@ neuroanatomist: this filter issue kept me thinking now. The 77 mm filter that I used is quite old I must say. I checked it now with a much newer one of my wife
@ neuroanatomist: this filter issue kept me thinking now. The 77 mm filter that I used is quite old I must say. I checked it now with a much newer one of my wife
Very, very odd. As long as it was a UV filter, and not a polarizer, etc., there should be no effect whatsoever. I just did an impromptu test, and I see no difference in the metered shutter speed (with aperture and ISO fixed) with or without a B+W MRC UV filter, on a couple of different lenses (different filters, different sizes).
One question - when you conducted the test on your tripod, did you have the viewfinder covered (or were you using Live View)? If not, ambient light entering through the VF will affect exposure.
For example, I'm sitting here withthe camera setto ISO 100 and f/2.8 (Av mode). The back of the camera is facing the window, with light-filtering shades letting in some outside light, with the lens aimed at another, darker room. I have a lens cap covering the eyecup (which is what I always do for tripod shots where my eye will be away from the VF). The metered shutter speed is 0.3 s, but if I then remove the lens cap from the eyecup, the metered shutter speed goes up to 1/100 s. That's a difference of 5 full stops, just from light coming in through the viewfinder. Granted, that was an extreme situation where the ambient light was much brighter behind the camera than in the lens' field of view, but it definitely illustrates the point. In 'normal' use out shooting with a tripod, I find that leaving the VF uncovered can affect the exposure by 1/3 of a stop to a full stop or more, depending on lighting conditions and where I'm standing in relation to the VF, which is why I always cover it. That's also why Canon provides an eyepiece cover threaded through the neck strap - it's just a pain to use since it requires removing the eyecup from the viewfinder (and I don't use the Canon neckstrap anyway). But, I find that hanging the lens cap over the eyecup does the job.
--John
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Need to be brief as I have to leave for a party ([H]). Without retesting it now I think you hit it! When I did that past year I definitely did not cover the viewfinder and if I remember correctly I did not use live-view - yes, I am sure. So this must be the source of error! How stupid I was to forget this. I'll try it again with the old filter when I find time for that, but this can be the only logical explanation.So I can use my old filter. I thought that something with its anti reflecting films could have irritated the cam's measurement system.
Thanks again for your great help, John!
[] The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II [
I think I have yet to contract the "L" disease, but I want to try an L lens, and I am most likely to get the 100-400L or the 70-300L. But it is hard to ignore thatwhile it is out of my budget, paired with a 2x extender it is a single lens that covers 70-400 mm really well. In fact it probably covers 70-200 the best of the 4 options,and 200-400 well, but not as well as the 100-400L (and maybe the 70-300L). So, what I am kicking around is:
- 100-400L (negatives: size, weight, aperture from 100-200mm and missing 70-100mm)
- 70-300L plus a 3rd party 1.4x extender (negatives: needs an extender for 300+mm, f/8 from 300-420 mm/autofocus ?, and aperture from 100-200 mm)
- 70-200L f/4 IS plus a 2x extender (negatives: extender, f/8 from 200-400 mm/no autofocus [:'(])
- 70-200L f/2.8 IS II plus 2x extender (negatives: extender, cost, size, and weight)
Part of me was thinking about getting two lenses to cover this range and I was thinking about exactly what Denise has, the 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-400L. Which is why I asked my question. Mythoughtsabout the comboare pretty simple, it would cost the same as the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II with2x extender and I'd always be tempted to carry around two lenses (3 if you include my EFS 15-85). This is an issue with me as I do a lot of traveling. In the next six months I have trips planned to Washington DC, 2 to Florida,Washington/Idaho, Las Vegas, Acadia NP and a vacation (Mexico or Costa Rica). Some of this is work, some play, but I'd like to take my camera to all of them. Sototal/combinedsize and weight matter (BTW, that ismore travel than usual, but I do travel several times a year for work and play).
One last thought, I do like my EFS 15-85, but it is f/5.6 from 70-85, which is also where it is theleast sharp. So gaining a stop or two from 70-100 mm with sharp glass would be nice, but not completely necessary.
So, if I want to stay under $2k, this most likely leads me to the 100-400L or the 70-300L (with the 1.4x Kenko extender). I may make up my mind today, I am headed to a shop to handle the 100-400L or I might wait for pricing/reviews for the 70-300L, but after Bryan's preliminary review where he lumped the 70-300L in with the 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II as "great" lenses, I may not wait for the review, just the street price.
Thoughts and opinions are welcome. I've learned a lot reading everyones posts.
Thanks,
Brant
All great points, Brant - what it comes down to is that there is no perfect lens (just like there is no perfect camera bag, which is why I have 4 of them and counting, but that's a story for another day). All four of the lenses you're considering are excellent - it really comes down to what you want to shoot, and your budget.
Generally speaking, I recommend against the 2x extender. You mention the obvious issue with loss of autofocus, and don't forget that even if it works (e.g. 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x), AF is significantly slower than without the TC. But the main issue is optical quality - although the 1.4x extender gives decent results with very sharp zooms (70-200mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the 2x has a much greater negative impact on IQ, and is really suited mainly to the supertelephoto primes (the $4K and up lenses). 3rd party extenders are generally not up to the quality of the Canon extenders, so there even a 1.4x might not give good results (i.e., you might be better off just cropping).
If you're traveling, IMO it doesn't make sense to carry lenses with substantial overlap in focal length. I can't see going on a trip and taking both a 70-200mm f/4 and a 100-400mm. I can see having both lenses (I have the 100-400mm and the 70-300mm DO), but not taking them on the same outing - if I need the reach and can take the weight/bulk, I bring the 100-400mm, and if I need to travel light, I bring the 70-300mm DO. As I've mentioned, I'm considering swapping the DO for the new 70-300mm L for the improved IQ and weather sealing.
I'd say first and foremost consider what you'll be shooting and what you can carry. You have a versatile but slowish standard zoom, and I think it would pair well with either the 100-400mm if you want the most reach, or the new 70-300mm if you want to sacrifice some reach for portability. If you just want a telezoom for general use, as opposed to wildlife/birds, then the 70-200mm f/4L IS is a good option, too (but I wouldn't pair it with a 2x extender, and if you're going to pair it with a 1.4x extender, you'd be better off with the native 70-300 of the new L zoom).
I have the 70-200mm f.2.8L IS II, and it certainly is a great lens. Bryan calls it his, "...favorite and most used lens." But keep in mind that he shoots full frame. To me, 70-200mm on a 1.6x crop body is a bit of an awkward focal length. The relatively fast f/2.8 aperture is great, but the focal length is really too long to use indoors on a crop body (around the house, I mean - if you're shooting indoor events, that's a different story). Outdoors, it's not long enough for birds/wildlife. Where it shines for me is family shots in the yard, trips to the beach, etc. The knowledge that I'll eventually add a full frame camera to my kit is one reason I went with the 70-200mm II - I expect it will see a lot more use on FF.
Personally, I'd recommend deciding on the zoom you want based on what you're going to shoot. If you want to 'shoot a little of everything' then the new 70-300mm L seems like a great compromise.
After the telezoom, if your budget permits, I'd recommend considering a fast prime as the third lens you carry. Look back over your shots from the 15-85mm to help guide which focal length would be most useful as a fast prime - lenses to consider would be the 85m f/1.8, the50mm f/1.4,or if those are too long, the 35mm f/2 (although that last one is not up to the quality of the first two).
Hope that helps...
--John
Exactly the same here! I have it as pretty much a "gap filler" from my primes to my 100-400mm and although my 70-200mm f/4 is a great lens and I do use it alot with the extender, it just doesn't have alot of reach still. I'm even considering just selling this one and the extenderand hang on to the 100-400mm, if and when I get the 70-300mm (if the IQ matches).
Definitely stay away from the 2x extender. You will be sacrificing a great deal of IQ with the lens you are comtemplating.
Also, with your budget constraints, have you considered buying used to stretch your$ further? I havesold almost brand new lenses and a camera at painfully cheap prices and I have bought a few things also used and I haven't been dissapointed in them. Check around for some great deals!
Denise
I was just oogling over the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens at the local camera shop yesterday. I told the person helping me that since I already have the F 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens, I wasn't dead set on buying yet..... (truth is I didn't want to cough of the $2400 they wanted this soon after buying my 7D) .... he suggested I trade in my 100-400 and get the 70-200 with a 2x extender and have best of both worlds.
That sounded like a reasonable idea, but what you guys are saying about loss of IQ with the extenders, I'd rather save up and own both lenses. =)
Paul
Yeah, What DD said []. I too own the 2x converter----Even though I have needed it several times, I don't think the converter has been used in two years. I was really unhappy with the GREAT loss of IQ when used.
Now your talking--
Bob
Bob
I'll 2nd that![Y]
SAVE UP!! LOL
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote