The new 800mm f/11 is coming tomorrow and it may be anticlimactic.

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
bernie r
bernie r Regular Member • Posts: 263
Re: Trying some things.

fredlord wrote:

bernie r wrote:

johncal wrote:

fredlord wrote:

All images shot from tripod with Wimberley 101 locked down on concrete patio.

Autofocused on break in fence. ISO ratings are high and a bit varied due to the different apertures but I had overcast skies. Shutter speed was the same for all. It sort of demonstrates what happens when the maximum aperture is f/11 or f/16.

Used 2-second delay and IR remote trigger for three frames and selected sharpest in each case.

I'm not saying this is scientific. I was just testing. The 500II, of course, autofocused way faster than the other lenses.

I had to shut off the EF500 II image stabilization as it kept moving. I also shut it off on the EF100-400 II. I left it on with the RF800 as it seemed not to matter.

Processed for maximum detail. USM 500-9-1, Topaz DeNoise AI 60-60-60.

I have formed some conclusions from these. Further testing will follow.

RF800+RF1.4X

RF800

EF100-400II+2XIII

EF500II +EF2XIII

EF500II

From what I could see, all the lenses appear to have about the same resolving power and detail. The only thing I noticed was a slight loss of contrast with the the tele-converters added in, which I would kind of expect, but this could easily be corrected in post. The detail still looked good in all cases, IMO. I mean, when we get to 1:1 and are looking at the detail in a screw head it gets a little ridiculous, since 99% of people couldn't care less.

Sometimes I think we get too wrapped up in the mechanics. It's nice, but I think the actual people we are supposed to be pleasing with our photography are more interested in the story that a photo tells. Now I'm not saying great detail can't help the story as textures can sometimes play a huge role, but I guess I'm just saying based on your samples above any of those combinations would do justice to most any shot.

I can tell you from my experience with the RF800, everyone that's looked at my images says "What a cute bird" or something like that. They don't really care if every barb on a feather is crystal clear. They are way more interested in the subject itself. If I am looking a picture of the Swiss Alps, I am way more interested in the beauty of the scene then the exact detail in the image. Of course it needs to be clean and clear and not so blurry you can't make out the details, but again I never notice every last pixel in the image because that's not what it's about, at least for me.

Should provide the raws because the EF 500 II is significantly sharper than both.

It is sharper. No RAW files needed. If it only were as small and light as the 800, it would probably never leave the camera.

If it were as small and light as the RF lenses, I wouldn't trust it in the desert or rainforests.

-- hide signature --

Computer:
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
X570 Aorus Master
TG Dark Pro 3200 14-14-14-31 64GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Founders Edition
Samsung 860 Evo 4TB
Samsung 860 Evo 4TB
Corsair MP510 960gb
Corsair MP510 960gb
Corsair MP510 4TB(boot)
WD Gold 12TB
WD Gold 12TB
Camera:
Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 15-35 2.8
Canon RF 28-70 2
Canon EF 70-200 2.8
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS II USM + 1.4X III
Sigma 105 1.4 DG HSM Art
Stuff:
Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Head
Gitzo GT4543LS Systematic Series 4 Carbon eXact Long Tripod
Benro Mach3 TMA38CL Carbon Fibre Tripod
Benro G3 Ball Head

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow