Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
no processing whatsoever, handheld, just cropped from original, at f5.6 1/3200

quite good, I really couldn't sharpen it much at all. It would have been slightly less sharp with my Tamron 1.4 teleconverter [I took some today at the beach, and the waves were so far out I had to use the converter, and they were not quite as sharp. I agree, the 400 is sharper in that respect, but heavier.
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/gallery/976885/6/60294583
--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...
 
I find this data on the 400mm f5.6, and 300mm f4 + 1.4 TC so what does it all mean. I think it means, that a 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC stopped to f11. Is as good as a 400mm f5.6 stopped to f8-16, it looks like they both have max sharpness res at in that range.

And that both have the same sharpness res there, but I'm not sure what it means so I just taking a guessing. If some people that under stands these charts, could look at them and tell what they mean we would know more.

The 2nd link below, would seem to show that infact the none IS 300mm f4. Is sharper then the newer IS 300mm, and the 300mm f2.8 lens as well. Hopefully some one can confirm that for me, anyway the links are below.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/400_56/index.htm

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm

T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
I don't believe you are posting those images as being representative of what the 300/4 produces with or without a TC :)
 
but I don't take credit, it's basically an equipement shot :) The IS on the lens kept the image stabilised and the glass and sensor did the rest. If they could find their own targets I'd be redundant :) I have to say though that when you get gear that works well you generally have to blame yourself when something goes wrong.
 
Daniella -

Not defensible.

I don't disagree at all with the result (400 better than 300+TC by a bit), but your data proves absolutely nothing except that it is two shots of a bird and one is softer than the other. I've got lots of that sort of evidence - and it doesn't mean a thing either.

Interestingly enough how you even know about the fire hydrant that I shot, its detail (you are actually wrong - rust flakes etc). You must be confusing it with another of my hydrant collection since this one was about 100' away not 12'. ;-)

I love you work for sure. However, you are making some very broad strong statements without the equally broad and strong data to back them up. I think that is misleading.

J.
Daniella said:
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.
Click to expand...
a fire hydrant does not have enough detail anyway. try something
really detailed, like a bird or a stuffed toy with fur.
Daniella68313 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.
Click to expand...
a lot.
Daniella68313 said:
So, you may or may not be right - but your tests are not in support
of your statements because the methodology is flawed.
Click to expand...
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
Daniella68313 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)
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Click to expand...
--
'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)
 
at POTN with pictures of the same object with the 300 f/4L IS and the 400 f/5.6L

To me the difference was sizable, but some may still find the (300 f/4L + 1.4x TC) combo useful.
 
I guess I will see how good it works, once I get to use the set up and get use to it a little bit. And that I will need to keep a few things in mind, to get the most from the set up.

The AF slows down some, and it will take a little bit of the sharpness away. And that to get the most from it, I will need to use a tripod as well.

--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
You'll be pleased with how little you will need a tripod, even with the TC the IS helps a lot.
 
Even with my 400/5.6 I rarely use a tripod.
 
at 300mm
the 400 f/5.6 is a good lens @400mm

my opinion is to get the 300 to use it at that focal, or get the 400 if that focal is needed.

The TC's (on the 300) are a tool in case of emergency, but using them in regular basis doesn't make (much of) sense when there is the 400 available.

300mm is the focal I use most (even with the 100-400 to be honest) but if I needed 400 often I'd go for the 400 5.6 instead of the 300.

each lens for its natural destination.

my 2c

P.S.: in the case of the 300/400 dilemma , given the cost so close, one should really think about it before getting either one.

P.P.S: Tc's: canons are expensive and they do cause a loss of f/stops, loss of AF speed, loss of precious quality. Only in emergencies.
 
I paid $380 for a mint older 300mm f4 L, with 2 77mm filter shipped to my door. I then paid $161 for a brand new kenko dg pro 300 1.4 TC, to my door that is only $541.

It would be hard to find a mint 400 f5.6 for that cost, plus I can use the 1.4 TC with my sigma ex 105mm macro lens to boot. The older 300mm f4 has been selling on ebay, for $700 + so the deal I got was a deal I could not pass up.
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
myself, but like I said I mostly shoot @300mm
the kenko is good to have, in any case (again in case of emergencies)

but try to stay at 300mm and get the best out of the lens for what it's meant to be : a 300mm high quality prime

:)

but you'd agree with me that the 300 + adaptor bought brand new makes a little sense compared to the 400mm
 
I would just say that if you will be using the 300 without the TC a great majority of the time, you may as well consider the matter solved.

If you use the 300+TC quite a bit, you may as well start saving for something longer to add to your arsenal or sell your 300 for $700 and add $200 to that for a used 400 f/5.6L.

The 77mm filters will fit either lens.
TimothySchlauch said:
I paid $380 for a mint older 300mm f4 L, with 2 77mm filter shipped
to my door. I then paid $161 for a brand new kenko dg pro 300 1.4
TC, to my door that is only $541.

It would be hard to find a mint 400 f5.6 for that cost, plus I can
use the 1.4 TC with my sigma ex 105mm macro lens to boot. The older
300mm f4 has been selling on ebay, for $700 + so the deal I got was
a deal I could not pass up.
--
T.A. Schlauch

http://www.ArcadeGamester.net

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
Click to expand...
 
I have the 300 F4 L (non IS), Canon 1.4 TC II and the 400 F5.6L.

The 300+TC combination can and does yeild good and commonly keepable shots. The 400 will yeild far more keepable shots and be overall sharper (noticeable).

I only use the 300+TC if forced to such as in a situation where I need 300 most of the time (as 400 would be too much for the main) want to move to 400 occasionally, and don't want to/can't bring both.

--
George Smith
http://www.imagefire.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top