Long Lens for the M6 ii

[Maxmolly7]

Hi ,

Stopped down the sharpness will increase overall and from center to corners.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

Thank you. Make sense now.

 

[BirdShooter7]

I tried the Panasonic G9 with 100-400 and it was too heavy.

That’s a shame, I guess that means the 70-300 really needs to work out as you are quickly running out of options.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

I’m just heading out to try the 70-300, plus giving the Tamron 18-400 a second chance with aLl the suggestions made in this post. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Andy01]

Thanks so much for your detailed input. It was really helpful. Right now, I feel I need at least the reach of 300 mm so I'm going to go with trying out the 70-300 ii.

Following your quest for some time now, I am convinced that 300mm will be too short for what you are trying to achieve.

Actually if you crop an image from the M6 II 32.5MP sensor down to 20MP (same as the RX10IV) and if my calculations are correct, you will get a longer reach with the 70-300mm on the M6II than you will get with your RX10 iV.

A little more explanation:

20MP from a 32.5MP sensor will use an area that equals a crop factor of 1.27. (32.5 long edge is 6960px and 20MP long edge is 5472px. 6960/5472= 1.27)

Now take this and multiply with the APS-C to FF crop factor. 1.27 x 1.6 = 2,04

So a 20MP crop of the 32.5MP sensor will have a FF crop factor of 2.04.

20MP crop reach: 300mm x 2,04 = 612mm

.

The Rx10 IV has a 220mm lens and a FF crop factor of around 2.7.

RX10 IV reach: 220mm x 2.7 = 594mm

.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I may be mistaken but I think you are unfortunately. I don't think it is correct to scale down only the long edge dimension to 1.27 and leave the short edge at 1.6x - unless, of course, you plan to crop it unevenly to make a square image.

Generally reducing from 32Mp to 20Mp would involve reducing both dimensions by the same ratio, so using your numbers it would be 1.27 x 1.27, which is 1.62 times, not 2.04 times.

Also, the Sony RX10 iv lens is already stated as a 600mm FOV equivalent (FF) number, and the Canon APS-C FF equivalent FOV number would be 300mm x 1.6 = 480mm, and cropping to the 20Mp equivalent resolution would be 480mm x 1.62 = 778mm reach I think (so clearly more than the Sony).

Happy to be corrected if I also got this wrong - although it is fairly academic since the OP stated a few times that the Sony has been returned and will not be considered.

.

(for the record: That 20MP cropped area is also physical larger than the 1 inch sensor. So also larger pixels. I leave it to someone else , if interested, to calculate the real area based on the FF crop factor of 2.04)

It is a pity that the Sony did not work for you!

The Tamron IQ is usable when stopped down to f8 or f11. This will require high ISO so the benefit of APS-C sensor is gone.

Especially the corners of the Tamron are soft, which is ok as long as the subject is in the center. For me IQ and handling on EOS M was not good enough.

For me the 300mm focal length was not enough but going beyond increases bulk and weight dramatically.

Like you, I was looking for a photographic Swiss pocket knife and found mine in the RX 10 iv for nature and the RX 100 VII for city trips for now.

I am not sure what is going to happen to my M6....

Colin

 

[RLight]

Thanks for the tip on the 70-300 with using the 6.3 f/stop at the long end. It was also suggested I use f/7.1 on the 18-400. I'm not sure why those will be better. Further explanation would help.

Here you go...

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

That's a comparison of a 7D Mark II (crop sensor) with the 70-300 IS II mounted, at 300mm comparing f/5.6 against f/6.3; you have to rollover to see the effects.

.

There is some gains at f/8, but, it's very minute, and, you're loosing another 2/3 stop of light plus adding diffraction on a 32MP sensor. Thus if you want peak sharpness, f/6.3-7.1 is the sweet spot on the long end of the lens on a crop sensor.

.

You can preview the effect of many lenses stopped at varying aperture or on varying sensor sizes this way.

.

Most, but not all lenses, behave best when stopped down a hair. Matters especially when shooting 300mm where you're likely to still crop the shot so you want every ounce of sharpness you can get out of that 32 megapixels and that lens.

 

[nnowak]

Thanks so much for your detailed input. It was really helpful. Right now, I feel I need at least the reach of 300 mm so I'm going to go with trying out the 70-300 ii.

Following your quest for some time now, I am convinced that 300mm will be too short for what you are trying to achieve.

Actually if you crop an image from the M6 II 32.5MP sensor down to 20MP (same as the RX10IV) and if my calculations are correct, you will get a longer reach with the 70-300mm on the M6II than you will get with your RX10 iV.

A little more explanation:

20MP from a 32.5MP sensor will use an area that equals a crop factor of 1.27. (32.5 long edge is 6960px and 20MP long edge is 5472px. 6960/5472= 1.27)

Now take this and multiply with the APS-C to FF crop factor. 1.27 x 1.6 = 2,04

So a 20MP crop of the 32.5MP sensor will have a FF crop factor of 2.04.

20MP crop reach: 300mm x 2,04 = 612mm

.

The Rx10 IV has a 220mm lens and a FF crop factor of around 2.7.

RX10 IV reach: 220mm x 2.7 = 594mm

.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I may be mistaken but I think you are unfortunately. I don't think it is correct to scale down only the long edge dimension to 1.27 and leave the short edge at 1.6x - unless, of course, you plan to crop it unevenly to make a square image.

It was assumed both dimensions were cropped by 1.27

Generally reducing from 32Mp to 20Mp would involve reducing both dimensions by the same ratio, so using your numbers it would be 1.27 x 1.27, which is 1.62 times, not 2.04 times.

Going from 32mp to 20mp is a 1.27 crop. Crop factors are lineal measurements, usually calculated on the image diagonal, but the horizontal or vertical axis can also be used.

MyM6II got to 2.04 by multiplying the Canon APS-C crop factor of 1.6X times the additional 1.27X

Also, the Sony RX10 iv lens is already stated as a 600mm FOV equivalent (FF) number, and the Canon APS-C FF equivalent FOV number would be 300mm x 1.6 = 480mm, and cropping to the 20Mp equivalent resolution would be 480mm x 1.62 = 778mm reach I think (so clearly more than the Sony).

Nope. Cropping to 20mp on the M6 II is 300mm X 1.6 X 1.27 = 610mm

Happy to be corrected if I also got this wrong - although it is fairly academic since the OP stated a few times that the Sony has been returned and will not be considered.

.

(for the record: That 20MP cropped area is also physical larger than the 1 inch sensor. So also larger pixels. I leave it to someone else , if interested, to calculate the real area based on the FF crop factor of 2.04)

It is a pity that the Sony did not work for you!

The Tamron IQ is usable when stopped down to f8 or f11. This will require high ISO so the benefit of APS-C sensor is gone.

Especially the corners of the Tamron are soft, which is ok as long as the subject is in the center. For me IQ and handling on EOS M was not good enough.

For me the 300mm focal length was not enough but going beyond increases bulk and weight dramatically.

Like you, I was looking for a photographic Swiss pocket knife and found mine in the RX 10 iv for nature and the RX 100 VII for city trips for now.

I am not sure what is going to happen to my M6....

Colin

 

[nnowak]

Thanks so much for your detailed input. It was really helpful. Right now, I feel I need at least the reach of 300 mm so I'm going to go with trying out the 70-300 ii.

Following your quest for some time now, I am convinced that 300mm will be too short for what you are trying to achieve.

Actually if you crop an image from the M6 II 32.5MP sensor down to 20MP (same as the RX10IV) and if my calculations are correct, you will get a longer reach with the 70-300mm on the M6II than you will get with your RX10 iV.

A little more explanation:

20MP from a 32.5MP sensor will use an area that equals a crop factor of 1.27. (32.5 long edge is 6960px and 20MP long edge is 5472px. 6960/5472= 1.27)

Now take this and multiply with the APS-C to FF crop factor. 1.27 x 1.6 = 2,04

So a 20MP crop of the 32.5MP sensor will have a FF crop factor of 2.04.

20MP crop reach: 300mm x 2,04 = 612mm

.

The Rx10 IV has a 220mm lens and a FF crop factor of around 2.7.

RX10 IV reach: 220mm x 2.7 = 594mm

.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

.

(for the record: That 20MP cropped area is also physical larger than the 1 inch sensor. So also larger pixels. I leave it to someone else , if interested, to calculate the real area based on the FF crop factor of 2.04)

Full frame area is 864 mm^2. To calculate the area of the new cropped area you need to square your lineal crop factor (2.04 X 2.04). The new cropped area is 864/(2.04 X 2.04) = 208mm^2. Basically the same as a m4/3 sensor which is 225mm^2

 

[R2D2]

Bear in mind that the M4/3 100-400 gives a field of view equal to 200-800mm, significantly more than an APSC 300 or 400.

Actually the 32 MP M6ii with its very high pixel density will provide more reach than any of those 20 MP M43 cameras with the same focal length lens mounted.

R2

 

[R2D2]

Thanks so much for your input. I always appreciate your ideas. I will keep the teleconverter in mind. I'm also not considering another point-and-shoot. Karen

Another option you might consider Karen is a shoulder-mounted support rig like they use for shooting video. I have one and they really lessen the amount of weight your arms have to hold up.

These come in a zillion configurations, and you’d want one that places the viewfinder right at your eye (instead of using the LCD). You’d have to hunt around, but the general idea is something like this...

Shoulder support for camera (back LCD version)

Again, you’d want the style that places the camera close to your eye (for EVF use).

Good luck testing this weekend!

R2

 

[nnowak]

Bear in mind that the M4/3 100-400 gives a field of view equal to 200-800mm, significantly more than an APSC 300 or 400.

Actually the 32 MP M6ii with its very high pixel density will provide more reach than any of those 20 MP M43 cameras with the same focal length lens mounted.

R2

Barely. The 20mp sensors are 5184 X 3888. If we crop that region out of the M6 II sensor, the total crop factor is 2.07X. A 300mm lens that gives you a 600mm field of view on a m4/3 camera would provide a 621mm field of view on the M6 II with the same number of pixels. This would be using an area smaller than a m4/3 sensor.

If we go the other way and maintain the 2X crop factor on the same sensor area, we would have 21.9 megapixels.

While the pixel densities may be comparable, the lens weights are not. The Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 OIS weighs 520 grams. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 weighs 710 grams, and that is before you add the 150 gram EF adapter.

 

[M4Mobility]

Thanks so much for your detailed input. It was really helpful. Right now, I feel I need at least the reach of 300 mm so I'm going to go with trying out the 70-300 ii.

Following your quest for some time now, I am convinced that 300mm will be too short for what you are trying to achieve.

Actually if you crop an image from the M6 II 32.5MP sensor down to 20MP (same as the RX10IV) and if my calculations are correct, you will get a longer reach with the 70-300mm on the M6II than you will get with your RX10 iV.

A little more explanation:

m20MP from a 32.5MP sensor will use an area that equals a crop factor of 1.27. (32.5 long edge is 6960px and 20MP long edge is 5472px. 6960/5472= 1.27)

Now take this and multiply with the APS-C to FF crop factor. 1.27 x 1.6 = 2,04

So a 20MP crop of the 32.5MP sensor will have a FF crop factor of 2.04.

20MP crop reach: 300mm x 2,04 = 612mm

.

The Rx10 IV has a 220mm lens and a FF crop factor of around 2.7.

RX10 IV reach: 220mm x 2.7 = 594mm

.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I may be mistaken but I think you are unfortunately. I don't think it is correct to scale down only the long edge dimension to 1.27 and leave the short edge at 1.6x - unless, of course, you plan to crop it unevenly to make a square image.

The Rx10 sensor has an aspect ratio of 3:2.
The M6 II sensor has an aspect ratio of 3:2.
When I make a 20MP crop of the M6II to compare with the Rx10, of course I keep the aspect ratio and make a crop that also has an aspect ratio of 3:2. (I didn't think I needed to explain that.)

So yes of course both edges are cropped. (If not, it would not result in a 20MP crop.)

Generally reducing from 32Mp to 20Mp would involve reducing both dimensions by the same ratio, so using your numbers it would be 1.27 x 1.27, which is 1.62 times, not 2.04 times.

Crop factor is a linear measurement. It is normal to use the diagonal for this. But since I use the same aspect ratio, I can use either the long edge or the short edge instead (and therefor I don't need to calculate the diagonal first).

And I can also use the number of pixels instead of the actual millimeters because the crop is from the same sensor. So the ratio will be the same. (That trick can not be used between different sensors with different measures.)

The result (1,27) is the crop factor between the full 32.5MP APS-C sensor and the 20MP crop from the same sensor. The crop factor between this aps-c sensor and a ff sensor is (as you know) 1.6. By multiplying those two crop factors, the result (2.04) will be the crop factor between the 20MP crop and a FF sensor.

So

300mm x (6960 / 5472) x 1,6 = 611mm

or
300mm x 2,04 = 612mm (fewer decimals used)

(English is not my first language, so explaining things like this in english is a bit hard. I hope it was understandable.)

Also, the Sony RX10 iv lens is already stated as a 600mm FOV equivalent (FF) number, and the Canon APS-C FF equivalent FOV number would be 300mm x 1.6 = 480mm, and cropping to the 20Mp equivalent resolution would be 480mm x 1.62 = 778mm reach I think (so clearly more than the Sony).

Happy to be corrected if I also got this wrong

"I also" ???

I think you (only) got this wrong.

- although it is fairly academic since the OP stated a few times that the Sony has been returned and will not be considered.

This was a reply addressed to Maxmolly7 and his claim that "300mm will be too short". While he previously advocated for the RX10 IV.

.

(for the record: That 20MP cropped area is also physical larger than the 1 inch sensor. So also larger pixels. I leave it to someone else , if interested, to calculate the real area based on the FF crop factor of 2.04)

It is a pity that the Sony did not work for you!

The Tamron IQ is usable when stopped down to f8 or f11. This will require high ISO so the benefit of APS-C sensor is gone.

Especially the corners of the Tamron are soft, which is ok as long as the subject is in the center. For me IQ and handling on EOS M was not good enough.

For me the 300mm focal length was not enough but going beyond increases bulk and weight dramatically.

Like you, I was looking for a photographic Swiss pocket knife and found mine in the RX 10 iv for nature and the RX 100 VII for city trips for now.

I am not sure what is going to happen to my M6....

Colin

 

[M4Mobility]

Thanks so much for your detailed input. It was really helpful. Right now, I feel I need at least the reach of 300 mm so I'm going to go with trying out the 70-300 ii.

Following your quest for some time now, I am convinced that 300mm will be too short for what you are trying to achieve.

Actually if you crop an image from the M6 II 32.5MP sensor down to 20MP (same as the RX10IV) and if my calculations are correct, you will get a longer reach with the 70-300mm on the M6II than you will get with your RX10 iV.

A little more explanation:

20MP from a 32.5MP sensor will use an area that equals a crop factor of 1.27. (32.5 long edge is 6960px and 20MP long edge is 5472px. 6960/5472= 1.27)

Now take this and multiply with the APS-C to FF crop factor. 1.27 x 1.6 = 2,04

So a 20MP crop of the 32.5MP sensor will have a FF crop factor of 2.04.

20MP crop reach: 300mm x 2,04 = 612mm

.

The Rx10 IV has a 220mm lens and a FF crop factor of around 2.7.

RX10 IV reach: 220mm x 2.7 = 594mm

.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

.

(for the record: That 20MP cropped area is also physical larger than the 1 inch sensor. So also larger pixels. I leave it to someone else , if interested, to calculate the real area based on the FF crop factor of 2.04)

Full frame area is 864 mm^2. To calculate the area of the new cropped area you need to square your lineal crop factor (2.04 X 2.04). The new cropped area is 864/(2.04 X 2.04) = 208mm^2. Basically the same as a m4/3 sensor which is 225mm^2

Thanks.

I was too lazy to calculate it last night. And I was not sure anyone was really interested. The result is close to what I would have guessed. But it is kind of interesting that the M6II sensor is almost a "two in one" sensor.

 

[M4Mobility]

Bear in mind that the M4/3 100-400 gives a field of view equal to 200-800mm, significantly more than an APSC 300 or 400.

Actually the 32 MP M6ii with its very high pixel density will provide more reach than any of those 20 MP M43 cameras with the same focal length lens mounted.

R2

Barely. The 20mp sensors are 5184 X 3888. If we crop that region out of the M6 II sensor, the total crop factor is 2.07X. A 300mm lens that gives you a 600mm field of view on a m4/3 camera would provide a 621mm field of view on the M6 II with the same number of pixels. This would be using an area smaller than a m4/3 sensor.

If we go the other way and maintain the 2X crop factor on the same sensor area, we would have 21.9 megapixels.

While the pixel densities may be comparable, the lens weights are not. The Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 OIS weighs 520 grams. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 weighs 710 grams, and that is before you add the 150 gram EF adapter.

The first thing I did with my origin Canon adapter was to remove the tripod foot. And I also bought the lighter Meike adapter.

If 518mm is enough, the EF-S 55-250mm STM weighs only 375g. Add the Meike adapter (around 65g) for a total of 440g. I can highly recommend that lens (and combo).

 

[RLight]

Oh!

Karen, if you're still following this thread, the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, is another strong recommendation if the 70-300 IS USM is too big...

https://j.mp/2TOWGdf

The EF-S 55-250 is significantly lighter as it's a crop-native (but not mirrorless optimized) lens. It's nearly half the weight, and a fraction of the price of the 70-300. It's a bit shorter, but not much because you need a certain amount of lens length to hit 250mm, for lack of better words, but, it's significantly narrower as the 70-300 has "dead glass" essentially when mounted on a crop body that's going to waste.

Despite it's price, it's deadly. I had one with the short time I spent with a Rebel SL2, I HIGHLY recommend it for the price and weight.



Since it's native crop glass, it's actually very well performing on the wide end of the lens vs the 70-300 FF glass...

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

.

By 200mm, it also still "wins".

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

.

Now the 70-300 IS II has two very large advantages; the nano-USM motor, and that new 4-stop IS gyro. Those are pretty large advantages even though frankly it's optically inferior when mounted on a crop body as the lens is optimized for FF, not crop.

.

But, I know you're big on cutting down weight, this is an excellent option.

Where I recommend the EF 70-300 IS II USM over the EF-S 55-250 IS STM is for sports and birding where that Nano-USM motor will make or break it as it's lighting fast.

But, if you're doing more modest sports (amateur) or light birding, it's going to do the job, trust me, my father in law has one for his son's baseball, he has zero complaints.

Don't let the price tag fool you, the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, is a solid performer.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

Thank you! This is a great resource to use.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

Thanks for your idea! I'll check this out more.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

I just don't think the 250 mm on the long end will give me the reach I want.

 

[Karen Casebeer]

Thanks for the input. I think the 70-300 is gonna work for me.

 

[RLight]

Thanks for the input. I think the 70-300 is gonna work for me.

Winner? Congrats 70-300 IS II

Just don't forget to stop down a hair especially on the long end.

If the 70-300 IS II becomes too much of a burden, there are other good options. Honestly it's hard to go wrong with any of them (EF-M 55-200, EF-S 55-250 IS STM or EF 70-300 IS II USM). Just depends what you're shooting and how much weight and price at the end of the day.

If you should consider the EF-S 55-250 (some day), it's very important you get the newer STM version; the non-STM versions are significantly inferior in optical performance, and, the STM motor is better than the DC motors on the former models.