How good will my 300mm f4 L + kenko 1.4 be

TimothySchlauch · Jul 29, 2006

Hello Everyone.....

I ordered my kenko DG 1.4X 300 pro TC today, I should get it a day before I leave for a month long camping trip. I have a canon 300D rebel, and will be using it with my canon 300mm f4 L lens. The 300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

I have only used a tamron 200-400mm lens, and a bigma 50-500mm lens before this. The bigma was a pretty darn good copy, with very good AF and fairly sharp at the 500mm end. Now this set up will give me a 420mm f5.6 lens, but I'm wonder how good it will be and handle so.

How good will the AF work with the set up, how good will the set up be used wide open ?

Can it handle flying birds, how much sharpness will I lose if any over the bare 300mm L lens ?

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens, and will the set up work good for macro shots ?

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set up faster, tips or hints using it ?
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

JohnJ80 · Jul 29, 2006

I have the 300mm f/4L IS and the Canon 1.4X TCII so I'll tell you what I know about that.

J.

TimothySchlauch said:
Hello Everyone.....

I ordered my kenko DG 1.4X 300 pro TC today, I should get it a day
before I leave for a month long camping trip. I have a canon 300D
rebel, and will be using it with my canon 300mm f4 L lens. The
300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would
say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

the older non IS version is slightly sharper. Either one is excellent. Adding the TC does little to the image quality unless you pixel peep at 100% - but even then it is still very, very good.

TimothySchlauch said:
I have only used a tamron 200-400mm lens, and a bigma 50-500mm lens
before this. The bigma was a pretty darn good copy, with very good
AF and fairly sharp at the 500mm end. Now this set up will give me
a 420mm f5.6 lens, but I'm wonder how good it will be and handle so.

How good will the AF work with the set up, how good will the set up
be used wide open ?

My AF is significantly slower than without the TC. W/o TC, it is blazing fast (it is my soccer lens). WIth the TC, I can use it for sports, but it helps if I track the action by manually focusing.

TimothySchlauch said:
Can it handle flying birds,

AF - maybe. MF assisted, sure. Again, mine is the IS version.

TimothySchlauch said:
how much sharpness will I lose if any
over the bare 300mm L lens ?

very little. Not noticeable accept on the very largest prints and probably not even then. It is really, really hard to tell the difference.

TimothySchlauch said:
And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

and will the

TimothySchlauch said:
set up work good for macro shots ?

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

TimothySchlauch said:
And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a monopod?

TimothySchlauch said:
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

TimothySchlauch · Jul 29, 2006

I have a tripod and monopod, I will be using one or the other for it.
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

carlk · Jul 29, 2006

I use 300/4 with Canon 1.4x extender hand held all the time. My usual shooting situation does not allow me to use a tripod. With some practice I can shoot 1/250s and even 1/125s with pretty good hit rate. IS does help if you're shooting still subjects. AF for bird in flight is workable but again it needs some practice. I have no problem use AF and AI servo to shoot larger and slower flying birds such as egrets and seagulls. Smaller and faster birds is pretty tough for me but it could be me instead of the lens. It might work in some more capable hands.

Here is an example of BIY hand held with 300+1.4TC.

This one was shoot hand held 1/125s wide open.

TimothySchlauch · Jul 30, 2006

I'll be camping on a river bank in bloomsburg PA, so there will be some bigger birds around most likely. I better watch the ducks there though, last time I was having a BBQ there. One come up to me, and almost got my cam when I tried getting photos of it.

People must feed them, and it wanted food not it's photo taken. I had problems holding the 300mm more then the bigma, my guess is because the bigma was heavy. Where as the 300mm is not that heavy, but hopefull I can use a tripod or monopod for all but in fight shots.
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

TimothySchlauch said:
Hello Everyone.....

