any more glass. Oh, but I would recommend the 50 1.4 and 100 macro to you. The 50 adds a whole new dimension regarding DoF, and the 100 is a legend in it's own lifetime!

I had a EF 50mm f/1.4 and sold it, I'm thinking if i got another 50 it would be a Zeiss Planar or the Siggy Fifty..the 100 macro has always been on my wishlist and i never seem to get one!

Right now I want a new body though...I'm trying to wait out the 60D!

Nicely done! And what's interesting is that both your wide shot and the last shot were taken at f/5.6.

This really helps people to see the vast difference that changing focal length does to depth of field.