vincentoiseau

When I was reading about teleconverters, I was planning on chosing a Canon for reasons of compatibility with my camera bodies and lenses, but hen I found this test by the German site traumflieger.de, where every accessory is tested with Canon equipment. They also make their own accessories, quite professionally. Their test standards are pretty high and reliable. To my amazement, the best choice (and value for money) was a Kenko (the 1,4x MC4 DGX), which I bought subsequently. I am very happy with my choice. In some photos, there is hardly any visible loss of resolution. It works perfectly on my EF 400 mm 5.6, on which the Canon converter doesn't even work well according to the Canon specs. I don't know which Kenko you have, but here is the test I'm referring to: https://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/telekonverter/overview.php

 

However, in general, the use of a teleconverter is not something I would advise you when you have to take action shots of wildlife. What you need is fast autofocus, weight you can handle and general ease of use. All of these criteria are seriously obstructed by the use of a TC. It takes a whole stop of light (which may not seem the biggest problem in Africa), so do realize your maximum shutter speed is halved by it. Hiring a 500 or a 600 mm 4.0 is your best option if you want to take home quality material.

Hi,

 

just noticed that my photos can't be commented on; they get a 404, like the page doesn't exist. Regards, Vincent

Shot about ten rolls of Agfapan 25 B&W negative film in the early 80's. Of course iso 25 is slow, but on a sunny day, there's hardly any issue; if an iso 100 setting would need 1/1000 at f 5.6 (which is quite common) , then 1/250 at f 5.6 would be enough for the iso 25. That's a handholdable shutter speed for a lot of shorter focal lengths lenses like 50 mm and 35 mm. I have walked about in Rome (mostly very bright light in the daytime) with this film in my Olympus OM camera and never had any issue because of the film's insensitivity to light. You just need two more stops of light than you would at iso 100.

Hi,

 

for the fourth or fifth time since I've been here, a photo that I uploaded didn't show up in 'trending'. Not a big problem in itself, but not the way it should be. I have posted messages about this before, but as far as I can see, nothing has happened. I was hoping a new release would change this, but it keeps happening.

Hi David,

 

I still own and use a 5D mk II too. I have other cameras, but none much newer than my 5D II. Although I understand why people might buy new bodies, if you have good lenses (like the pancake and the 85 mm) there is nothing holding you back from making great photos. I think photographers tend to forget sometimes that megapixel count and even low light performance aren't often critical factors in photography.There will be newer and more technically advanced cameras all the time, but it's you as a photographer who determines the quality of your photos.

Hi Bryan,

 

Buy OM lenses for your OM2; they're available in fairly large numbers and have excellent image quality. The 28 mm 2.8 is an example, as is the 50 mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8. You can get these and other Zuiko lenses for reasonable prices. On YouTube there are dozens of videos about removing fungus from lenses; check those before you pay a lot of money to clean a lens that you will not use too often.

If you want ease of use and quality, I can also recommend a used Olympus Zuiko 14-54 mm 2.8-3.5, which sells on ebay for 100-200 USD. It is a very capable allround lens with an effective focal range of 28-108 mm. I have used it a lot on both my E-520 and E-620 and it always served me very well. There are lots of photos in my portfolio that have been shot with this lens.

A TC will get you closer, but with inevitable cost in sharpness and light. The 400 5.6 isn't the brightest tele out there, so you need lots of light to be able to use it with a TC when photographing birds. I occasionally use a Kenko 1.4 TC (a C-AF 1.4x Teleplus MC4) that works well and doesn't diminish sharpness dramatically, but it can only be used effectively in bright sunlight. Shutter speed is crucial in bird photography and usage of a TC for anything that needs a fast shutter speed will be less than satisfactory.

Another thing is the AF, which reportedly doesn't work at apertures f 8.0 and beyond and always results in a slower AF speed than the lens' native AF speed (without extensions). I have found this to be not always true, as I have photos that I focused on the central AF point at f 8.0 and AF worked very well and fast, but only in very bright light. That might differ from one TC to another.

Welcome to photo.net!

 

Hope you'll have a great time here! Groeten uit Flevoland.

You might want to look for a used Olympus 28 mm 2.8 lens. They were popular in the OM days and aren't that hard to find. I don't know the current market price, but I don't think you will have to spend a lot. They're pretty sharp too and will get you an effective focal length of 56 mm when you use it (with an adapter from OM to 4/3 of course) on your E-620. I have have a photo in my portfolio ('wet leaves') that was made with this lens on an Olympus E-520 body.

I have used this lens for six years now and I think the quality is outstanding, even on crop sensor camera's. In my portfolio you can see several photos made with this lens and a crop sensor camera. No doubt the newest version of the 100-400 mm will give you more (as in quantity) sharp images, as it has IS, which may be what you need given your arthritis, but it is considerably heavier and more expensive. With the 400 mm 5.6 you get a reliable and very fast-focusing lens that is really hand-holdable (although I still mostly use a monopod) and delivers very decent images when you get used to it.

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used).

 

 

MFA on your 5D2 likely won't make that much of a difference - not for this lens at least - but it's a way to check things off the list. The bottom line is that if you aren't happy with the IQ, you should send it back to Canon (preferably along with the camera) and let them see if they can't sweeten up the combo. You might be surprised at the results.

 

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used).

 

Hi Marcus, thanks for your reply. I think I will send the combination to Canon, but their repair center in my country has a really bad reputation (for things as not fixing anything and claiming the customer probably did something wrong).

[ATTACH=full]1255884[/ATTACH] .

Back in 2011 I owned a Canon 5D that needed repair (I forget exactly what for). When it was returned, it was working again, but the focus seemed fuzzier than before the camera body needed repair. To test the camera/lens combination, I auto-focused on the bottle target in the attached image, using a 24-104mm L lens, set at 80mm and f:4.0. Looking at the ruler that the bottle was set on, it was clear that the focus was short by about an inch when the bottle was placed 20 inches in front of the lens. So, back it went to the repair shop with the photo as proof. They finally repaired the body properly when they got it the second time.

 

I suggest that you try a similar test before sending camera/lens to Canon to see if you have a focusing problem. Test the lens wide-open, at 35mm focal length, and as close to the camera as possible for minimum depth-of-field.

 

Hi Glenn,

 

thanks for your reply. I have done a round of calibration settings to see if the lens maybe was back- or front focusing. This doesn't seem to be the case, but your test method is better than what I did (putting a contrasty picture with lines and letters on a wall and photographing it with different calibration settings), so maybe I'll do another test your way before I send the lens (with or without the camera) to Canon. Thanks again for your help.

I've seen lots of videos and sample photos and after a long period of deliberation decided to spend my money on an EF 16-35 mm 4.0. This is a wide-angle zoom that is supposed to render great image detail and corner-to-corner sharpness. I was very happy to receive my lens and went on a photo hunt soon after. The photos looked alright on the viewing screen of my camera (a 5D Mk II), but on the computer the sharpness looked off, very much less than the results of my 50 mm 1.8 II for example (which is 10 times cheaper).

I've gone to a renowned Canon selling point to have the lens tested, but the specialist there said he couldn't find anything wrong with the lens; he didn't check it on a computer screen though.

I have tried calibration on my camera, but there is no definite outcome of these attempts to 'fix' the problem. I wonder if any of you who own this lens or have worked with it have experience similar issues. Thanks for your thoughts.