# 300 f/2.8L and 400 f/2.8 at f/2.8



## bdunbar79 (Apr 14, 2013)

I have a technical question to ask the forum. I already have some ideas on what is going on, but I don't really know for sure and wanted to ask, since many of you are so knowledgeable. In advance, thanks.

I tested my 300 f/2.8L I IS vs. my 400 f/2.8L I IS yesterday at a track meet. I felt that I had more OOF shots with my 400 and wanted to see if that was really true or not. So I set up at the end of the back straightaway, and shot runners running towards me (from curve up to about 20-30 yards away from me). I set the lenses both to f/2.8.

I shot with the 300 and the hit rate was unbelieveable. The faces were razor sharp almost everytime. My settings were 1/5000, f/2.8, auto ISO. I was in Servo mode on a 1DX. 

I then shot the same settings and the hit rate was much less with the 400. A lot of the focus was missed (can see another area in focus just slightly to the right or left on another runner) or the faces were just soft and there was no real apparent focal point anywhere in the photo. However, it did hit a lot of photos, and again, those were incredibly sharp.

I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter. 

Is DOF (f/2.8 is pretty thin) more difficult to manage at longer focal lengths? Remember up until this year I had only used a 300 for sports and didn't buy the 400 until last July. Is IS more of an issue, even at 1/5000? Does the lens focus slower or not as accurately as the 300? I was thinking it's not AFMA since when I shoot golf with it I never have any OOF shots, ever. Of course they are not moving much in golf, so I'm afraid the track problem could be my bad technique with the 400. 

Just thought I'd ask since of course as you can imagine, it's sort of frustrating. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

Hi bdunbar79,

Sorry I can't help answer your question but I thought you might be able to help with mine. And since we're talking the same lens I'm pretty confident you'll have a comment. 

Less than two months ago I bought the 6D 300 F2.8 II and both extenders III. I only had my Nikon D5100, AF-S 70-300 to compare with (450 eq field of view and not up to Canon L quality) and that lens was not very expensive (maybe $600 compared with $7K) so I was expecting to be impressed and I wasn't. That's not to say that there is nothing better about the 300 2.8 II such as DOF at 2.8 etc. but I was so disappointed with detail sharpness, I interacted with Canon and two weeks ago sent those items back with my 6D body. It's driving me nuts worrying that things won't improve because I don't have any previous experience dealing with Canon, although I hear good things. The issue is not AFMA, it's the resolution in the focused region, sharpness.

So I'm wondering if, with your experience, you'd be able to offer what you think of what I'm getting, or alternately share something that illustrates the detail that you get. The 6D is 20 MP compare to 18MP crop so I guess the D5100 may actually match the resolution of the 6D relative to pixel density - I would have never thought so but .....

I'm not sure if the 6D vs 1Dx would make comparison difficult. Here is one moon shot with the 300 X1.4 from tripod that I took that didn't seem to cut it. I used live view WiFi remote to get focus as close as humanly possible at the highest magnification. Hope this interjection into your post isn't out of place.

Jack


----------



## raptor3x (Apr 14, 2013)

Could the AFMA be off on the 400?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 14, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> Could the AFMA be off on the 400?



No, I tested it. That was my first thought, and so I shot a golf tournament and hit just about 900 out of 900 razor sharp with the lens. Usually with AFMA you get a random distribution of OOF and in-focus shots regardless of what you are shooting. Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 14, 2013)

Jack,

I will get to your points shortly. I wanted to demonstrate when the 400 does get it right, as in Photo 1, triple jump and when it doesn't as in Photo 2, the Women's 1500m run.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 14, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Here is one moon shot with the 300 X1.4 from tripod that I took that didn't seem to cut it.



You're right. That doesn't cut it. I've gotten much better results with the 300 f/4 and the 1.4X II on a 5DII.

It _could_ be post-processing, though, or atmospheric haze, or other sorts of things. It'd be a good idea to start with some of the classic test shots, such as the proverbial brick wall at high noon. Sturdy tripod, mirror lockup, the works.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2013)

Are both lens of the same generation?

If they are both Series II white primes then are they both updated with the latest lens firmware?

Are both lens in tip top condition?

Are both lens set with the same switch settings?

A smaller angle of view is more challenging to shoot with than a lens with a wider angle of view.

It could be operator error, you mentioned having more face time with the 300 than with the 400.

Having not shot anything for nearly half a year I do commit rookie mistakes.


----------



## Apop (Apr 14, 2013)

I had a similar experience when i came from nikon to canon.

I used a d800 and 200-400 vrII, and had really good hit rates with 9 point dynamic focus (or center 5)

When i got a used 1dmkiv and used 500mmf4 IS, i expected to do atleast equally good, since it was a ''pro'' body and a prime lens.

I had a lot of issues to get images in focus both static and ones on the move.
Now things are improving and i use center point only instead of using an expansion with it.

But I think i may have been romanticizing the nikon experience a little bit also ( I had missed focus with that one on some important moments also), and maybe expecting too much of the new camera+lens instead of my needed improvement because it was less forgiving

(DOF calculator showed major difference between d800+400f4 and 1dmkiv with 500 f4 / 700f5.6.)

1dx+300 2.8 @ 30 meters gives :Total 1.68 m 
In front of subject 0.82 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.86 m (51%)

1dx 400 2.8 @ 30 meters gives:Total 0.94 m

In front of subject 0.46 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.48 m (51%)

Quite a big difference !

For me it was even bigger of a difference:
Total 0.65 m

In front of subject 0.32 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.33 m (51%)

Now , and previously

Total 1.33 m

In front of subject 0.65 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.68 m (51%)


It's about half what i was used to , so my error(and the camera error) is less forgiven.


I used : http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html for the DOF numbers.


As for the moon shot, i think atmospheric conditions play a major role there !, bad seeing can even make a 400 f2.8 look bad compared to a 120-400 sigma lens


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 14, 2013)

Thanks guys!

I will meticulously go through what I've been doing with your ideas in mind.

And holy crap regarding the DOF! See I knew somebody would know this. Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 14, 2013)

So here's another problem. If the subject is coming towards you, and Servo mode can't keep up with that shallow DOF for the 400 lens at f/2.8, the runner will move right out of the focal plane. This is something else I was considering regarding technique.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

I understand the moon isn't the best sample but it was a perfect night for clarity FWTW. 

Because I have modest means I did my best to check things out at the photo shop before purchasing and here are some comparitive shots we did. I've cropped to decrease the file size and downsized as little as possible in a couple that were over 4 MB. The shots are with the 300 F2.8 II plus extenders and the other is the D5100 with 70-300 @300. Shouldn't I be getting better relative to the D5100 with the Canon 6D and these expensive lenses??

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

300 F2.8 II


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

300 F2.8 II and 1.4 III


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

300 F2.8 II and X2 III


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

BTW Focus was on "Liquor Depot". Now that I've posted this I sense that I should have started a new thread - my appologies. I'm new to this and my thought was simply to make contact with bdunbar79. Feel free to clue me in if I've committed the unpardonable sin :-[

Jack


----------



## Apop (Apr 14, 2013)

The 300 with extender images look far far better to my eyes compared with the 70-300.

But if you aren't happy with the increase of sharpness vs cost i can understand that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

Thanks Apop,

For sure the quality of the shot is better in all respects but I guess I've gotten somewhat hung up on the fact that there didn't seem to be that much difference in detail. There is a little "open" sign on the store window that really improved with the lens stopped down - especially its color. 

I've never made such a big purchase on camera equipment and I guess that's what happens when you start second guessing your purchase. My friend is a much more experienced photographer and he was hesitent as well and is still debating getting this 300 lens.

Jack


----------



## Apop (Apr 14, 2013)

Well it is true that 10x the price is not even close to 10x the sharpness you get.

The other day i was looking at the difference of 650d+300f4+1.4tc (672mm with 18mp) @5.6 vs 1dmkiv @500f4 (650mm with 16 mp) and at first glance was surprised how 'close' the 300 with tc on a 1.6 crop body was to the 500 f4, however when taking 50+ shots with both it was clear that the 500 was quite a bit sharper and the even tho the autofocus and tracking is not bad on a 650d, the 1mkiv is on a different level. Also the noise is more pronounced on the 650d ( not the mention it had an one stop disadvantage also)

In the end having better equipment will give you a higher % chance of making the shot you are really after, but it is still limited by yourself. , for the examplewhen i take a 1 second burst there might be 1 really good image from the 650d+300+1.4 converter(from 5 frames), but the chance that i have more than 1 good image from the 1dmkiv +500 (from 10 frames with half the iso also) is enough for me to justify the extra cost.

But it's still a numbers game , it is possible(not likely) that i dont have any good image from the 1dmkiv , while i have 2 out of 5 very good images from the 650d.

More likely is that i have a 40% hit rate with 650d and 2 nice images, vs a 60-70% hit rate from the 1d giving me 6-7 nice images (just making up numbers , but it's the way i look at it).

But, A 300 f4 IS might be a much better purchase if you looking for a good canon prime at a more ''affordable'' price.

Naked 300 f4 is pretty close to the 300 2.8 when both looked @ f5.6, als the 300 f4 can handle a 1.4 teleconverter pretty nicely! 

I was also looking at a 300 f2.8 , but decided to go for an used 500 f4 ( partially because it was less expensive and can give 700mm)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 14, 2013)

Thanks Apop,

Seems you're going through what I did a couple months back. Because I'd heard nothing but raves about the 300 2.8 I bought it anyway. The money is spent and the expensive lesson learned. Funny, I could be so foolish to think that there was anything close to a proportional relationship between price and quality - it's more like a exponential of diminishing returns. I think it's reasonable to assume that Canon will do their checks correctly and tune if needed and when I get it back I just have to shoot to the best of my ability and be happy.

Do you think that a crop camera such as the 7D II is supposed to be (LOL) could have good low light capability and give the higher resolution that I'd be happier with (I could use more reach). Or do you think that those of us that like to look for detail we didn't even see in the original shot, would be better served by the next generation full frame with higher MP. I think pixel peeping is silly except in the context of taking the best shot you have of bird X and then looking to see more of the detail of its features (educational). 

Here's the 6D and 300 giving some detail - but is it up to spec?? Thanks again. Perhaps others will benifit from my mistakes. I do like the 6D.

Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 15, 2013)

Jack, this last photo of the bird is plenty sharp at its eye...you just have the aperture open too wide to get the whole bird sharper than it is.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 15, 2013)

Hi Bdunbar79, I didn't pick up if your Lenses are V1 or V2, I have the 300/400 & 600 all Version 2 Lenses & was having OOF shots more than I cared for, I found out that Canon have released new firmware for all 3 of these Lenses in relation to "better auto focus", Once I had the Lenses back to Canon Singapore & the new Firmware installed to the Lenses, I've found a much better hit rate than previous, anything now OOF I put down to my own poor technique.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 15, 2013)

Thanks for that CarlTN,

I understand that the DOF is shallow, I wasn't really looking at it from the point of view of creating a good photograph. 

I've had difficulty coming to grips with the degree of improvement from a Nikon $600 AF-S lens to the Canon 300 2.8 that was roughly $7k and I guess I've expected higher resolution than I should have. From today's feedback and previous I've basically said to myself that when my gear comes back from Canon, I'll quit fretting about "is it as good as John Henry's" and simple enjoy shooting with it. I guess 6D 20 MP FF and D5100 18MP crop are not as different as I anticipated, and a 70-300 basic lens is quite good for the $600 pricetag (the Canon 70-300 at $400 appears to equal the Nikon).

Certainly I don't have complaints about the lens IQ in other respects.

Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 15, 2013)

Jack, if you live in, or ever travel to the southeast USA, I would like to try your 300 on my 6D. I think I could determine pretty easily, if it is as sharp as it should be. I'm not sure if your 300 is the version 1 or 2. If it's the version 2 and you're having questions about why it isn't sharp enough, something is terribly wrong with your particular copy (in my opinion). I've rented a Canon version 1 500mm f/4, and it was very soft. The rental place tested it, found nothing wrong, but gave me a discount off my next rental. The version 2 lenses, are unbelievably sharp...most especially the 300 and the 400 f/2.8's.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 15, 2013)

Thanks.

I have both version ONE lenses.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 15, 2013)

Thanks CarlTN,

Unfortunately I live near Edmonton Alberta Canada where we still have snow on the ground this year, sadly, unlike you! A pair of robins arrived this week and I can't imagine them finding anything to eat although I'm sure they'll provide a meal for someone else.

This is a version II and the converters are III and I indeed made the final purchase against my better judgment based on the generic comments that abound such as your are saying. It was hard enough finding a shop that would bring it in without paying first! If it only was as easy as comparing identical shots, but it doesn't work that way. I'm hoping my lens is soft and that Canon can correct that but of course that's exactly why I'm concerned - will they, and if not, how do I force the issue.

To complicate things more, I'm only one year into DSLR's via the Nikon D5100, which I praise for the dollar. My daughter inherits it now. I was facinated with Canon's lenses way back in the mid 70's when I had my F1 and couldn't afford much glass. This time I determined to afford some glass and be content with the 6D over the 5D3 and I'm not sorry on that account. Trouble is I'm a bit of a perfectionist - once I realize what is considered good I strive for it persistently.

This photo was AI Servo AF spot metering on the eye, although displays on the left ear. To cut file size it's maybe 5/8 the original width and cropped in height significantly. I'm hoping it might provide some region in focus that you can judge if it's soft in your eyes.

6D 300 F2.8 II 2X III F5.6 1000th +2/3 exp ISO 250 IS was 1 or 3 can't remember - hand held 

Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 16, 2013)

Jack, you live too far north, haha...but I'm sure it's nice up there. I want to tour Montana this summer.

The entire head is not focused, but the tail is closer to being focused. For a shot like this, I wouldn't have been in servo mode. I would have used single shot mode and multiple half press of the shutter to perfect the autofocus. I assume center point was on the squirrel's eye? As you might have noticed, the center point on the 6D, is not as precise in its coverage area, as the square indicator in the viewfinder is. It seems to me, that it simply grabbed the brighter lit, higher contrast portion...the tail...and attempted focus on that.

(Hopefully you have learned to make use of the "focus stop" button on the lens, which gives you a nice shortcut to switch back and forth between servo and single shot focus modes...At this time I'm not discussing the fine tuning of the servo AF via the menu...) 

To test it more precisely, try fixed high contrast targets (street signs, etc.), preferably at the average distance you usually shoot at...and outdoors...and in single shot mode (not servo). Then see if it needs any AF microadjustment. Also try various aspects like mirror lock, IS on and off...and mounting on a tripod. We want to isolate whether it's an issue with optics, autofocus (accuracy or mode), stabilization modes, motion, or some combination.

Once I install a TC, the AF microadjustment almost always changes...usually to the extreme in the direction the lens alone required. Even if the lens didn't require any microadjustment, it's possible that once a TC is installed, it still might require some. My version two 2x TC, requires a +20 AFMA, when coupled to my 135 f/2...where the 135 by itself, only needs +2. This TC/combo also varies a bit with distance. If I know I will be focusing closer than 2 meters, I back off a bit on the AFMA. It's inconvenient, but necessary. Still better than manual focus!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 16, 2013)

Thanks CarlTN,

That's a lot to digest but I understand all you've said to some degree. It's not so much that I don't know as it is I don't think, but isn't that how it tends to be. The focus should have been on the eye but later displayed on the left ear, which as you've said may really have been the tail. Do you think the tail or anything else in the shot aligning with the tail is as sharp as it should be for the 300 2.8 II?

Given the gear is now in Canon's possession I really should just relax and not be probing so much but I can't help being concerned. I had a dream last night where lots of birds were flying all over and a pheasant lit on a guys hand and I didn't have my camera!

Montana is only half a days drive from me and the Canadian Rockies (Banff/Jasper) in a slightly different direction and if you got to Montana it'd be a shame not to go further. I'm about 4 hours from Jasper, which is pretty much straight west. Beautiful country for sure.

So, come up here and help me evaluate my gear, since I can't come to you 

Here's a shot of trees in the distance with the 6D 300 X2 - not really sharp - right?

I've modified my test board to include a parallel dominant image right at the center point of the "Mitutoyo" script on the rule. I think it will now work for AFMA when I get my lenses back??

Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2013)

Interesting setup, I'm sure it would work...again the main concern, is that you test and set the AFMA at the average distance you're shooting targets (assuming any AFMA is required after you get the lens back from Canon). If that average distance is over 100 feet, you might need a setup with slightly deeper-spaced targets to measure the focus accuracy.

Regarding the tree limb image...I assume it's heavily cropped? If you shot it at f/2.8 (or with the 2x TC, you're saying it's a 600mm image at f/5.6??), then it's possible that is getting near the full sharpness of the lens. It's hard to tell. It does look like some of the limbs are softer than others, by a bit...which is normal (and even desired) at a wider aperture.

One thing is certain...the 2x T/C, even the new series 3 one...will indeed produce an easily noticeable softness at the pixel level, when compared to the 300mm lens with no T/C. This is clearly shown in canon's own published mtf chart comparison. Also, certainly autofocus speed and accuracy will be affected, especially in servo mode. The T/C that is supposed to be the better compromise, is the 1.4x iii. But of course that is "only" 420mm, instead of 600mm.

Again, (I digress but here goes...) The 500 f/4 that I rented (version 1) back in 2011, I used combined with a rented "new" 1.4x iii T/C. The results at 700mm (mounted on either carbon fiber tripod or monopod, and via manual focus live view...since AF would not work accurately no matter what)...were ok for maybe an 8x10 print (when closed to f/8), but that's not saying much. Certainly it was softer than what you have posted so far. Of course this was on a 1.6x "crop" 50D...so full frame "equivalent" was 1120mm. However, as I have realized after buying the 6D, it's hard to equate the difference from one to the other, since the sensor and processing of the 6D, are so vastly superior...that it really does seem it has more than 20 MP resolution...especially in the lower ISO range. Even at say ISO 2500, it doesn't lose as much resolution as the 50D loses, at ISO 800. I might even venture to say the 6D's sensor is superior to the 5D3's. Of course the 5D3 starts out with a few more pixels. I assume their processing is "identical"...but surely there is some tailoring. Of course the 5D3's AF in good light is far superior (and apparently to most every other camera in existence save for the 1DX, and including the 7D), but that is pretty much common knowledge. It's in very low light, where the 6D's AF is either superior, or at least doesn't give up anything to the 5D3. Which is good, since the sensor's output at higher ISO is noticeably better, in my experience.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2013)

Thanks CarlTN for the helpful reply.

I was going to repost the original image but something went wrong. Anyway this previous one is cropped ever so slightly just removing maybe 20% to the right of the trees, which were more centered originally.

I'll get back to this topic in a new thread if an when I get the 6D and 300 back since I have limited samples right now, and I'll be able to post much better then. Others may be interested in the actual resolution one gets with the 6D and the 300, 420, and 600 combinations, so I need to do a better job of it.

Jack


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 18, 2013)

Wow, talk about hijacking a thread! Seems this one has been more kidnapped than hijacked!

bdunbar79 - have you fixed your issue?

I know in the past you have said that you like to turn AF off. Did you turn it off for both?

Also are you sure you did not change the AF points at all? 

I had an issue recently where I had forgotten that I had changed a setting and I just could not get the 1D X to do what I wanted. I eventually remembered I had change a setting, changed it back and all was well.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 18, 2013)

Sorry, being new to this I didn't realize that I actually was doing it. With hindsight it's obvious enough and it was poor judgment on my part.

How does one make contact with someone who's posted something that is close to what you're interested in but not relevant to that post specifically?

Any other reprimands/admonishments humbly accepted :-[

Jack


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 18, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Wow, talk about hijacking a thread! Seems this one has been more kidnapped than hijacked!
> 
> bdunbar79 - have you fixed your issue?
> 
> ...



Thanks.

No I have AF on at all times. I turn IS off and on periodically. I had the same AF point activated as well. 

I'm thinking it's DOF. I looked up the DOF calculator and to get equivalent DOF as the 300 f/2.8L at f/2.8, the 400 f/2.8L would have to be at f/5. So it's not going to be easy to fix, shooting runners coming straight at you. Side shots it's never a problem but straight on or even at an angle straight on it's difficult. Since the 300 has twice the DOF at f/2.8, that's probably why I never missed with that lens. 

Maybe this is my problem? Thanks for all of your help.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 18, 2013)

An important thing to remember about dof, if your subject is the same size in the frame the dof is the same regardless of lens focal length. The perspective is different, but the dof is constant. http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

Now if you are shooting at the same distance the 400 dof at any given aperture is less, of course, but in your original post you said this _"I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter. "_

Also, it is probably the CR forum re-size algorithm but neither of your shots look sharp, however, if on the "missed" shots an adjacent runner etc does have critical sharpness then you are almost certainly looking at a non optimal AF setting for the situation or a technique issue. 

This isn't a personal attack, I have been using the 300 for years for surfing and yacht racing, my critically sharp keeper rate for those is 90-95%, even working from a moving boat. I have recently started doing dog herding trials and my critically sharp keeper rate is way down and I am not even moving! Changing lens can be just as dramatic a difference.

Keep improving your technique, I still am after 30 years, and play with the myriad of AF settings the 1DX has, Sportsshooter.com sometimes have people post their complete AF settings for a sport, I know the Sports Illustrated standard 1D MkIII/IV settings were published to give people starting points for different events. If you are not a member join, and ask some questions there, some of those guys really know their AF settings.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 18, 2013)

Jack, sounds like a good idea, I certainly am interested in those T/C combinations with that lens!

Privatebydesign, excellent post!

bdunbar, sorry we deviated from your subject.


----------



## applecider (Apr 18, 2013)

Jack shooting with the big whites especially with extenders demands some attention to technique if you want to print tack sharp images. I learned this the hard way

As noted in previous posts one must;

-pay attention to depth of field, its a camera lens not magic

-have realistic lighting expectations even with IS consider keeping shutter speeds above at least the length of the lens don't be afraid to raise iso to 800-1000 or even more esp with the 6D to keep shutter speeds high enough

-use a tripod whenever practical

-consider using live view and shutter lock up, moon pictures benefit from this a lot 

-It would be helpful to me at least if when you post for help you include your shot settings.

-Read some of the successful long lens shooters like Art Morris and CR's Gary Samples, Art at least does not expect every shot to turn out.

Your squirrel shot seems to have had several things against it starting with a shallow depth of field, and a cluttered view with branches in front of the squirrel too many things to focus on. The tree shot looks fine to me except an area in-between the first and second big branches from the ground there is a foggy area? there.

Here are two of mine handheld with 300 2.8 ii with 1.4iii shot at f5.6 1/1600 iso 1000 just to show what that lens combo can do. The stationary wood duck is plenty sharp to me maybe improve able with lower iso. The second shows I think the depth of field, and perhaps a slightly slow shutter speed giving the wing tips blur (not really a bad thing). These were the best of probably five each so four throw aways per keeper, some for composition as well as technique.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

Applecider, those are quite nice, and your advice is excellent. You're lucky that you can shoot wood ducks in mid day light. The only time they come out around here, is late dusk and early dawn. With a few exceptions, here's one March a year ago. It was still very late afternoon light. A rented 400 f/5.6 prime on my 50D, hand held. Cropped 50%, but then scaled down about 70%. I like my new 6D much better, but I really need a ~600mm lens to go with it, for birds. I've gotten some decent bird shots recently with a 120-400 zoom. It helps a lot if I can get close, obviously.

Again, this is off the original topic, so apologies to bdunbar79.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 19, 2013)

No it's fine. All discussion is open. I just asked because I had shot soccer and football with the 400 and hadn't had the trouble I am with track. Thanks.


----------



## applecider (Apr 20, 2013)

Carl thank you for your kind words. The woodies were at a park and if not tame then less wild. And a little secret better Beamer is her name. Gains maybe a stop or so, and cuts the shadow areas. Don't think I mentioned that before.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I did realize of course that with the 300 the runners are closer to me when I fire the shutter, vs. the 400, which could matter.
> 
> Is DOF (f/2.8 is pretty thin) more difficult to manage at longer focal lengths?


bdunbar79,

Just how closer were the runners when you used the 300mm? 

Assuming that you want the subject to fill approximately the same amount of the frame, you're likely to shoot at, say, 30ft with the 300mm but at 40ft with the 400mm. And if you do that, you get the same DOF from those two combinations (6").

BTW, I think you've just explained why I've had problems in getting tack-sharp images shooting motorcyclists on a track, when using my 400mm too


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

Ok, no problem bdunbar79. Am I to assume that the problem with your slow focus...is that your 400mm f/2.8, simply focuses slower than the 300? It seems like it might, if the focus elements are heavier...there would be more mass and inertia involved, especially during servo autofocus. Or it's possible these elements aren't that much different in size...I don't know. It might just be the efficiency of the motors that move the elements, is better with those found in the 300 v1, than with the 400 v1. 

And Bdunbar79, this might sound silly, but...does the 1DX allow for exposure compensation in manual mode (like for when you leave ISO in "auto")? Seems like that would come in handy. I don't like not being able to compensate, when I know the image has too many aggressive highlights, or if it's the opposite, with an overall lack of contrast.

Applecider, you're quite welcome. Interesting that you're using a better beamer there. Yes, I would say those ducks must be quite tame...if they're not only in a "people park" in daylight, but also will tolerate a better beamer firing at them, haha. It must be like a walk on the red carpet for them! Makes me want to pet one. We had pet Mallard ducks, when I was growing up.

And privatebydesign, sportsshooter.com is an excellent suggestion. First I've heard of that site. If they have any advice for the "lesser" full frame cameras, that might help me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 21, 2013)

Hey guys,

I shot track this weekend at the Jesse Owens Classic for AU, Denison, Eastern Kentucky, and Michigan State. I didn't back down and dove right in with the 400mm v1 anyways, and made some changes in my autofocus settings and technique. I will have those results tonight. 

I'm not sure if the 400 focuses slow, but it definitely does "slower" vs. the 300. I'm serious, as I've noticed this even before you asked. I did shoot some of the runners the SAME distance as with my 300 just to see, and then filled the frame, and had the same trouble with both. I made some changes, however, which I'll explain. 

I went back to AF 101 and just used a single point, one vertical position above center, and two vertical positions if needed. I then locked onto the runners face, and did so on the right edge of the face, and sort of let the face come into the AF point just a slight bit more before firing the shutter. The hit rate went up. I also changed to tracking case #2, instead of using 2, 5, and 6. Not sure if this makes sense, but again, the hit rate is signficantly higher than last week.

You can do EC with auto ISO with the 1DX, however, you have to shoot in Tv or Av mode. You can fool it into doing the shutter and aperture you want, by setting upper and lower limits on each. Then just turn the dial to + or - whatever you want.

An example. The 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens widest is f/2.8. Set the 1DX to Tv mode, at 1/500s, and EC to +2/3. Then sit max aperture to f/1.0, and min to f/2.8. ISO is auto. You force the aperture to be at f/2.8 at all times. Of course if you want a narrower aperture, it can get tricky. The short answer is no, and the long asterisk answer is yes, sort of.

Thanks for the help everyone. I feel as though I gained enough to start fixing my problems. Again, thanks.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 22, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'm not sure if the 400 focuses slow, but it definitely does "slower" vs. the 300. I'm serious, as I've noticed this even before you asked.



I think you're right, that the 300mm focuses faster than the 400mm. The 400mm is no dog, but I remember being surprised at how much quicker the AF of the 300mm felt, when I played with it some time ago.
I can't recall which body I used, but it could be on my old 50D (your 1Dx can drive the AF motor faster due to the higher battery voltage).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 22, 2013)

The 400 v1 definitely focuses slower than the 300 v1, even on the 1Dx. The 400 is much more difficult to use. I've learned that in servo mode with the 400, if you don't specifically focus on the athlete's face, especially at wider apertures, you're not getting it as sharp as the 300.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 22, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> The 400 v1 definitely focuses slower than the 300 v1, even on the 1Dx. The 400 is much more difficult to use. I've learned that in servo mode with the 400, if you don't specifically focus on the athlete's face, especially at wider apertures, you're not getting it as sharp as the 300.



Yes, my own experience tells me that as well, the 300 focuses much faster than the 400 or the 600, I did have all 3 Lenses into Canon Singapore for the new Firmware Upgrade, saw some improvement for sure, less OOF shots, but for what ever reasons the 300 outshines the 400, that's not to say the 400 isn't an amazing Lens, it is, but that 300f/2.8 L V2, Magic in a white Tube.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 22, 2013)

eml58 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 v1 definitely focuses slower than the 300 v1, even on the 1Dx. The 400 is much more difficult to use. I've learned that in servo mode with the 400, if you don't specifically focus on the athlete's face, especially at wider apertures, you're not getting it as sharp as the 300.
> ...



Sorry Guys, wasn't concentrating, I see your discussing V1, not V2, so the Firmware Upgrade may not apply.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2013)

bdunbar, I'm glad your hit rate went up! Again, I suspect the 400 is inherently slower to focus. The version 2 is probably faster, but at much higher cost. Sounds like you had the right attitude, and made it work. That's part of being a great photographer, it seems to me! The point is, you as the photographer are compensating for whatever your tools lack, and getting the job done. When the job is done and you get the shots you want, the problem is solved!

Thanks, yes I know about fooling it in manual mode, but then you wind up with under or overexposed shots that you have no control over. Sounds like the 1DX works the same as my camera. I know the whole point of manual mode, is that the user is responsible for getting the correct exposure...I just feel like, being able to use EC in this mode, with auto ISO, wouldn't be that difficult for Canon to implement, if they wanted to. Maybe it is, I don't know.

Some of my work consists of shooting at 1/2000 shutter in bright daylight, and I like to close the aperture to f/8 to f/10. I defined the ISO range in auto (which only left me with choosing ISO 800 or 1600 as the upper limit...I wish it would have let me choose finer increments, like ISO 1000). My shoot went fine...it worked...but sometimes there are "less important" highlights that get blown out a bit more than I like (and I prefer to not use HTP, because it seems to add even more noise in shadows, than a slight underexposure and lift later in post, achieves). But in ISO auto in Manual mode, there is no control over exposure. It will fire if it goes under or over by a bit (where in tv mode, it might not...assuming the shot happens at the edge of, or outside the specified ISO range in auto).

My shots at ISO 1600 are more than clean enough for my purposes anyway via the 6D, so I guess I'm just being a control freak. Cheers!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 24, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I prefer to not use HTP, because it seems to add even more noise in shadows, than a slight underexposure and lift later in post, achieves.



HTP actually does nothing more than set the analog amplifiers on the sensor to one stop lower than what you set on the camera. If you're shooting JPEG, the onboard raw processing engine applies one stop of digital push. If you're shooting raw, it turns on the HTP flag in the metadata and most raw processors upon seeing that flag will silently apply one stop of digital push in addition to whatever else they do.

ISO 50 is the exact same thing but in the opposite direction.

Both are most useful for JPEG shooters, as it allows in-camera ETTR and ETTL shooting. If you're shooting raw, they're worth considering if you're going to do one stop of ETTR or ETTL as it gives you a properly-compensated back-of-the-camera preview.

Other than that, they're nothing you can't do by simply setting the native ISO value yourself.

Incidentally, the H ISO settings are also digital expansions. The same considerations apply for JPEG and raw shooters both.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2013)

Thanks trumpet, that's good to know. I already knew about the "h" range being a digital expansion. I didn't realize the HTP was a full stop of effectively cutting the exposure, though. I know it says something to that effect in the owners' manual. I guess that explains why it adds more noise to shadows than I like, haha. I do mostly shoot in RAW. Again, my main complaint, besides the lack of EC in manual mode (while ISO is in auto)...is that the limits of ISO while in auto, are not allowed in fine enough increments. I basically can see how much compensation I need, based on the subject matter...but if I can't control EC, oh well. It might have worked better to just use Av mode, and specify ISO 1000 (rather than auto). Every shot may not be 1/2000, though...just as if I had used Tv mode and set ISO 1000 (rather than auto), some shots may have gone down to f/7.1, to achieve 1/2000. However, if I just shot everything at minus 1/3 EC in either Av or Tv, that might have fixed either potential problem. I guess I am just too hung up on the novelty of actually being able to use auto ISO, without winding up with more noise than I can tolerate (as was the case with my crop camera). The reason I used 1/2000, is because below that, there is too much motion blur potential, and above that...is kind of wasted shutter speed, and thus would give me more noise needlessly.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 25, 2013)

Carl, your difficulties with autoexposure are exactly why I never use it. Though, granted, I rarely shoot in light that changes very fast.

If you're shooting outdoors, unless it's a partly cloudy day with fast winds aloft, chances are good that autoexposure is going to be much more trouble than it's worth. The light just doesn't change fast enough that you can't keep up with it just fine by yourself.

And at least the full-frame cameras these days have so much dynamic range that, so long as you're shooting raw and the exposure is in the ballpark and you haven't clipped highlights you actually care about, you can recover almost anything.

(If you've missed the exposure by several stops, or if you're looking to turn shadows into highlights, or any of the other insane and wacky things the D800 fans keep bragging they can do, you might have problems. But otherwise, exposure these days is very forgiving, especially at lower ISO settings.)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## eml58 (Apr 25, 2013)

This has got to be one of the most informative well thought out Threads on CR, Having both the Lenses and read every Post I know a lot more now than I did a week ago, Thanks Bdunbar79, carlTN & Trumpet Power.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 25, 2013)

Hi All,

A late thank you to *applecider* for the helpfull suggestions. I didn't have the lens and camera long enough and the weather was poor so I didn't get many examples that could be helpful in relating to my questions on sharpness of the 300 2.8.

I honestly don't believe I was getting any shots up to the level of your wood duck. It's beginning to grate on me, but still no word whether Canon even got my stuff let alone if they're working on it. Since it was shipped via the dealer 3 weeks ago, I'm only concerned about the timing since our late spring is slowly drawing the early birds and my purchase had been timed to give me ample preparation for that. Oh well.

I'll post when there is some action out my way. Thanks to all who contribute to this forum - I'll keep reading all I can (and espcially those 1Dx shots such as eml58 that are beyond amazing).

Jack


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

I'm doing better. I wanted to update you guys. The 400 f/2.8L I IS requires a LOT of skill, care, and expertise. I shot at f/3.2 all day at the GLIAC golf tournament. I need to edit these later, but had to get 3 quick out to Jeff at GLIAC and just thought I'd share. I used AF Case 1, and used an AF point two up vertical from center, and was very, very careful to focus directly on their faces through the shot sequence "burst."


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

Hey bdunbar,

I was shooting golf on Friday. I was using the 300 f2.8 IS MkI with and without the 1.4TC MkIII on a 1Ds MkIII. For this type of thing I shoot one shot, not servo. I have found that to be perfectly fine with a 420mm at f4 and a 300 at f3.2. Knowing how the body rolls during the swing I focus on the belly with one point and no expansion, either center point or one any direction off center depending on framing, this gives me a very good keeper rate.

But I am surprised at your images, I don't get why their feet are so blurred, the faces sharp, but the grass well in front of their feet is sharp too. I'd check your lens very carefully for an alignment issue.

Look at the feet of the guy putting, I know it is a different, and much slower, action, but the head feet relationship is similar and your grass should look like mine.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

You're right, that is very strange. I didn't notice that before. How do you check it and/or get it fixed? Thanks.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You're right, that is very strange. I didn't notice that before. How do you check it and/or get it fixed? Thanks.



I was just noticing the same thing, going "that's odd....". My gut feeling is that this could be misalignment of some elements inside the lens.
As for testing it, I guess you could take some shots on a test chart and analyse them with imatest, but I don't expect you to have that available. Baring that, I'd talk to CPS and show them some pictures to explain the issue. From reading Roger Cicala's blog, I understand that it can be difficult to get CPS to fix issues like these unless you show them exact the problem.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

This is how I have done it.

Set up your tripod facing a flat wall at normal working distance, silly putty a small mirror at the same height as your lens to the wall and get your camera perfectly squared off to the wall, when the reflection through the viewfinder is just the lens you are good. Then tape some newspaper to the wall at the corners of your frame, the center, and anywhere else you have suspicions about.

Take some images at different apertures and see how the resolution is, it should be good all around, all corners similar sharpness, if one or two is much different than the others you have an element misalignment and it needs to go to Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

kaihp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, that is very strange. I didn't notice that before. How do you check it and/or get it fixed? Thanks.
> ...



My experiences of sending in test images to Canon is they don't even look at them, I have had unopened CD's returned to me with the lenses! They do their own bench test with the lens and it either meets spec or it doesn't, if it doesn't then they replace stuff until it does.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Thanks guys. What else is weird is that in looking through my track photos with the lens, I don't notice this. I will have to send this to Canon asap. This doesn't look like a simple fix.


----------



## WillThompson (Apr 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'm doing better. I wanted to update you guys. The 400 f/2.8L I IS requires a LOT of skill, care, and expertise. I shot at f/3.2 all day at the GLIAC golf tournament. I need to edit these later, but had to get 3 quick out to Jeff at GLIAC and just thought I'd share. I used AF Case 1, and used an AF point two up vertical from center, and was very, very careful to focus directly on their faces through the shot sequence "burst."



Are you shooting down hill?

Will T.


----------



## serendipidy (Apr 28, 2013)

Almost like a slanted tilt shift focal plane kinda thing?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Yeah a lot of my shots were from a slope or slight increase in gradient. Wonder if at such a wide aperture, if my camera is tilted downward, the focal plane is slanted enough that the face is in line with the grass in front? Oh hell I don't know, I'm shooting with my 300 tomorrow until I know what's going on and thankfully I posted these or I wouldn't have looked until tomorrow night.

That would explain why my track ones don't display this, or unless the misalignment just happened recently.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 28, 2013)

Quick test: if it's due to a tilted lens element, it should follow the orientation, right?. So shooting the same situation in portrait and landscape should settle whether this is the root cause.


----------



## serendipidy (Apr 28, 2013)

Let us know how it all works out. And good luck with your shooting tomorrow.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Here's one more example of some photos I had on my card, first one is the actual shot, and then I cropped a lower section.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

kaihp said:


> Quick test: if it's due to a tilted lens element, it should follow the orientation, right?. So shooting the same situation in portrait and landscape should settle whether this is the root cause.



Yes, that is correct.

No to standing on a slope, that WILL NOT do this.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Quick test: if it's due to a tilted lens element, it should follow the orientation, right?. So shooting the same situation in portrait and landscape should settle whether this is the root cause.
> ...



I didn't think it would.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Well, I'm looking at my lens now, and I took it off the camera. The lens mount was loose, I turned the camera about 45 degrees, it held and clicked, as it turned it to 90 degrees to release it. All four screws on the mount are ready to come out and I'm just wondering if this is because at football and soccer I don't pick it up and put it down so much, but at golf I'm putting it into a cart and taking off all the time. 

I do NOT have a tool right now to tighten those screws, as luck would have it. Also not claiming this is the issue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Well, I'm looking at my lens now, and I took it off the camera. The lens mount was loose, I turned the camera about 45 degrees, it held and clicked, as it turned it to 90 degrees to release it. All four screws on the mount are ready to come out and I'm just wondering if this is because at football and soccer I don't pick it up and put it down so much, but at golf I'm putting it into a cart and taking off all the time.
> 
> I do NOT have a tool right now to tighten those screws, as luck would have it. Also not claiming this is the issue.



Do not remount the lens until those screws are tightened!!!!!

I had a similar issue with a 70-200 f2.8 IS on a 1D, one of the mount screws came loose and jammed in the body mount recess. They were stuck together and it was only because I was working with a micre electrical engineer and he had some very cool small tools that he was able to separate the pair.

That is almost certainly your de-centering issue too.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm looking at my lens now, and I took it off the camera. The lens mount was loose, I turned the camera about 45 degrees, it held and clicked, as it turned it to 90 degrees to release it. All four screws on the mount are ready to come out and I'm just wondering if this is because at football and soccer I don't pick it up and put it down so much, but at golf I'm putting it into a cart and taking off all the time.
> ...



I took off the camera and will just shoot with my 300 f/2.8 tomorrow. When I get a tool to tighten them, and I go ahead and do it, how can you exactly tighten them such that the de-centering issue is gone? Or is it just good enough? My fear is overtightening or undertightening. Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Well if anyone is REALLY bored, and wants to follow this little mini-drama, it's 12:08am here and a friend of mine who has a tool is still awake, so I'm heading over .


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I took off the camera and will just shoot with my 300 f/2.8 tomorrow. When I get a tool to tighten them, and I go ahead and do it, how can you exactly tighten them such that the de-centering issue is gone? Or is it just good enough? My fear is overtightening or undertightening. Thanks.



If the mount has not come off then the de-centering will be taken care of when they are tightened evenly, don't tighten one and then the next, pinch all four first, then a bit more, then wind them on. If you are using a jewelers type screwdriver you can't over tighten them, if you have a bigger screwdriver you can s use a little care if the handle is big and gives lots of torque.

They are not Phillips heads, they are JIS, try to use the right screwdriver as Phillips can slide and round the slots.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Thanks a lot for your help. I got them tightened. Do you think it's worth the risk of shooting with it tomorrow, or go conservative and use the 300 and then test the 400 at home prior to using again? 

Again, thanks for your help.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

I am fairly sure you have the problem sorted but for a paying gig I'd air on the side of caution, I'd use the 300 unless you have time to test the 400 before.

Glad we could help.


----------



## WillThompson (Apr 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Yeah a lot of my shots were from a slope or slight increase in gradient. Wonder if at such a wide aperture, if my camera is tilted downward, the focal plane is slanted enough that the face is in line with the grass in front? Oh hell I don't know, I'm shooting with my 300 tomorrow until I know what's going on and thankfully I posted these or I wouldn't have looked until tomorrow night.
> 
> That would explain why my track ones don't display this, or unless the misalignment just happened recently.



It is twice as bad when you and the subject are on a incline since the subject will effectively be tilted towards you when they are below you.

Will T.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2013)

WillThompson said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No to standing on a slope, that WILL NOT do this.
> ...



What I meant was it would not give the results bdunbar was getting, I said there was something wrong with his lens, and there was.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 28, 2013)

Thanks for the help. I used my 300 today because I just couldn't risk it, as I didn't have time to do any testing. I simply picked two locations during the day where there was a green, next to a tee, luckily the cart path turning 90 degrees to the right after the green. So I was okay and just had to give up on fairway shots. I'm going to test it, because I have track next weekend and really need that lens for that.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 3, 2013)

I tested the lens today and that was the problem. Sharpness is restored corner to corner. Thanks so much for the help.


----------



## Hannes (May 3, 2013)

It is a bit worrying that your lens mount came loose like that. It'd probably be worth talking to CPS about it whether they want to have a look at it to stop it from doing it again. For anything other than a several thousand dollar lens I'd advocate loctite


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 4, 2013)

Since I'm a CPS member, I went ahead and contacted them and yes, the lens mount needs replaced, and after it's replaced, a full set of specs will be run to make sure it's operating as it should. So when I get it back, it should be back to near original condition. I have no idea what I did to loosen it.


----------



## CarlTN (May 6, 2013)

Interesting!


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Just to give an update, the lens goes to Canon tomorrow under CPS gold membership. I'll let you know what they find, but the guy was pretty adament about sending it in and the mount needing replaced asap.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

It's on the bus to New Jersey 8)

J/k, I'll stop.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2013)

Personally I think the man is an idiot. I am certain there will be nothing else wrong other than the screws worked loose. I am sure when they bench test it they will find any number of things that need replacing, they have done it to me on several occasions, but as far as I am concerned if the lens works and isn't decentered it is fine with me.

But if you want the peace of mind it is worth it for yourself. Just look at any service advice they give you with open eyes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

@PBD,

They keep coming loose. I cannot make them stop coming loose after I shoot all day and then take off the camera. I cannot keep combating that.


----------



## Northstar (May 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> @PBD,
> 
> They keep coming loose. I cannot make them stop coming loose after I shoot all day and then take off the camera. I cannot keep combating that.



That sucks bdun....did u buy it new or used?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

I bought it used last summer. I shot a ton with it last fall, and this spring, and only had this happen about 3-4 weeks ago. No idea what happened.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

Sorry, here's the one I wanted. Looks back-focused to me:


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 1, 2013)

They replaced the entire lens mount, along with the entire focusing assembly. It works really awesome now, much faster. Apparently the screws couldn't go into the barrel anymore, and everything was loose. According to the paperwork, they checked back/front focusing and everything passed QC specs. Looks like it's good to go.


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 1, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> They replaced the entire lens mount, along with the entire focusing assembly. It works really awesome now, much faster. Apparently the screws couldn't go into the barrel anymore, and everything was loose. According to the paperwork, they checked back/front focusing and everything passed QC specs. Looks like it's good to go.



Glad everything worked out well for you


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 2, 2013)

Thanks! 

As you might imagine, something that expensive not working correctly can be stressful.


----------

