1DX +2x vs MKIV +1.4x images

[Richard Lane]

This is to compare the MKIV (1.3) with a 1.4X and a 1DX (FF) with a 2X extender: The focus points were right on target. I'm not happy with the 2XII extender with the Version One 300mm f/2.8 lens. These shots below were taken 1 year apart, but if you look at the 2 uncropped versions you will see that they were taken at the exact same location, by noticing the green buoy and the light pole on the right. Believe it or not these were both taken 1 year apart minus 3 days and 45 minutes. I guess I'm a creature of habit.:) They were both taken with Canons drop-in CPL and a Monopod.

These shots are 95% SOOC. The pole was a little tilted and if I straighten it too much, the water horizon looks tilted. I will also mention that it was a little windy with the 1DX shots, however I increased the SS to 1/2000sec which I thought should have been enough, plus I believe I had IS on to assist. If I had to guess, knowing my habits I would guess that I had IS off for the MKIV shots. I wish Apple Aperture could check this. Does DPP report IS, I never use that?

I would ignore the differences in exposure, saturation and ISO and just focus on the IQ.

MKIV 300mm f/2.8L IS +1.4X @ 546mm Uncropped f/6.3 1/1000sec ISO 400
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8431/7729345898_744fb02626_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729345898/)
CQ0H3194 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729345898/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

MKIV 300mm f/2.8L IS +1.4X @ 546mm Cropped
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8432/7729346326_133afef6e5_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729346326/)
CQ0H3194 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729346326/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

1DX 300mm f/2.8L IS +2X @600mm Uncropped f/6.3 1/2000sec ISO 1000
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8282/7729299844_2e3ef68300_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729299844/)
BP1Q2166 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729299844/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

1DX 300mm f/2.8L IS +2X @600mm Cropped
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7106/7733378968_8d4336a909_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7733378968/)
BP1Q2166 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7733378968/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

I will try to do some more controlled testing. I haven't done any AFMA on either camera. Maybe the 1DX needs some lovin'.

Thoughts?

Rich

[Jonathan Huyer]

The second set with the 2X extender looks too far off to be a focusing issue... it's probably just general softness and lack of resolving detail in the lens combo. I also have the 300 version I and the 2X, but I don't use them together anymore because my results have been much along the same lines. The 300 / 1.4 combo has worked great for me though.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Rich! I can only see the first shot, the others show up as not available (I'm behind a corporate firewall now, but that doesn't usually cause issues with Flickr).


I haven't done any AFMA on either camera. Maybe the 1DX needs some lovin'.

I'd say the need for AFMA is always worth testing. FWIW, here are my adjustments for the 1D X:

16-35L II: W=4, T=7
24-105L IS: W=4, T=2
28-300L IS: W=4, T=4
70-200L IS II: W=2, T=2 (haven't done it with 1.4x/2x TCs yet)
100-400L IS: W=-1, T=1
35L: 4
40 pancake: -1
85L: 0
100L Macro IS: 3
135L: 0

[Richard Lane]

Thanks John, If you click on the unavailable link, can you see them then?

*I just reposted them and they appear to be viewable on my laptop!!

[HDNitehawk]

The second set with the 2X extender looks too far off to be a focusing issue... it's probably just general softness and lack of resolving detail in the lens combo. I also have the 300 version I and the 2X, but I don't use them together anymore because my results have been much along the same lines. The 300 / 1.4 combo has worked great for me though.

+1 for Jonathan's description.

@Rich, I think the diffrences you see in the two picture is lens combinations and not camera. The 2x II is very weak. You might try the same shot with the 1D X and the 1.4X and crop to the same size to see how your results match up.

[Richard Lane]

+1 for Jonathan's description.

@Rich, I think the diffrences you see in the two picture is lens combinations and not camera. The 2x II is very weak. You might try the same shot with the 1D X and the 1.4X and crop to the same size to see how your results match up.

Yes, I agree that the 2XII and 300mm f/2.8L IS Version One is not that good on either camera.

Here's some from the other thread:

1DX 300mm and 1.4X @420mm mildly cropped.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7107/7729448306_acd5b7dd42_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729448306/)
BP1Q2584 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7729448306/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

1DX 300mm 1.4X @420mm uncropped
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8159/7680769672_5fba21c534_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7680769672/)
BP1Q0897 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7680769672/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

1DX 300mm and 2X @600mm mild crop (IMO, it's not that sharp)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7680775540_2977d5072f_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7680775540/)
BP1Q1173 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7680775540/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

So far it looks like the 1.4XII is acceptable and the 2XII is not when using the 300mm f/2.8 Version One lens. Which is what we've all been saying around here for a while.

So, even though the 1DX images can handle cropping, you can't just use the 2XII for the reach instead of buying a longer lens, and then crop afterwards and expect good results. (I'll also try to AFMA and retest) You can however, use the 1DX or MKIV body with the 1.4X and crop afterwards.
I wouldn't want to use the 2X and crop, because if the initial shot is not sharp, then the crop will be even worse. You know.., that Entropy Thing!

Rich

[HDNitehawk]

That has been my thoughts of the 2x II for some time. I never did the comparison, crop vs using the 2x but my feelings have always been that I would rather crop. I guess it is because I know that if I put the 2x on I am not going to find it acceptable. With cropping I never set out on a trip with the idea I am going to crop a picture, but it always happens because you can't get close enough. I really don't like using the 1.4x either but it is a necessary evil, when I am out and about shooting I usually keep it off until I am forced to use it. In your case you really have a less of a choice since you only have the 300mm.

Your roost shots above look like you have a good subject to work with, not sure how close it is for you but I think I would be spending some time there.

[Joel Eade]

Do have access to a version III 2X Converter? I sold my version II to purchase the new one and there is noticeable improvement. Additionally, can you tell if the images sharpen adequately in post? I would especially like to know about the Great Heron shot since it is large in the frame you should have plenty of pixels on subject.

[Richard Lane]

That has been my thoughts of the 2x II for some time. I never did the comparison, crop vs using the 2x but my feelings have always been that I would rather crop. I guess it is because I know that if I put the 2x on I am not going to find it acceptable. Your roost shots above look like you have a good subject to work with, not sure how close it is for you but I think I would be spending some time there.

I don't like the 2X either and I haven't used it in over a year, I just brought it out due to the loss in reach of the new FF body.

It's not that close as you can see with the 600mm reach and I'm still coming up short.

Does anyone know, how much extra reach I will get for every 1OOmm of focal length added?

[HDNitehawk]

I don't like the 2X either and I haven't used it in over a year, I just brought it out due to the loss in reach of the new FF body.

:( Canon made many wildlife photographs sad when they announced the 1D X was FF and replacing the 1D IV. :(


Does anyone know, how much extra reach I will get for every 1OOmm of focal length added?

I am sorry but I can't help the smart answer, there all the same they will all focus to infinity. :p Seriously though, there are few FOV calculators on line that I have used. I will see if I can find a link.

[Richard Lane]

Do have access to a version III 2X Converter? I sold my version II to purchase the new one and there is noticeable improvement. Additionally, can you tell if the images sharpen adequately in post? I would especially like to know about the Great Heron shot since it is large in the frame you should have plenty of pixels on subject.

No Joel, I don't have access to a 2XIII, but if I upgrade my lens then I will probably try one, as they do look better, especially with the newer super-telephotos.

The images do not sharpen adequqetly in post, and they actually degrade exponentially with cropping.

I will also have to check AFMA to rule that out too, but I suspect it's the 2XII. I recieved the Lens Allign Pro with long ruler for X-mas and I haven't even used it yet and I'm dreading that!

[neuroanatomist]

I use Bob Atkins':

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

[HDNitehawk]

I think I have used this one.http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

[Richard Lane]

Thanks for the links guys! I'm at work so I will check them out later, but I don't know my subject distance.

