Field Tested: the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II

This thread has taken on many facets...as far as insurance is concerned... please be sure to review your policy every year and increase the value of your equipment accordingly. If equipment needs to be replaced, it should always be insured for its replacement value. For instance, I upped the value of my 600mm lens just a few weeks ago because if I have to replace it, it will be with version II. This raises my premiums a bit, but I always know my equipment is insured for full replacement value.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Hi Alan- Unfortunately this option is not available from my insurance company. They do not allow self assessment of value above the amount you paid and supported by the invoice. If you need to up the value of your equipment you need to have it appraised by a professional, and this is clearly not something you are going to do every few months. I am fairly certain this is how all Canadian insurance companies work but if I'm wrong then I need to find another company. You can see why they do business this way- in your system what is to stop you from insuring an item for three or ten times the amount it is actually worth?

Ian Cassell said:

Thanks for your input, Artie. I have also been impressed with Robert's images and, in fact, was going to drop him a line for his input and to see if he's had a chance to try that particular lens. When I went to LensRentals.com, Roger, I saw that they do have the lens. I might try renting it and evaluating it myself (although, I must admit, my evaluation at my stage of development would be limited and I would love to see the results in the hands of someone really good!)

Click to expand...

Skill levels aside you can always put the lens on a tripod and shoot newsprint to check for sharpness. No microscopes please.

Good point, Artie (although it wouldn't tell me much about AF).

Robert's images tell me all that I need to know about Sigma zoom lens AF. Not convinced? Shoot moving cars on the street hand held at at least 1/1600 sec.

Arthur Morris said:

Again we get to the "How sharp do your images need to be under a microscope and why?" question. I have seen the RAW files that Robert O'Toole creates of birds in flight and action with various Sigma zooms. They are astounding. And sharp. And the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS trumps the in general comment. At least for me. But I don't use a microscope. And I have never once in my life looked at an MTF chart. There are many who say that MTF charts should be viewed as advertising only as they are created by the guys who make the cameras....

Click to expand...

Hi Artie,

You said: "And the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS trumps the in general comment." to my comment that telephoto zooms are not as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. You are right, I usually say telephoto zooms above 200 mm are not as sharp and I forgot to add the above 200 mm part. Below and equal to 200 mm the 70-200 is an excellent example of sharp lens design (from more than just canon).

"How sharp do your images need to be..."?

Some of my image get enlarged quite a bit, 16x24, 20x30 and shown/sold in galleries, used in advertising, sold to private individuals/businesses and other uses. A 1DIV image is 4896 x 3264 and if printed at 20 x 30 inches is 245 pixels per inch. At that level, the image must be sharp at the pixel level or the print suffers. If the original image needed to be cropped, then it is an even more critical problem to have pixel level sharpness if one wants a large print. I agree that if one only wants web or magazine size (e.g. about 8x10 inches), requirements get relaxed and original pixel to pixel sharpness is not as much of a factor.

Regarding MTF charts, "they are created by the guys who make the cameras." Nah, they are created by the guys and gals who make design and make the lenses :w3.

Actually I find MTF charts quite accurate and they tell a lot about performance regarding image quality. From Canon's published MTF charts, I bet people will find the largest improvement in image quality with the new 500 in comparison to the old 500 and that the image quality difference from the other new versus old superteles will be less. The new 500 looks like a near perfect lens for astrophotography (the original reason I bought my 500 over a decade ago). Stars are the toughest test for any lens and if it does well on stars it will do well on any subject.

I also have a sigma 150-500 and find it sharper than my canon 100-400. My 100-400 can deliver an image that makes a nice 8x10 inch print, but not the level of detail the fixed focal length lenses can in larger prints. Compare the MTF charts for the 100-400 versus a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500 f/4 and we see a big difference:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...ef_lens_lineup/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm

Only look at the thin gray dashed and solid lines: that is the fine detail (but at the several pixel level; they don't show the pixel level as it is much worse). The closer the dashed and solid lines are together the better (otherwise stars look like little comets and find detail in bird feathers suffers) and the higher up these two lines are the better. Left to right on the graphs is center to the corner of a 35 mm frame. The 500 II MTF is well above 90% all across the frame (amazing--no other lens in the canon line-up is that good), compared to the 100-400 which drops down to 25% and separates the solid and dashed lines, make stars into little comets, and is about 10 to 15 times worse image quality at the edge. But whether it is important to anyone is up to them to decide.

