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

BirdPhotographers.net

Help Support BirdPhotographers.net:

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, in that case the high ISO capabylities of the 1Dx when compared to the 7D, are due to the bigger pixels size but with lost of fine detail, is this correct?
 
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.

Hi Artie, I also use a 7D, and after some micro adjustments the images are a lot more sharp than before micro adjustments, but even before they where not as the ones seen in Darwin Wigget's, he might had some problems with his copy and/or some micro ajustments issues.


About sigma zoom lens, I had a 120-300mm f/2.8, first version (the EX IF), at close distances in a hide for small birds (4 or 5m), it was very sharp when stoped down, at f/2.8 or f/4 when using 1.4x TC it wasn't very sharp, when the distance increases, the lost (10m) the lost of quality increases.
 
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.

Hi Artie,
It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

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.

In my opinion, image content trumps image quality if the IQ is not too bad. My first Natures best image was produced full page (fall 2004) and looks great. It is a 3 megapixel crop from a 6 megapixel camera. But it is soft. The image would have much greater impact if it was done on a 1DIV 16 megapixels with no crop--so I'll just have to try again :w3. Of course that didn't exist a decade ago. An image can be soft and if not reproduced too large can still have great impact, and sometimes soft is also good (think nose hairs and skin pores in a model--we usually don't want to see that). So it al comes down to content, subject and how it is used/viewed.

Sid's polar bear image is great, but I bet if he were making a 16x24 inch print and it hung beside a nearly identical image taken with a better lens, the sharper print will have more impact. (No offense Sid in case you are reading--I would love to have made those images.)

Roger
 
Thanks. Funny that Darwin did not write to tell me that as he did write to take me to task after I trashed his original remarks online somewhere....

As for the 100-400 and it's lousy MTF charts we will need to disagree on the need for super-fine detail in an image (as I noted in another pane/thread recently). :)

Have fun at Venice.
 
Last edited:
re:

It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

Funny. I went to the thread and read the stuff at the end. Did not see anywhere that he said he was wrong. The conclusion was that "soft is soft and flat is flat." He did close comments on the thread. I guess that he did not like hearing that he was wrong about the camera.
 
Roger, in that case the high ISO capabylities of the 1Dx when compared to the 7D, are due to the bigger pixels size but with lost of fine detail, is this correct?

Hello Humberto,
Yes, that is correct. It is a direct trade of pixel size versus noise. Here is another analogy.

Say you wanted to check how uniform a sprinkler waters a lawn. So you set out a whole bunch of buckets in a grid covering the lawn, and water for 5 minutes the the water turned on full blast. If you then changed the buckets to smaller one so you can get more detail in the water pattern. Again you turn on the water full blast for 5 minutes. In both cases you sprayed the same amount of water on the lawn for the same amount of time. In te send test with the smaller buckets, the amount of water in each bucket it less, but adding all the water in all the buckets, the total amount of water collected is the same.

The above analogy: the buckets are like pixel size, the force of the water is like the lens collecting light (turn the water on more is like opening the aperture), and the time the you water the lawn if like the camera exposure time. Changing pixel size does not change to total light collected, as long as sensor size is the same, but the detail per pixel changes with the size of the pixel.

(Ignore the fact that as you turn the water on more, the circle of water spray gets larger--that doesn't fit the analogy. That is why I kept the water spray the same in the two examples.)

Roger
 
re:

It looks like his error is summarised at the end: he was using early versions of raw conversion software. The 7D has 4 color filters; red, blue, and two different greens. Early software didn't handle that well.

Funny. I went to the thread and read the stuff at the end. Did not see anywhere that he said he was wrong. The conclusion was that "soft is soft and flat is flat." He did close comments on the thread. I guess that he did not like hearing that he was wrong about the camera.

I agree, he didn't really admit he was wrong. But the "New Updates" after his conclusions tell the story. He also used CS4 and the thread was closed in January 2010. At that time software was still getting refined to deal with the new style filters on the pixels. Here on BPN there was discussions about these problems. Then at some point Canon's DPP was doing quite well until CS5 ACR caught up. I remember Arash pointing out these problems and elsewhere on the net people complaining about different problems, including "mazing." But once software got better, these problems went away. I held off quite a while because of those issues before buying a 7D (bought it well after my 1DIV). I haven't seen these issues with my 7D. The small pixels, however, require smaller tolerances on AF calibration.

Roger
 
Ditto on the AF calibration on the 7d..I did not think about it being related to the size of the pixels....at first I was frustrated with the 7D, but then starting seeing some fantastically sharp images being posted here with the 7d..that gave me confidence in the camera if mine was calibrated properly...once I did, things improved a ton...and my camera needed substantial adjustments to pass the calibration test.
 
Hi, All.

Wow, this thread has certainly covered some ground! :w3

There has been a lot of talk over the last few months about the merits of the Series II long lenses but, now that two of them are available, I'm surprised there haven't been more image quality comparisons with the outgoing versions.