I ordered my kenko DG 1.4X 300 pro TC today, I should get it a day
before I leave for a month long camping trip. I have a canon 300D
rebel, and will be using it with my canon 300mm f4 L lens. The
300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would
say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

I have only used a tamron 200-400mm lens, and a bigma 50-500mm lens
before this. The bigma was a pretty darn good copy, with very good
AF and fairly sharp at the 500mm end. Now this set up will give me
a 420mm f5.6 lens, but I'm wonder how good it will be and handle so.

it will be ok if you stop down to about F5.6. I was using the Tamron 1.4x with mine and that did not report to the camera so I still had AF.

but wide open was soft, so I used F5.6. the non IS copy was sharper so it would take the TC better than my IS 300mm F4.

TimothySchlauch said:
How good will the AF work with the set up, how good will the set up
be used wide open ?

not too good I am afraid. acceptable. nowhere near what you woudl get with a 400mm F5.6 wide open.

TimothySchlauch said:
Can it handle flying birds, how much sharpness will I lose if any
over the bare 300mm L lens ?

you will probably lose fine feather detail wide open..and will need F5.6 at least to get them back. that's pretty slow with the 1.4x, around F8, but still acceptable if you have good light.

TimothySchlauch said:
And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens, and will the
set up work good for macro shots ?

not nearly as good nope. the 400mm F5.6 L is so sharp that you can put even a 2x tc on it wide open and get something like that. so now you can have this sample as a reference and compare it to what you will get with your lens wide open.

100% crop 800mm F11 equivalent (400mm F5.6 X 2x)

full size image resized:

TimothySchlauch said:
And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

JohnJ80 said:
JohnJ80 said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and 400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

JohnJ80 said:
and will the

JohnJ80 said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

JohnJ80 said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

JohnJ80 said:

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

TimothySchlauch said:
I'll be camping on a river bank in bloomsburg PA, so there will be
some bigger birds around most likely. I better watch the ducks
there though, last time I was having a BBQ there. One come up to
me, and almost got my cam when I tried getting photos of it.

People must feed them, and it wanted food not it's photo taken. I
had problems holding the 300mm more then the bigma, my guess is
because the bigma was heavy. Where as the 300mm is not that heavy,
but hopefull I can use a tripod or monopod for all but in fight
shots.

this is a nice monopod setup..light, portable and quite stable. much more stable than any IS.

manfrotto 680B monopod and manfrotto base 678 which give you 3 retractable legs. with that setup, you can go to slower shutter speed than what the IS could provide.

TimothySchlauch said:
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

JohnJ80 · Jul 30, 2006

Daniella - you are taking what i said out of context. Please see earlier in the same post where I said:

"Adding the TC does little to the image quality unless you pixel peep at 100% - but even then it is still very, very good."

This means - in plain terms - that IT IS NOT AS GOOD BUT IT IS STILL PRETTY GOOD. You are right, the 400 is better at 400 than the 300 is at 400 with the TC. This is also confirmed by MTF charts as well - see here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_4is/index.htm
and
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/55931527

I have some examples as well, but they are not as clear cut as these - I didn't use a tripod and they are slightly different expsoures, so not a good example and not a perfect test. That being said, I found the 300 f/4L IS USM + 1.4x TC satisfactory for some sports shooting applications - and it fit that bill nicely especially if I helped the AF out. Sharpness was not an issue. Wide open in my informal test, they are about the same (wide open at 300 and wide open with TC). Stopping both down a stop was much better and the TC setup benefitted the most from being stopped down.

In order of sharpness at 400 the 400 f/5.6 is better followed closely by the 300 f/4L + TC followed ever so slightly behind (if at all) by the 300f/4L IS + 1.4 TC.

If I was going on an extended camping trip, where weight and flexibility were an issue there is no question that I would take the 300mm and TC before I would carry the 400mm.

J.

Daniella said:
JohnJ80 said:

Daniella68313 said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

Click to expand...

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I
would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and
400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

Daniella68313 said:

and will the

Daniella68313 said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

Daniella68313 said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

Daniella68313 said:

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

carlk · Jul 30, 2006

Daneilla why don't you post a 100% crop of your 400/5.6 with no sharpening for us to compare? There is no question 400 bare is shaper than 300/4 with 1.4TC. However I don't beleive 300/4 +TC is not at least close. Mine happens to be very sharp without TC and still pretty sharp with TC. The way you've been talking it's like the lens is not worth a thing at 420mm. I really like to see how much better your 400/5.6 is. I don't mind to trade a little less IQ for IS(IS actually is also for IQ under certain conditions) but the way you've been talking it's like there is a huge difference. If you can really prove it I will consider getting a 400/5.6 to compliment my 300/4. I have posted quite a few 100% crop of mine at your request but you've never posted yours to show how much better they are.

Daniella said:
JohnJ80 said:

Daniella68313 said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

Click to expand...

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I
would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and
400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

Daniella68313 said:

and will the

Daniella68313 said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

Daniella68313 said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

Daniella68313 said:

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

carlk said:
Daneilla why don't you post a 100% crop of your 400/5.6 with no
sharpening for us to compare?

There is no question 400 bare is

carlk said:
shaper than 300/4 with 1.4TC. However I don't beleive 300/4 +TC is
not at least close.

well you have a reference now to what to compare too. the USM on that crop is a bit irrelevant..you can sharpen up a soft image as much as you want and all you will get is mushy detail. you can see when a photo is sharp and detailed by the quality of the lines in it..fine lines are not broken and are clean. a soft photo that people try to sharpen only become with mushy lines..not clean.

here is the crop without sharpening:

this was shot in jpb with sharpness to minimum, should be zero in-camera sharpening but might still have some not sure what the 300d does at minumum sharpness.

Mine happens to be very sharp without TC and

carlk said:
still pretty sharp with TC.

well where are your 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x?

The way you've been talking it's like

carlk said:
the lens is not worth a thing at 420mm.

It's ok if stopped down..for me it's not worth it wide open. at least I personaly would not be satisfied with the results wide open..why I was shooting at F5.6 with that lens and almost never at F4.

your mileage may vary and what is not acceptable for me might be for you.

I really like to see how

carlk said:
much better your 400/5.6 is. I don't mind to trade a little less

it's not a little less..it's more than that. without the tc, the 300mm F4 IS is not as sharp as the 400mm F5.6 wide open. add a TC and things only get worse.

carlk said:
IQ for IS(IS actually is also for IQ under certain conditions) but
the way you've been talking it's like there is a huge difference.

the difference is huge for me yes. I would not consider what I got from that lens wide open to be acceptable..but again that's according to my standard.

carlk said:
If you can really prove it I will consider getting a 400/5.6 to
compliment my 300/4.

well..why don,t you put a 2x cheapo tamron TC on your lens and use it wide open? now post a 100% crop of a small birds at lets way 30 feet and see if you get a sharp pics.

that crop I posted BTW was handheld.

I have posted quite a few 100% crop of mine at

carlk said:
your request but you've never posted yours to show how much better
they are.

I just posted some with the 400mm wide open plus TC.

here is the 300mm 100% crop bare lens at F4.5:

and here is with a 1.4x tc, 300mm F4 IS with 1.4x TC F5.6:

beside..why do you want to put a tc on the 300mm lens? not enough reach? why not get a decent reach to begin with? since you have this option availablen for about the same price..

in my case I am stuck because there is no 500mm F5.6 or that's what I would be using. I think it's not wise to buy a 300mm lens and plan on using it with that when there is something better available in the same price range that gives much better results.

carlk said:
Daniella said:

JohnJ80 said:

carlk said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

Click to expand...

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I
would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and
400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

carlk said:

and will the

carlk said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

carlk said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

carlk said:

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

both 300mm shots were taken at F4.5. the one with the bare lens was taken from a closer distance.

Daniella said:
carlk said:

Daneilla why don't you post a 100% crop of your 400/5.6 with no
sharpening for us to compare?

Click to expand...

There is no question 400 bare is

Daniella68313 said:

shaper than 300/4 with 1.4TC. However I don't beleive 300/4 +TC is
not at least close.

Click to expand...

well you have a reference now to what to compare too. the USM on
that crop is a bit irrelevant..you can sharpen up a soft image as
much as you want and all you will get is mushy detail. you can see
when a photo is sharp and detailed by the quality of the lines in
it..fine lines are not broken and are clean. a soft photo that
people try to sharpen only become with mushy lines..not clean.

here is the crop without sharpening:

this was shot in jpb with sharpness to minimum, should be zero
in-camera sharpening but might still have some not sure what the
300d does at minumum sharpness.

Mine happens to be very sharp without TC and

Daniella68313 said:

still pretty sharp with TC.

Click to expand...

well where are your 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x?

The way you've been talking it's like

Daniella68313 said:

the lens is not worth a thing at 420mm.

Click to expand...

It's ok if stopped down..for me it's not worth it wide open. at
least I personaly would not be satisfied with the results wide
open..why I was shooting at F5.6 with that lens and almost never at
F4.

your mileage may vary and what is not acceptable for me might be
for you.

I really like to see how

Daniella68313 said:

much better your 400/5.6 is. I don't mind to trade a little less

Click to expand...

it's not a little less..it's more than that. without the tc, the
300mm F4 IS is not as sharp as the 400mm F5.6 wide open. add a TC
and things only get worse.

Daniella68313 said:

IQ for IS(IS actually is also for IQ under certain conditions) but
the way you've been talking it's like there is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

the difference is huge for me yes. I would not consider what I got
from that lens wide open to be acceptable..but again that's
according to my standard.

Daniella68313 said:

If you can really prove it I will consider getting a 400/5.6 to
compliment my 300/4.

Click to expand...

well..why don,t you put a 2x cheapo tamron TC on your lens and use
it wide open? now post a 100% crop of a small birds at lets way 30
feet and see if you get a sharp pics.

that crop I posted BTW was handheld.

I have posted quite a few 100% crop of mine at

Daniella68313 said:

your request but you've never posted yours to show how much better
they are.

Click to expand...

I just posted some with the 400mm wide open plus TC.

here is the 300mm 100% crop bare lens at F4.5:

and here is with a 1.4x tc, 300mm F4 IS with 1.4x TC F5.6:

beside..why do you want to put a tc on the 300mm lens? not enough
reach? why not get a decent reach to begin with? since you have
this option availablen for about the same price..

in my case I am stuck because there is no 500mm F5.6 or that's what
I would be using. I think it's not wise to buy a 300mm lens and
plan on using it with that when there is something better available
in the same price range that gives much better results.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella said:

JohnJ80 said:

Daniella68313 said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

Click to expand...

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I
would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and
400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

Daniella68313 said:

and will the

Daniella68313 said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

Daniella68313 said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

Daniella68313 said:

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Howard S · Jul 30, 2006

Hi Tim

I have the 300/4 IS and the non DG Kenko, here's a sample wide open.

Handheld and may have lost some sharpness through movement given that it was at 1/200th and the 400 ISO

EXIF
Date/Time 02-Jan-2006 14:17:28
Make Canon
Model Canon EOS 20D
Flash Used No
Focal Length 420 mm
Exposure Time 1/200 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400
Exposure Bias
White Balance (-1)
Metering Mode partial (6)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority (3)

TimothySchlauch said:
Hello Everyone.....

I ordered my kenko DG 1.4X 300 pro TC today, I should get it a day
before I leave for a month long camping trip. I have a canon 300D
rebel, and will be using it with my canon 300mm f4 L lens. The
300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would
say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

I have only used a tamron 200-400mm lens, and a bigma 50-500mm lens
before this. The bigma was a pretty darn good copy, with very good
AF and fairly sharp at the 500mm end. Now this set up will give me
a 420mm f5.6 lens, but I'm wonder how good it will be and handle so.