Is there any short formula for 35mm (FF) Rectilinear lens, like for every 100mm of FL at f/8 then you will gain so many feet?

Sort of like the Sunny 16 Rule. :D

[HDNitehawk]

Rich, Im not sure what you are asking. Are you referring to hyper-focal distance, DOF or angle of view????

[HDNitehawk]

Possibly is it this? If you have a 300mm lens and you are 50' from the subject, if you want to use a longer lens for the exact same subject and have the exact same framing you could use a 600mm lens at 100'. The distance from the subject is going to be in relation to the increase in lens size. 2x as big 2x as far.
However the other relationship is this, if you have your 600mm at 100' and your 300mm at 100' the 300mm isn't half the FOV size at subject, it is 1/4 the FOV size at subject. Example is at 600mm a lens will have a 4' x 6' view 24sf, where the 300mm will have 8' x 12' 96sf. Of course this was based on the lens being exactly 2x as long, but if you know the relationship of the two lenses it would work the same.

[neuroanatomist]

Bryan's ISO crops show that the MkIII TCs show a noticeable improvement over the MkIIs with some lenses, less so with others. I have both the MkII TCs, and even the 2xII does decent on the 70-200 II.

Still - for a MkII supertele, I think the MkIII is a much better bet. Since getting the 2x, I don't really use the 1.4x. For the frequency at which I use the 2x with the 70-200 II (rarely), I'm not convinced it makes sense to upgrade to the 2xIII.

But...I do seem to accumulate Amazon gift cards sometimes, so I need to decide if it makes more sense to upgrade the 1.4x or the 2x.

[Richard Lane]

Rich, Im not sure what you are asking. Are you referring to hyper-focal distance, DOF or angle of view????

Thanks Rick, I'm basically asking if the 600mm was not long enough to reach my target, then how much closer would the 700mm or 800mm get me to my target?

For example in football, when I'm shooting at 420mm I stand back about 90ft (30yards) and when I shoot 546mm I may stand back 120ft (40 yards). So, if I wanted to shoot the nest at 500ft away, and almost be able to fill the frame, how long of a lens would I need?

So, for every 100mm of focal length added to my lens and wallet how much closer in distance would that get me to my target.

[HDNitehawk]

Well, like my example if you had a 300mm you would have to be 1/2 the distance as the 600mm. 300/600= .5 or 1/2. So with a 700 to get the same view as an 800mm you would be 12.5% closer than the 800mm. 700/800 = .875 or 7/8 the distance.

For your example 420/546 = .769, 90/.769 =117 feet away

If you wanted to know how far for 500' you would do this 500/90x420 = 2333mm lens for the same view.

The relationship would be based more on the lens you are starting with than say a number like 100mm.

[Richard Lane]

Thanks Rick, I was hoping for an easier solution, something like for every 100mm added you will gain 30ft towards the target.

I found this shot from last year with the 2XII @780mm.

Coming in for a Landing!

MKIV 300mm f/2.8L IS +2XII @780mm Uncropped f/7.1 1/1250sec. ISO 320 Handheld. Clipped wing included!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7257/7737030628_64bbb2d491_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7737030628/)
CQ0H8423 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53022431@N03/7737030628/) by RL One Photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/53022431@N03/), on Flickr

So, It looks like I should perform the AFMA before I do any further testing on the 1DX.

Humm.... 800mm would be nice? :D

Thanks for everyones input,
Rich

[Vern]

1305

Here's a titmouse shot with the 300mm 2.8II w the 2XIII. I find this combo to be quite acceptable. details - f 8.0, 1/400, 800 ISO, 5DMKII, cropped to 1800X2500 pixels, sharpened in PS (maybe not best for the comparisons done here...?).

[Richard Lane]

Thanks Vern, That's a nice shot with the 300mm II and 2XIII. Certainly looks very acceptable to me too.