mpalmquist

Ok I had a longwinded version of this that apparently failed to post.

so if this ends up as a double I appologize.

 

I am looking to upgrade my 10D which I am pretty happy with. The

main issue that has me looking for a new body is the AF accuracy. I

shoot some of motorcyle racing and birds and the AF seems to miss 3-4

out of 10 shots. These focus errors are not huge but they can be

clearly seen with medium to large prints.

 

I know the 1D Mk II has 7 'high accuracy' focus points vs the 5D's 1

but how much better is the accuracy in the real world tracking birds,

or racing venues, where the distances change rapidly?

 

an extreme example is standing 5 ft to the side of the track shooting

oncoming motorcyles where the closure speed is in the range of 110-

140 MPH (170-225 KPH) roughly 200 ft/sec would the 1DmkII nail the

AF 90% vs 5D 10% or would it be more 90% vs 80%.

 

The FF sensor and allowing true wide angle and 12 MP allows for quite

large prints are big pluses too but the AF has to be close for me to

go to the 5D over the 1d Mk II

I dont think any zoom will come too close to a prime of the same quality in sharpness or color. 70-200 2.8L vs 200 2.8L I think the 200 will be noticeably sharper with better contrast and color. but the 70-200 may well trounce a *insert poor quality lens maker* 200 f4.

 

I own only 1 zoom, 70-200 2.8L. The 70-200 is almost never in my pack any more. I find that I am willing to trade the time/weight spend dealing with Primes for the improved quality. I always thought the 70-200 images were amazing until I shot the 300 F4L now the 70-200 images just seem soft for me. Don't get me wrong the 70-200 images are amazing for a zoom, but they are not up to the sharpness/contrast of good primes. The downside to primes as mentioned by others is that composition can be a pain maybe you cant get closer or backup more because of terrain, fences, crowds etc..

 

I shoot mostly either wide/normal or as long as I can (300 F4 + 1.4 tc) so the 70-200 just is not used much. I still pull it out if I am unsure what kind of vantage point(s) I may have available to shoot from and thus want the flexability but generally just stick to my primes. (20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 100 f2.8 macro, 135 f2.8 sf, 300 f4L)

 

The bottom line is image quality vs convenience, image quality goes to primes, convenience to the zooms.

Romy, you captured a great shot especially considering the stacked TCs. I have a few moon shots from various lens/tc combos and a few small telescopes but unfortunately my server is down at the moment with a dead MoBo so cannot upload them. With normal atmospheric issues your pic is as about as good as you can get, at least as good as any I have managed and better than most of mine.

 

Unless you get some adaptive optics or on a night with perfect conditions you may gain maybe 10% more detail with perfect focus and a rock solid mount but in the real world your about at the max you can get regardless of the lens.

 

If you check out my full moon pic http://www.photo.net/photo/1745938

you will see my unfortunately normal atmospheric problems with turbulance (note the left limb is highly distorted even at this low magnification) as a result pushing past 1500mm or so I can never get a clear image though I will be trying some more lunar shots over the summer from my mountain 'dark sky' locations so maybe I will finally get some good shots.

Fernando,

I have had both the 300IS and non-IS the IS makes casual walking shots doable in most situations I have encountered. My personal experience is that the 300+1.4tc is the minimum for birds other than very tame ones (i.e. seagulls, aviaries, etc..). I have tested the 400 5.6 which I found to be on par with the 300IS as far as picture quality sharpness, color etc. But it has no IS so proper technique is important. I had the IS lost, don�t ask unless you are a scuba diver in the San Francisco area :(, a few months ago. I found a 300 NON-IS for a good price and it's picture quality is noticeably better than my IS version was. My IS + 1.4 was slightly softer than the 400 5.6 I tested but still way better than my other lenses.

 

Obviously these are my experiences with these 3 particular lenses, others have stated that their 400 5.6 is noticeably better image quality than either of the 300s or the IS is as good as their prior non-IS version. I think it boils down to the particular example of each lens that the user encounters. Any of the 3 primes are great lenses.

 

I have had no experience with the 100-400 seems to be a love or hate thing with owners, quality control?

 

 

Mark

I had a similar problem when I bought my crown my eyes were not adjusting to the GG with a lighttight dark cloth. I remembered my astronomy class from many years ago stating that to dilate the pupil enough for good observations with a telescope it took at least 5 minutes in darkness. I thought about this and now simply stick my head under the cloth for at least 1 minute with my eyes closed, usually contemplating what I am trying to achive in the composition, then open them and the GG is *much* brighter.