How good will the AF work with the set up, how good will the set up
be used wide open ?

AF is fine and as the como gives f5.6 you don't need to tape the pins.

TimothySchlauch said:
Can it handle flying birds, how much sharpness will I lose if any
over the bare 300mm L lens ?

I find it much slower to focus than the 400/5.6 and only use it if I haven't taken the 400. Prefocusing helps the speed a great deal

TimothySchlauch said:
And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens, and will the
set up work good for macro shots ?

As has been said the 400 has the edge but I wouldn't hesitate to use the 300 and 1.4

I haven't used it for close-ups and I can't see it getting anywhere near 1 to 1 for macro

Howard

TimothySchlauch said:
And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

carlk · Jul 30, 2006

Forget about your 300/4 images. These are terrible terrible ones you shouldn't even try to keep them. If you based on that image to judge 300/4 then it not fair to this lens. No one disputes that 300/4 + TC will not be as sharp as 400/5.6 bare but you should not use some terrible experience you had to form your opinion about this lens IQ.

Your 400/5.6 is pretty sharp but I would say not much sharper than my 300/4 +TC. There is no way to make direct comparison unless the similar raw converted files are compared. I don't know what the in camera jpeg conversion between different cameras are.

You ask me why I want to use 300/4 with TC. Very simple I will have a 300/4 and 420/5.6 with IS. I've said so many time I can not use a tripod most of the time-- shoot while I'm hiking with group. If you can show me how to use 400/5.6 hand held I certainly will listen. If Canon releases a 400/5.6 IS lens I will be the first one in line to buy it.

I have posted 300+TC wide open 100% crop with no pp before. You even made a comment you think there is a sharpening artifact -- I took it as a compliment and even offered to send you the raw file. Here is the posting again. I really can't understand why you don't even own the lens keeps telling people it's soft. It's very sharp bare and with 1.4TC.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=19138736

Daniella said:
carlk said:

Daneilla why don't you post a 100% crop of your 400/5.6 with no
sharpening for us to compare?

Click to expand...

There is no question 400 bare is

Daniella68313 said:

shaper than 300/4 with 1.4TC. However I don't beleive 300/4 +TC is
not at least close.

Click to expand...

well you have a reference now to what to compare too. the USM on
that crop is a bit irrelevant..you can sharpen up a soft image as
much as you want and all you will get is mushy detail. you can see
when a photo is sharp and detailed by the quality of the lines in
it..fine lines are not broken and are clean. a soft photo that
people try to sharpen only become with mushy lines..not clean.

here is the crop without sharpening:

this was shot in jpb with sharpness to minimum, should be zero
in-camera sharpening but might still have some not sure what the
300d does at minumum sharpness.

Mine happens to be very sharp without TC and

Daniella68313 said:

still pretty sharp with TC.

Click to expand...

well where are your 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x?

The way you've been talking it's like

Daniella68313 said:

the lens is not worth a thing at 420mm.

Click to expand...

It's ok if stopped down..for me it's not worth it wide open. at
least I personaly would not be satisfied with the results wide
open..why I was shooting at F5.6 with that lens and almost never at
F4.

your mileage may vary and what is not acceptable for me might be
for you.

I really like to see how

Daniella68313 said:

much better your 400/5.6 is. I don't mind to trade a little less

Click to expand...

it's not a little less..it's more than that. without the tc, the
300mm F4 IS is not as sharp as the 400mm F5.6 wide open. add a TC
and things only get worse.

Daniella68313 said:

IQ for IS(IS actually is also for IQ under certain conditions) but
the way you've been talking it's like there is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

the difference is huge for me yes. I would not consider what I got
from that lens wide open to be acceptable..but again that's
according to my standard.

Daniella68313 said:

If you can really prove it I will consider getting a 400/5.6 to
compliment my 300/4.

Click to expand...

well..why don,t you put a 2x cheapo tamron TC on your lens and use
it wide open? now post a 100% crop of a small birds at lets way 30
feet and see if you get a sharp pics.

that crop I posted BTW was handheld.

I have posted quite a few 100% crop of mine at

Daniella68313 said:

your request but you've never posted yours to show how much better
they are.

Click to expand...

I just posted some with the 400mm wide open plus TC.

here is the 300mm 100% crop bare lens at F4.5:

and here is with a 1.4x tc, 300mm F4 IS with 1.4x TC F5.6:

beside..why do you want to put a tc on the 300mm lens? not enough
reach? why not get a decent reach to begin with? since you have
this option availablen for about the same price..

in my case I am stuck because there is no 500mm F5.6 or that's what
I would be using. I think it's not wise to buy a 300mm lens and
plan on using it with that when there is something better available
in the same price range that gives much better results.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella said:

JohnJ80 said:

Daniella68313 said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens,

Click to expand...

Optically, I think so. But it will not AF as fast.

Click to expand...

you think so? please post a 100% crop wide open with the 1.4x as I
would like to see this..

from my own experience with ALL 3 lenses..300mm F4, 300mm F4 IS and
400mm F5.6..opticaly it is not even near to be comparable. sorry.

Daniella68313 said:

and will the

Daniella68313 said:

set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

not a macro guy - I pass on this one.

Daniella68313 said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?

Click to expand...

What are you doing for support for a 300mm and/or the 420mm. I
don't know if handholding will be such a good idea. At least a
monopod?

Daniella68313 said:

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

carlk · Jul 30, 2006

Real good for hand held 1/200s. What can I say. You certainlt know how to handle this lens.

Howard S said:
I have the 300/4 IS and the non DG Kenko, here's a sample wide open.

Handheld and may have lost some sharpness through movement given
that it was at 1/200th and the 400 ISO

EXIF
Date/Time 02-Jan-2006 14:17:28
Make Canon
Model Canon EOS 20D
Flash Used No
Focal Length 420 mm
Exposure Time 1/200 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400
Exposure Bias
White Balance (-1)
Metering Mode partial (6)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority (3)

TimothySchlauch said:

Hello Everyone.....

I ordered my kenko DG 1.4X 300 pro TC today, I should get it a day
before I leave for a month long camping trip. I have a canon 300D
rebel, and will be using it with my canon 300mm f4 L lens. The
300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would
say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

I have only used a tamron 200-400mm lens, and a bigma 50-500mm lens
before this. The bigma was a pretty darn good copy, with very good
AF and fairly sharp at the 500mm end. Now this set up will give me
a 420mm f5.6 lens, but I'm wonder how good it will be and handle so.

How good will the AF work with the set up, how good will the set up
be used wide open ?

Click to expand...

AF is fine and as the como gives f5.6 you don't need to tape the pins.

Howard S said:

Can it handle flying birds, how much sharpness will I lose if any
over the bare 300mm L lens ?

Click to expand...

I find it much slower to focus than the 400/5.6 and only use it if
I haven't taken the 400. Prefocusing helps the speed a great deal

Howard S said:

And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens, and will the
set up work good for macro shots ?

Click to expand...

As has been said the 400 has the edge but I wouldn't hesitate to
use the 300 and 1.4

I haven't used it for close-ups and I can't see it getting anywhere
near 1 to 1 for macro

Howard

Howard S said:

And is there anything you can tell me, to help me adjust to the set
up faster, tips or hints using it ?
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

Click to expand...

Forrest41926 · Jul 30, 2006

TimothySchlauch said:
300mm is not the IS L lens so is a little sharper, infact I would
say my copy is a very sharp copy at that.

The 300/4 L, the older copy without IS, is the first really truly amazing lens I've used. The 50 is also unbelievably sharp, although (probably because of) f/1.4 isn't terribly sharp. It seems to take until about f/2.5 to become critically sharp. The older 300, on the other hand, is as sharp wide-open as the 50 is at the same f/4 aperture. Now if that's not impressive, I don't know what is.

