h_goering

The 70-200 F4 IS is a little unexpected. There are already existing many lenses in this range

 

Also I find it odd that Canon would introduce 2 L lenses with a Rebel class camera. I feel it would be much better for them to bundle a better kit lens with the 400D - like what Nikon has been doing.

 

But on a side note, the 2 L lenses may possibly mean a marginally upgraded 1-Series camera

That title is very misleading. On what basis is this rumour confirmed? Based on a magazine's loose talk? The only confirmation will come from Canon.

 

Quote:

It is still a rumor but so far they've never been wrong on their announcements

 

Nah that is not true. They have previously posted a 2D 22MP which of course turned out to be a fake. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009V38

Hi thanks for the responses

 

The long exposure was due to the fact that I use a "black card trick" to selectively expose multiple action shots of fireworks

 

The black card also helps to prevent over exposure

Many thanks for the insight - esp to Jesper. I was not aware the NR takes an equal amount of time

 

But in the light of this, NR will be pretty much useless for action shots

I have noticed that whenever long exposure is taken eg for fireworks, the camera takes an inordinately long time to write to the CF

 

The writing times vary but it can be as long as 30 seconds on occasions. This effectively means I will miss out all the action in fireworks - and all the film shooters clicking away happily while I wait for the image to be written. I'm already using a decent speed Sandisk Extreme CF. At such writing speeds many Point and Shoot cameras are faster

 

My question is: a) Is this normal or characteristic of the 20d? b) if a) is true why does it take so long given that a normal shot is virtually instantaneous?

Hi Marc

 

I think the main issue seems to be that you have been too used to the oversharpened look of your prosumer cam Sony DSC F717. DSLR images tend to have a softer look but are much more natural looking. This difference was further accentuated when you used a less than stellar lens. Another factor is as what you have stated - insufficient shutter speeds resulting in softness

 

Play around with your 20D more, if you are still not used to the "soft" look of your 20D, you can go to menu -> adjust contrast +2, sharpness+2 and saturation+2. This will bring you closer to the Sony F717 for the time being

 

After taking many images, you will find that the more natural look of the dslr is the way to go. If you still don't like it, I'm afraid dslr is not for you

 

Getting a good lens helps as well. You can try the cheap but good 50mm F1.8 which at f1.8 should give you plenty of shutter speed

I have tested both lenses - although it's not by any means scientific. Because of this, I will just post my thoughts - minus the pictures

 

The Tamron performs very well in the centre - equal to if not slightly better than the Canon. The Canon however performs better at the edges

 

The Canon has other advantages

a) Somewhat faster AF

b) Weather sealing and build

c) More flare resistant

 

The Tamron performs very well at the 17mm end even wide open at F2.8 as also noted in Bob Atkins' review. In my case, since I already own a 28-70 lens, the wide end was more valuable to me and edge performance and lightning fast AF wasn't so crucial to me, so I decided to go for the Tamron - which I got for a good price

"If you use extenders, the difference is further accentuated - and you can potentially have a 320mm difference between the 300/4 vs the 400/5.6 - not an insignificant difference.

Alas, my befuddlement has increased. 300 mm + 1.4X is awfully similar to 400 mm"

 

a) Without extennders, on a 1.6X crop, the difference between the 300/4 and 400/5.6 is 100*1.6 = 160mm

 

b) With a 1.4X entender, the 300/4 can reach 300*1.6*1.4 = 672mm while the 400/5.6 can reach 400*1.6*1.4 = 896mm -672, the difference 224mm

 

c) with a 2X entender, the 300/4 can reach 300*1.6*2 = 960 mm while the 400/5.6 can reach 400*1.6*2 = 12806mm - the difference 1280-960=320mm

 

Hence, the max difference can possibly be 320mm. You would not normally wish to use a 2x extender on a 400/5.6 as it would be difficult to focus. However, when reach is needed and you cannot afford a 500/4 or 500/4.5, then the 320mm does help

"OK I am lost here 300mm x1.4= 420mm F5.6... vs 400mm F5.6.... Maybe you meant to say you use the 400mm5.6 with the 1.4x giving you 560mm at f8?"

 

Just to clarify my statement that has resulted in some confusion, what I meant was 300mm is not long enough for most wildlife shots. 400 mm gives you an extra 100mm. While this 100 mm may not seem to be much, on a 1.6X crop, it translates into a difference of 160mm.