Roger




</pre>

Arthur Morris said:

Hi Roger and thanks. When it comes to pixels size and pixels on the subject I am very confused. I thought that larger pixels were better for controlling noise. And when it comes to image quality it seems that you are saying that the 7D is great. If that is true than why has everyone been bitching about lack of image quality and noise with the 7D for years?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying there is great performance with a 7D versus larger pixel cameras. People complained about noise because they were mixing two (or more) things that affect noise. For example, a comparison might be 500 mm on a 7D and 1DIV, same f/ratio, same ISO, same shutter speed. But the 7D image shows more detail. The proper comparison is to add a 1.4x TC on the 1DIV then the pixel size on the subject (e.g. bird) is almost the same as the 7D + 500 (no TC). Then shoot at the same lens diameter (not f/ratio) (e.g. shoot wide open) and at the same shutter speed. Then the 7D and 1DIV images will be almost the same: same detail, same noise. No advantage to larger pixels. Larger pixels at a given focal length simply trade less detail for less noise.

Pixel size is interchangeable with focal length. Increasing focal length by adding a TC or changing a camera to one with smaller pixels can produce the same result in image detail and noise. This is a paradigm shift for photographers but is a trade space done all the time in remote sensing instrument design (e.g. spacecraft and aircraft imaging systems).

The game is changing. What formerly could be done with a large pixel camera and 1.4x TC on a 500 mm f/4 lens can now be done with no TCs and a 300 mm f/2.8 lens. Choose the camera with the lens. it is all part of the system design.

Roger

Roger Clark said:

Hi Artie,

You said: "And the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS trumps the in general comment." to my comment that telephoto zooms are not as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. You are right, I usually say telephoto zooms above 200 mm are not as sharp and I forgot to add the above 200 mm part. Below and equal to 200 mm the 70-200 is an excellent example of sharp lens design (from more than just canon).

"How sharp do your images need to be..."?

Some of my image get enlarged quite a bit, 16x24, 20x30 and shown/sold in galleries, used in advertising, sold to private individuals/businesses and other uses. A 1DIV image is 4896 x 3264 and if printed at 20 x 30 inches is 245 pixels per inch. At that level, the image must be sharp at the pixel level or the print suffers. If the original image needed to be cropped, then it is an even more critical problem to have pixel level sharpness if one wants a large print. I agree that if one only wants web or magazine size (e.g. about 8x10 inches), requirements get relaxed and original pixel to pixel sharpness is not as much of a factor.

Regarding MTF charts, "they are created by the guys who make the cameras." Nah, they are created by the guys and gals who make design and make the lenses :w3.

Actually I find MTF charts quite accurate and they tell a lot about performance regarding image quality. From Canon's published MTF charts, I bet people will find the largest improvement in image quality with the new 500 in comparison to the old 500 and that the image quality difference from the other new versus old superteles will be less. The new 500 looks like a near perfect lens for astrophotography (the original reason I bought my 500 over a decade ago). Stars are the toughest test for any lens and if it does well on stars it will do well on any subject.

I also have a sigma 150-500 and find it sharper than my canon 100-400. My 100-400 can deliver an image that makes a nice 8x10 inch print, but not the level of detail the fixed focal length lenses can in larger prints. Compare the MTF charts for the 100-400 versus a 300 f/2.8 or the new 500 f/4 and we see a big difference:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...ef_lens_lineup/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm

Only look at the thin gray dashed and solid lines: that is the fine detail (but at the several pixel level; they don't show the pixel level as it is much worse). The closer the dashed and solid lines are together the better (otherwise stars look like little comets and find detail in bird feathers suffers) and the higher up these two lines are the better. Left to right on the graphs is center to the corner of a 35 mm frame. The 500 II MTF is well above 90% all across the frame (amazing--no other lens in the canon line-up is that good), compared to the 100-400 which drops down to 25% and separates the solid and dashed lines, make stars into little comets, and is about 10 to 15 times worse image quality at the edge. But whether it is important to anyone is up to them to decide.

Roger

Click to expand...

Agree and thanks a lot. The fact that we rarely make large prints (other than canvas) and sell our images primarily for we, book, and magazine use explains a lot. But when I hear folks talk about large prints I often wonder if they take viewing distance into account or if they are back to their microscopes.

Roger Clark said:

Yes, I am saying there is great performance with a 7D versus larger pixel cameras. People complained about noise because they were mixing two (or more) things that affect noise. For example, a comparison might be 500 mm on a 7D and 1DIV, same f/ratio, same ISO, same shutter speed. But the 7D image shows more detail. The proper comparison is to add a 1.4x TC on the 1DIV then the pixel size on the subject (e.g. bird) is almost the same as the 7D + 500 (no TC). Then shoot at the same lens diameter (not f/ratio) (e.g. shoot wide open) and at the same shutter speed. Then the 7D and 1DIV images will be almost the same: same detail, same noise. No advantage to larger pixels. Larger pixels at a given focal length simply trade less detail for less noise.