The new 300/4 with IS is also a spectacular lens. It's not quite as sharp at f/4, probably takes a full stop to equal its older brother. But the 1:4 magnification is pretty handy, and sometimes worth the trade-off. I've been thinking about getting a 1.4x TC to get even closer with my 300, so I'm really curious how yours works for you.

TimothySchlauch said:
And will it be as good or near a 400mm f5.6 L lens, and will the
set up work good for macro shots ?

It will magnify everything by 40 %, without changing your minimum focus distance. I don't remember how the old lens was for close focus, but the TC will make it better.

I'm sure it will be a wonderful 420 mm lens. It outresolves your pixels by a lot, and while I'm sure you'll lose some sharpness, the 300/4 has resolution to spare.

JohnJ80 · Jul 30, 2006

Daniella -

I'm sorry but this isn't any sort of test at all with all due respect. These are two different picture taken under two different conditions. If you want to make your point, you need to show the same shot, same lighting conditions, on a tripod of the two lenses side by side. I bow to your expertise, but I don't think I can accept some of your strong statements and posits based on this data.

I have this much, and it shows the two to be fairly equivalent. There were of the same shot of a fire hydrant within the same time, but there were too fairly different exposures and handheld. I don't consider those a good test at all.

The links I posted at least show a controlled setting and test and they show the results of the two to be close but the 400 f/5.6 is a bit better at 400/420mm than the 300mm i+TC is. A bit, not a lot, a bit.

So, you may or may not be right - but your tests are not in support of your statements because the methodology is flawed. All that I have seen and done shows them to be relatively close with the advantage to the 400 but both are pretty good.

I'm open to data to the contrary.

J.

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

carlk said:
Forget about your 300/4 images. These are terrible terrible ones
you shouldn't even try to keep them. If you based on that image to
judge 300/4 then it not fair to this lens. No one disputes that
300/4 + TC will not be as sharp as 400/5.6 bare but you should not
use some terrible experience you had to form your opinion about
this lens IQ.

Your 400/5.6 is pretty sharp but I would say not much sharper than
my 300/4 +TC. There is no way to make direct comparison unless the
similar raw converted files are compared. I don't know what the in
camera jpeg conversion between different cameras are.

You ask me why I want to use 300/4 with TC. Very simple I will
have a 300/4 and 420/5.6 with IS. I've said so many time I can not
use a tripod most of the time-- shoot while I'm hiking with group.
If you can show me how to use 400/5.6 hand held I certainly will
listen. If Canon releases a 400/5.6 IS lens I will be the first one
in line to buy it.

I have posted 300+TC wide open 100% crop with no pp before. You
even made a comment you think there is a sharpening artifact --

the sharpening artifact I was refering too is more like mushiness, like something being oversharpened.

maybe you did sharpening in the raw conversion, but there is some.

you can send me the raw file of the squirel at [email protected] if you wish.

I

carlk said:
took it as a compliment and even offered to send you the raw file.
Here is the posting again. I really can't understand why you don't
even own the lens keeps telling people it's soft. It's very sharp
bare and with 1.4TC.

and I don,t understand why you keep sayng that the 300mm F4 IS with a 1.4x TC is opticaly about the same as the 400mm F5.6 L. you know it's far from the truth

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella68313 · Jul 30, 2006

JohnJ80 said:
Daniella -

I'm sorry but this isn't any sort of test at all with all due
respect. These are two different picture taken under two
different conditions. If you want to make your point, you need to
show the same shot, same lighting conditions, on a tripod of the
two lenses side by side. I bow to your expertise, but I don't
think I can accept some of your strong statements and posits based
on this data.

I have this much, and it shows the two to be fairly equivalent.
There were of the same shot of a fire hydrant within the same time,
but there were too fairly different exposures and handheld. I
don't consider those a good test at all.

a fire hydrant does not have enough detail anyway. try something really detailed, like a bird or a stuffed toy with fur.