 

If you use extenders, the difference is further accentuated - and you can potentially have a 320mm difference between the 300/4 vs the 400/5.6 - not an insignificant difference. While the 500/4 would have been ideal, it is too expensive

Hi GGG

 

It is unlikely Canon will release an IS version - it appears that the 400/5.6 was intentionally crippled - much like the 70-200 F4 had no IS for the same reasons

 

However, I would like to add that if you need the reach, the 400/5.6 is by far the most affordable long prime in Canon's lineup. In fact you should feel lucky that Canon offers such a "budget" prime lens. Nikon users who desire 400mm currently (current models) have only the 400/2.8 to consider (for primes) that costs an arm and a leg

 

If you need the reach, the 300/4+1.4 just doesn't cut it. In my case, I owned both the 300/4 IS as well as the 400/5.6 simply because the longer primes are too expensive for me. I use the 300/4 for general purpose shots. For occasions when I take wildlife, the 300/4 (even with 1.4X) is simply not long enough - and that's where the 400/5.6 comes in

 

The 400/5.6 is very sharp and very fast focusing - that makes taking wildlife and outdoor sports such a joy to use. The only issue is the lack of IS - you can use a monopod or tripod if necessary. Learn to live with its limitations and then the 400/5.6 will be a wonderful lens

 

If you absolutely must have IS, then you may consider the 100-400L IS or even the Sigma 80-400 OS but the quality and focusing speed are not up to the 400/5.6

I do not think Canon MTF charts include the 1.4X results.

 

Moreover, MTF charts are just a guide. I trust my eyes more. And I am sure the 300/4+1.4X is NOT sharper than the 400/5.6 - at least for the copies I owned

 

In any case, I am very doubtful that the 300/4 WITh a TC will be sharper. My own observation shows that even one on one without TC, the 300/4 is no sharper - not much to separate between the two.

 

Maybe you can include the source of your information

I actually have both. Like many others, I started off with a 300/4. Then I yearned for something longer. Had I owned a gold mine, I'd have gone for the 500/4 IS and 600/4 - since for taking wildlife, reach is everything. IMO, the 300/4+TC would barely be enough for wildlife

 

So why did I get a 400/5.6 despite owning a 300/4? A few reasons

 

a) No gold mine :( - so couldn't afford any 500 including the 500/4.5 that Bob Atkins mentioned. Moreover, the 500/4.5 are very rare to find on the used market

 

b) As correctly mentioned by Bob, the 400/5.6 esp. when set to focus 8.5m and beyond, is a very fast focusing lens - noticeably faster than the 300/4+TC - so it's good for birds in flight esp since it is relatively lightweight

 

c)It's a very sharp lens even wide open - definitely sharper than 300/4+TC. One on one, without TC, the 400/5.6 is very close in image quality to the 300/4 - not much to separate them. In such a case, individual copies may matter more and I feel my 400/5.6 is slightly sharper than the 300/4. The sharpness of the 400/5.6 enables the use of both 1.4X & 2X TCs with acceptable results. For this reason, I have rejected all the zoom options. Moreover, the zooms tend to round up the actual focal length - from what I heard, the Sigma 50-500 is more like 50-460mm

 

d) I calculated that despite only a 100mm difference in focal length between the two, there is a potential to use a 2X TC (with acceptable results) and if used on a 1.6X crop body, the difference is now 320mm - which is not insubstantial. Since reach is everything in wildlife, that figures

 

As for your queries, yes I still use both - although there is some overlap. I use the 400/5.6 for wildlife and the 300/4 for more general purpose shots including visits to zoos and macros such as butterfly macros since it has a good close focusing distance of just 1.5m. Admittedly the 300/4 gets more use, but when it comes to wildlife, the 400/5.6 is the lens

 

The 400/5.6 will not autofocus with the Canon 1.4X as well as some of the pro models from Kenko, Sigma, Tamron. However, in good lighting, you can tape 3 of the pins to achieve AF. It may hunt a bit, but it can AF.

legal as mentioned by Brad probably refers to photographic evidence used/needed in legal proceedings

Boycott the overpriced EF-S. the only EF-S worth buying is the 18-55. If you need 1:1 on 50mm, there's still the Sigma 50/2.8 which as far as I know is very sharp and priced much less

Jose, thanks for the testing. Will wait for your pics. And BTW can you also check if your lens is a Assembled In China or Made In Japan. From what I read, there is quite a bit of sample variations of this lens and most of the poorer copies were Assembled In China. I guess you had a good copy

Quote

Is it that incredibly difficult for people to wait a few days before Canon's release (if any)? Unquote

 

No, but it stirs a lot of people's curiosity and set tongues wagging and that level of interest is good for Canon

 

But seriously, I'm surprised that this time round, nothing concrete is known yet. In the case of the 20D, the info circulating on the net were pretty accurate

Hi Jose, could you post some sample pics of the Tamron wide open at both ends? I've always wanted to buy the Tamron but have been bothered by reviews about its relatively poor wide open performance example this one

 

http://www.benhorne.com/2870.htm

 

I have the 28-135 IS and it does not perform too well wide open. So if your Tamron is only slightly better, then I guess it may not be too great wide open. It was this issue that bothered me - plus reports that there is a color cast on the Tamron that I eventually bought the 28-70L instead

 

It may interest you that my 28-135 while it does not perform well wide open is very sharp when stopped down (just 1 or 2 stops) or when using flash. I could not discern much diference between my 28-70L vs my 28-135 in these situations. Perhaps I had a good copy

 

Because of this, I have decided to keep both my 28-70L and the 28-135 IS. For indoor events, I'll use the 28-70 while for outdoors I find the 28-135 more versatile

While the Tamron knocks the Canon off for value, there have been people who have experienced softness wide open.

 

An example: http://www.benhorne.com/2870.htm

 

If you are lucky and get a good copy, the Tamron can be very good, but overall, its a hit and miss thing for wide open performance

From the responses it looks like a 2X extender may not be that easy to focus. A 1.4X extender is probably the most I can go

 

Yakim, could you please explain your recommendation to go for the Canon/Sigma 500/4.5? Is it because you feel that since I already have the 300/4, an additional 100mm will not add to much?

 

If that is your thought, then I did feel that way too. The only problem is that the Canon 500/4.5 costs quite a bit more than what I can afford. Used ones cost in the region of $3.6K - while the 400/5.6 is slightly over $1K new and probably around $1K for used ones. The Sigma is about a few hundred cheaper than the Canon but still quite a bit more than my budget

Thanks for your input. I do not currently own this lens but am looking to purchase this lens if it's suitable

 

Forgot to mention that I intend to use it with 20D. I currently already own the EF 300/4 IS, an excellent lens. However, it does not have enough reach for some situations, notably for occasional birding and wild life shots

 

The longer Canon lenses are out of my reach in my quest for more reach :(. Given my limited budget, I can only afford either the EF 100-400L or the EF 400/5.6. I have also considered a couple of third party options such as the Sigma 80-400, 50-500, Tamron 200-500 and I have more or less narrowed it down to the EF 400/5.6.

 

One major factor in favour of the EF 400/5.6 is its superior image quality as compared to the other options and hence I reckon that adding a 1.4X/2X extender would result in the least image degradation.

 

I intend to keep the 300/4. My main motivation in getting the 400/5.6 is for the reach and while it is still a little short at times, it's the most I could afford. For this reason, performance with the 1.4X/2X extenders will be important for me

It does hunt a bit when there is lack of contrast. However, on some occasions, it still inexpicably hunted when there was good contrast.

 

On most occasions, it does lock focus reasonably quickly - although I have other lenses that AF faster such as the 100/2

I've had this lock up problem happen a couple of times since I bought the 20D. All were with Canon lenses and 1.10 firmware.

 

Based on the responses here and my personal experience, it appears that Canon has not resolved the lockup issue - at best only mitigated. I'm disappointed with Canon on this issue. While it only happens occasionally, it is nevertheless very annoying. Interestingly, the much cheaper Digital Rebel was problem free. Never had a lock up with it

I was wondering what is the impact of the 1.4X/2X extenders on the

EF 400mm/5.6 lens in terms of image quality and the focusing issues.

I know I'll lose AF unless I use the pin tape trick but was

wondering if it's too dim and AF will be difficult

 

In particular, would the 2X entender cause too much image

degradation and focusing issues? Would appreciate any images