Are you guys aware of anyone who has taken photos of the same real-world subjects (preferably birds) with the same camera body and distance, having switched from a 300mm f/2.8 Series I to a Series II between frames?

There must be many photographers out there who, like me, have Series I lenses and are wondering what benefit they will get if they upgrade. There may well be improvements in AF, IS, etc., but these just increase the percentage of keepers - they don't impact the IQ of the shots that are well-focused and free from motion blur.

To give a specific example, I have seen marked improvements in IQ going from a cheap 70-300mm zoom at the long end to the use of a Canon 300mm f/4 prime and then to a Series I 300mm f/2.8. The last of these has a crispness that really makes subjects pop. Would a Series II 300mm f/2.8 continue that trend, or would the images look pretty much the same as the Series I lens?

To give a second example, I get better subject detail and fewer aberrations with my 500mm f/4 lens than I do by adding TCs to my 300mm f/2.8, so I normally lug the 500mm around because I'm not prepared to sacrifice IQ. Would the Series II 300mm f/2.8 be so much better in this area that I could save myself the extra weight and bulk? I'm not getting any younger. :S3:

Again, I'm interested in real-world comparisons, not how they compare on paper (e.g. in MTF charts).

Any links to test results greatly appreciated!

Mike.
 
Hi, All.

Wow, this thread has certainly covered some ground! :w3

There has been a lot of talk over the last few months about the merits of the Series II long lenses but, now that two of them are available, I'm surprised there haven't been more image quality comparisons with the outgoing versions.

Are you guys aware of anyone who has taken photos of the same real-world subjects (preferably birds) with the same camera body and distance, having switched from a 300mm f/2.8 Series I to a Series II between frames?

There must be many photographers out there who, like me, have Series I lenses and are wondering what benefit they will get if they upgrade. There may well be improvements in AF, IS, etc., but these just increase the percentage of keepers - they don't impact the IQ of the shots that are well-focused and free from motion blur.

To give a specific example, I have seen marked improvements in IQ going from a cheap 70-300mm zoom at the long end to the use of a Canon 300mm f/4 prime and then to a Series I 300mm f/2.8. The last of these has a crispness that really makes subjects pop. Would a Series II 300mm f/2.8 continue that trend, or would the images look pretty much the same as the Series I lens?

To give a second example, I get better subject detail and fewer aberrations with my 500mm f/4 lens than I do by adding TCs to my 300mm f/2.8, so I normally lug the 500mm around because I'm not prepared to sacrifice IQ. Would the Series II 300mm f/2.8 be so much better in this area that I could save myself the extra weight and bulk? I'm not getting any younger. :S3:

Again, I'm interested in real-world comparisons, not how they compare on paper (e.g. in MTF charts).

Any links to test results greatly appreciated!

Mike.

No and no clue. In my 28 years of doing this I have never conducted either a single test or a side-by-side comparison. And sorry, I have no plans to start now.... And to tell the truth, I have been doing OK my way.


I have left it to others to marvel at the sharp images that I have created with the 800 f/5.6L IS and the 300 f/2.8L IS II. And I am betting that the same will be true with both the 500mm and 600mm f/4L IS II lenses that I will be purchasing this spring.
 
Artie- This is off topic. You mentioned your Think Tank bag. Could you fit a 7D with grip, 1D body, flash, 17-40mm, 70-200mm 2.8, 500mm in there?

Hi Colin, With tons of room to spare! There is a thread on the Think Tank bags just below in this forum. Yesterday I wrote:

I have actually gotten more than 50 pounds in the Think Tank International bag! See here for details: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011...bags-and-lenscoat-gear-a-winning-combination/

Most recently was 49 to Japan with: 800 f/5.6 L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS II, 70-200 L IS II, 16mm f/2.8L, 8-15mm, two MIV, 1 5D II, 2 @ 1.4X III TC, 2X III TC, 25mm Extension tube, and some extra caps and batteries.

I have never once been hassled for size and very rarely for weight.
 
Yes, sorry to take your time. After I posted that I went over to the other forum and saw you had answered my question already in replying to someone else. I also saw the images on your blog. Just ordered mine from BandH. The rolling feature and LOCK is very important to me. This will be my new bag for weddings/sporting events....and ultimately Denali in Sept. =) Thanks!
 
Thanks for the reply, Artie.

I know you've made world-class bird images with your existing lenses, but that begs the question why someone with those lenses would buy the new 500mm and 600mm lenses this Spring.

If I do that in the UK, it will cost me £20,000 (roughly $30,000)! I don't think I'm alone in being reluctant to part with so much money without some evidence that my images will be better, hence my questions.

Respectfully,
Mike.
 
This is a good question Mike, and one that I've wondered too. Even if I could justify moving from the 1st to 2nd version of the 500mm, I could never justify purchasing the 600mm II- it's $2500 more than the new 500mm II. I can't get over that- $2500 for an extra 100mm.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top