JohnJ80 said:
The links I posted at least show a controlled setting and test and
they show the results of the two to be close but the 400 f/5.6 is a
bit better at 400/420mm than the 300mm i+TC is. A bit, not a lot,
a bit.

a lot.

JohnJ80 said:
So, you may or may not be right - but your tests are not in support
of your statements because the methodology is flawed.

there is no metodology. just real life shot taken in the field in real life situations.

that is in real life that you will see the difference..not shooting at fire hydrant at 12 feet which have no detail to show much the difference.

it is whith a 2x tc wide open that you will see the flaws come out. try it wide open with a 2x..see for yourself.

if your lens is sharp..it will still be sharp with a 2x and wide open. the 2x tc will emplify the defect of your lens..so you will see everything.

All that I

JohnJ80 said:
have seen and done shows them to be relatively close with the
advantage to the 400 but both are pretty good.

I'm open to data to the contrary.

J.

--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

carlk · Jul 30, 2006

Daniella68313 said:
and I don,t understand why you keep sayng that the 300mm F4 IS with
a 1.4x TC is opticaly about the same as the 400mm F5.6 L. you know
it's far from the truth

Can you read? this is what I said. Where did it say 300+TC is as sharp as 400/5.6 bare?

No one disputes that

Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:

300/4 + TC will not be as sharp as 400/5.6 bare but you should not
use some terrible experience you had to form your opinion about
this lens IQ.

Click to expand...

Your 400/5.6 is pretty sharp but I would say not much sharper than

Daniella68313 said:
Daniella68313 said:

my 300/4 +TC.

Click to expand...

The only thing I was arguing is you said 300+TC is soft or not sharp enough to use. It is very sharp and usable. I'm really tired of you keep spreading this misinformation around (that image you have is a big joke). I really don't care about it myseld but I just don't want some poor guy there really believed it and take a loss to trade his 300/4 for a 400/5.6 thinking his picture quality will be vastly improved.

I will send you the raw file of the squirel but you have to promiss you'll stop bashing this lens if it pans out. In return I would also like you to send me a raw file from your 400/5.6. You can send it to the return e-mail address. Don't tell me you don't have any.

Daniella said:
carlk said:

Forget about your 300/4 images. These are terrible terrible ones
you shouldn't even try to keep them. If you based on that image to
judge 300/4 then it not fair to this lens. No one disputes that
300/4 + TC will not be as sharp as 400/5.6 bare but you should not
use some terrible experience you had to form your opinion about
this lens IQ.

Your 400/5.6 is pretty sharp but I would say not much sharper than
my 300/4 +TC. There is no way to make direct comparison unless the
similar raw converted files are compared. I don't know what the in
camera jpeg conversion between different cameras are.

You ask me why I want to use 300/4 with TC. Very simple I will
have a 300/4 and 420/5.6 with IS. I've said so many time I can not
use a tripod most of the time-- shoot while I'm hiking with group.
If you can show me how to use 400/5.6 hand held I certainly will
listen. If Canon releases a 400/5.6 IS lens I will be the first one
in line to buy it.

I have posted 300+TC wide open 100% crop with no pp before. You
even made a comment you think there is a sharpening artifact --

Click to expand...

the sharpening artifact I was refering too is more like mushiness,
like something being oversharpened.

maybe you did sharpening in the raw conversion, but there is some.

you can send me the raw file of the squirel at
[email protected] if you wish.

I

Daniella68313 said:

took it as a compliment and even offered to send you the raw file.
Here is the posting again. I really can't understand why you don't
even own the lens keeps telling people it's soft. It's very sharp
bare and with 1.4TC.

Click to expand...

and I don,t understand why you keep sayng that the 300mm F4 IS with
a 1.4x TC is opticaly about the same as the 400mm F5.6 L. you know
it's far from the truth

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

How good will my 300mm f4 L + kenko 1.4 be

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts