200mm 2.8IF slide scans

<p>Just scanned some slides made with an F-1n and nFD 200mm f/2.8IF lens with and without Canon's TC's. I won't call these tests, just comparisons. Film is Fujichrome Provia 100 and scans made at 14-bit (111 Mbytes) without exposure adjustment. TC exposure factors made with shutter speed to maintain f/8 for all slides. During the transfer to Flickr images resized to about 6 Mbyte JPGs. Click on Flickr url below, click on thumbnail then click on 'All sizes' to see enlarged image. Use back button to go back to thumbnails. Hope this is of interest.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/donboyd/sets/72157616753324898/</p>

<p>Don B in Hampton Roads</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To my eye they look largely the same on my work monitor (cheap Dell). Impressive, unless I'm missing something.<br>

What, if anything, did you learn from these comparisons?</p>

<p>My viewing is the same as your's -- they look the same -- which is what I learned. Once magnification was made the same the TCs seem to have about the same resolution as the prime lens alone. My monitor is not the cheapest (LCD1970GX) but is not color balanced. I also have some slides of a drawbridge here in Newport News done with the EF and 200 plus 1.4 TC handheld. Look fine to me.</p>

<p>Don B in Hampton Roads</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went to flikr, clicked on "all sizes" and then selected "original" size. I opened three separate windows to compare them. The 200 on it's own is far superior to the other two. Check out the bottom left corner of your piece of paper, and look at the masking tape and at the knot in the fence just below it. I consider this difference to be very significant. Colour rendition with the 2x starts to fall off as well.</p>

<p>Not much to choose between the 2X-B and 1.4x-A. I give the 1.4x a slight nod but for some reason the image from the 2x is smaller, making direct comparison more difficult. It looks like you adjusted your shooting distance correctly for the 1.4x to give the same image size, but you moved too far back for the 2x shot (15 fence boards instead of 13).</p>

<p>In my experience the 1.4x-A usually provides image quality half way between the 2x-B and no converter at all.</p>

<p>The difference may be even greater depending on the scanner. An extremely good scan may pull even more out of the non-converter shot. What scanner was used?</p>

<p>The Nikon Coolscan V ED John. I certainly don't claim much skill with it but generally I find the scanner overcomes my lack of technical knowledge. You're probably right about the shooting distances, I wasn't very scientific about it, just the Mark I eyeball. Thanks for the interest.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just looked at your shots (I may try and replicate the same shots myself as I have the same two TCs and the 200 F2.8 IF - I may also try the 300mm F2.8). I have never compared directly but I have always felt the same as John Crowe lens, then 1.4x then 2x (i only have the B version). I think that the 2x convertor shot shows lower contrast than the other two (the 1.4 x may be slightly lower but this could be my monitor). I have always tried to avoid the 2x convertor if I could but it is still pretty good. I also shoot EOS and the 1.4x EOS TC is very good but the 2x is quite poor - definately worse than the FD version. I have always been very happy with the Nikon scanners - I have had a 5000 for some time and have just added a 9000 (I should have bought this when I bought the 5000) as I was never happy with my EPSON MF scans. You may also see more difference if you shoot Velvia rather than Provia - although again the differences may be small.</p>