Pixel size is interchangeable with focal length. Increasing focal length by adding a TC or changing a camera to one with smaller pixels can produce the same result in image detail and noise. This is a paradigm shift for photographers but is a trade space done all the time in remote sensing instrument design (e.g. spacecraft and aircraft imaging systems).

The game is changing. What formerly could be done with a large pixel camera and 1.4x TC on a 500 mm f/4 lens can now be done with no TCs and a 300 mm f/2.8 lens. Choose the camera with the lens. it is all part of the system design.

Roger

Click to expand...

Thanks. That's about as close to understanding that stuff as I have ever come. I will need to keep coming back and studying.

If folks under-expose images created with a small pixel camera like the 7D will the noise levels be worse than with a Mark IV for example.

On a related topic, a Canadian landscape photographer with a pretty good eye, Darwin Wiggett, absolutely trashed the image quality of the 7D when it first came out. I mean trashed.

ps: I tried to find the trashing on his site using the search feature with no luck. Off to the gate!

Arthur Morris said:

Agree and thanks a lot. The fact that we rarely make large prints (other than canvas) and sell our images primarily for we, book, and magazine use explains a lot. But when I hear folks talk about large prints I often wonder if they take viewing distance into account or if they are back to their microscopes.

Click to expand...

In my opinion and experience, viewing distance is irrelevant. People view prints at all distances. If they can get close, they will get as close as the detail in the print will draw them in. In a large print, it is like walking into the scene. Attached is a 30x40-inch print where people walk right up and view it from a foot away., then step back and view the whole scene, then move in again, often exclaiming "WOW!" If the print is soft, they won't be drawn in, and they won't exclaim any wow.

Same in galleries. In most galleries, and those where my images have been displayed all allow the view to walk right up and view the print up close.

(The 30 x 40 inch print is a 4x5 image drum scanned producing the digital equivalent of a 200 megapixel camera.)

Roger

Arthur Morris said:

Thanks. That's about as close to understanding that stuff as I have ever come. I will need to keep coming back and studying.

If folks under-expose images created with a small pixel camera like the 7D will the noise levels be worse than with a Mark IV for example.

On a related topic, a Canadian landscape photographer with a pretty good eye, Darwin Wiggett, absolutely trashed the image quality of the 7D when it first came out. I mean trashed.

Click to expand...

If the detail on the target were the same and the 1DIV and 7D were equally underexposed using the same lens with the same aperture diameter and same exposure time, the images would have equal noise. We had a long thread on this subject, but here is an example that shows exactly that test: see this post and the following few frames.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/fo...1-7D-or-1DIV-better-noise?p=762425#post762425
(best not to delve too far into this again--the last thread got heated and had to be closed).

Digital has changed many concepts, and if the landscape photographer trashed the 7D, he probably did not understand Etendue, which is the factor I have been talking about. There are many superb images being posted on BPN with the 7D. Look, for example at Sid Garige's recent images (two recent ones posted just before I wrote this)--absolutely stunning and made with a 7D. And his stunning polar bear image was with the 100-400 :w3.

Roger

Arthur Morris said:

ps: I tried to find the trashing on his site using the search feature with no luck. Off to the gate!

Click to expand...

Arthur,

I think this might be what you were looking for:- http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

Very interesting thread and a lot of good info from Artie, Roger and others.

Roger Clark said:

Hi John,


The new 500 f/4 MTF charts (see Canon's web site) are almost perfect!!!!!.......


Roger

Click to expand...

One note on MTF charts

BPN readers need to know MTF charts can be useful and interesting but each manufacturer has a different approach to MTF data. Canon's (and Nikon's and Sigma's) are computer generated theoretical figures and not made with production lenses. Its been along time but I remember Canon stating this somewhere in their literature. Zeiss and Hassy on the other hand publish actual real world MTF charts made on production glass and they state this (this may have changed). Real world MTF testing has to take in to account manufacturing tolerances etc since they show what the lens actually resolves so in most times the measured MTF is below the computer generated MTF.

Hi Ian

Ian Cassell said:

........ Last year, Sigma updated their 120-300/2.8 and the price is far below the Canon 300. Has any one of you given it serious consideration? Why or why not? ............Thanks for your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I have been interesting in this for some time also and talk about timing, I just got back from Japan last night and look what was waiting on my doorstep thanks to Sigma. A brand new 120-300 APO EX f/2.8 and 1.4X TC. Looking forward to burning through some megs (or gigs) next week photographing eagles during my eagle tour series in AK. I will be sure to post some images on BPN. If you want me to shoot a target or something let me know.

Ian Cassell said:

........ ............(I know the Sigma 300-800/5.6 has some strong followers, so I assume it is not just because of an intrinsic bias against 3rd party lenses). I keep thinking it might be the only way some of us could afford to get an AF 600mm....

Click to expand...

I tried that monster of a lens and on the sample unit I tried I found IQ fall off over 600-700 and at wide open aperture. If Sigma could come out with a new 300-800 more compact and with OS I think it would be a dream lens for a wildlife photographer.

Robert

Alan Stankevitz said:

Ian,........
I believe the Sigma 120-300/2.8 also does not have a focus-limit switch on the version II with OS. I know for sure the first version did not and therefore I would not waste my time with it. .................

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Click to expand...

You are correct Alan it does not, I have one sitting here next to me as I type. I will know how the AF copes with eagles in flight next week!

Sigma really needs to add distance limiters to their EX lenses and up the price if necessary. The focus range is too wide not to do so, the 50-500 focuses to about 3 feet at 300mm for a 1:3.2 macro ratio.

Alan Stankevitz said:

Ian,........

Canon L lenses are an investment and rarely go down in value. I know they are extremely expensive, but you do get what you pay for.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Click to expand...

Very true, I have had a canon lens for years and sold it for about 90-95% of what I paid new. Sometimes with rebates you can sell it for more than you paid. I believe this would apply to Nikon but cannot say from experience since I have never sold any of my AF Nikkors.

Robert

Robert, I eagerly await your results from the Eagle trip. I own Sigma 1.4X and 2X EX converters, so all I am missing is the little lens My Sigma 100-300/4 has never done well with the converters, so I'm hoping this one does. I'm especially interested in how it does with a 2X as I already own the Canon 400/5.6 and it is that extra reach to 600 that I'm after.

I'd love to see some baseline imaging with the lens of newsprint or some other target.

adrian dancy said:

Arthur, I think this might be what you were looking for:- http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

Click to expand...

Thanks Adrian. I did not agree at all with his findings. I would love for Roger to take a look at his methods and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. I loved my 7D files especially those created on sunny days.

Roger Clark said:

In my opinion and experience, viewing distance is irrelevant. People view prints at all distances. If they can get close, they will get as close as the detail in the print will draw them in. In a large print, it is like walking into the scene. Attached is a 30x40-inch print where people walk right up and view it from a foot away., then step back and view the whole scene, then move in again, often exclaiming "WOW!" If the print is soft, they won't be drawn in, and they won't exclaim any wow.

Same in galleries. In most galleries, and those where my images have been displayed all allow the view to walk right up and view the print up close.

(The 30 x 40 inch print is a 4x5 image drum scanned producing the digital equivalent of a 200 megapixel camera.)

Roger

Click to expand...

A few further thoughts. In my world, prints are to be enjoyed at a reasonable viewing distance. In my world I have never had a potential buyer say to me, "Your image does not have enough fine detail." Same with my eight BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year-honored images or my other major contest successes.

And I have sold 100s of images created with the 100-400 MTF charts aside.

Lastly, John Shaw who has sold a few prints of natural history subjects has stated, A good sharp image from a 4 mega-pixel camera will produce a better print than 35mm film.

I guess that we will need to disagree on the need for incredible fine detail in digital files.

Roger Clark said:

If the detail on the target were the same and the 1DIV and 7D were equally underexposed using the same lens with the same aperture diameter and same exposure time, the images would have equal noise. We had a long thread on this subject, but here is an example that shows exactly that test: see this post and the following few frames.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/fo...1-7D-or-1DIV-better-noise?p=762425#post762425 (best not to delve too far into this again--the last thread got heated and had to be closed). Digital has changed many concepts, and if the landscape photographer trashed the 7D, he probably did not understand Etendue, which is the factor I have been talking about. There are many superb images being posted on BPN with the 7D. Look, for example at Sid Garige's recent images (two recent ones posted just before I wrote this)--absolutely stunning and made with a 7D. And his stunning polar bear image was with the 100-400 :w3. Roger

Click to expand...

Thanks for the noise info. I do not see any mention of Etendue in this thread; did I miss something?

If you have time, please take a look at Darwin Wigget's post and let us know what he did wrong with his comparisons. The 7D stuff that he posted did look lousy: the link is in Pane 58.

As for Sid's polar bear image, that is my point. Folks hot for super fine detail often cannot see the forest for the trees.... And how can someone produce a superb image with a lens with such a poor MTF rating???? As I said, the next MTF chart I examine will be my first.