# Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )



## Apop (May 2, 2013)

Hey , 
How come that it seems that canon lenses (seems to) play a lot better with Tc's?

for example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

600mm's
or: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=654&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

300mm's
or:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=651&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

70-200's
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

It looks to consistent to be a flaw from the digital picture, also the nikon lenses without teleconverter look plenty sharp., also photographylife lens comparisons seems to confirm that the nikons are affected more by teleconverters ( in reviews i compare the crops form 300+1.4 to a 400 and the difference seems a lot more pronounced than in canon crops)


Just interested to an explanation, because it seems that the bare lenses perform really good.


----------



## pierceography (May 2, 2013)

Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 2, 2013)

The Canon lenses without TC's are noticeably better. TC's magnify any flaws, so the difference becomes grossly apparent.
The lack of Nikon top quality telephoto lenses is one reason I sold my D800. They are finally upgrading them (example 80-400, 800), it will take years though to get to where Canon is today.


----------



## Apop (May 2, 2013)

Interesting, i was not aware that the difference was that 'big'

Does that mean nikon has to update all their tele's and converters within 5 years if the MP's keep increasing ?

I can imagine 40-50+ mp sensors will expose flaws even more ( especially with tc's?)


----------



## 9VIII (May 3, 2013)

I still think there's a severe lack of direct comparisons between the big lenses from both companies, one sample from one person is not enough. Ideally we should be looking at dozens of comparisons to average things out, but instead I can only find one or two direct comparisons between the various lenses. What's more, it seems like there's a lack of testing on Nikon lenses in general.
You almost get the feeling that everyone knows the Canon version is better, so all the Nikon owners just say "stick with the system you have", while Canon guys run around doing lots of tests, but don't have any Nikon lenses to compare with. So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2013)

9VIII said:


> So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.



There are lots of tests of many lenses - photozone, SLRgear, DPReview, etc. all test both Canon and Nikon lenses. There's no mystery-wrapped enigma, in general (although there are obviously exceptions) where both have a similar lens, the IQ of the Canon lens is better. 

Now, if you specifically mean the supertele lenses, there aren't many tests of those from either brand. What tests there are favor Canon, which given their advantage at shorter focal lengths, use of fluorite elements, etc., makes logical sense. 

Who knows - maybe the Nikon camp is running the tests, but are too embarrassed to publish the data...  (kidding)


----------



## 9VIII (May 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > So the IQ of Nikon lenses ends up being this enigma with no definition outside the usual comments.
> ...




The enigma comment was concerning the supertele lenses. I've been looking for comparisons of the 300f2.8 specifically since it's a good chunk cheaper than the Canon. Reviews are slim and cross brand comparisons almost non-existent.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 3, 2013)

9VIII said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


 
Unless you start adding TC's to one, they are both pretty good. I don't have a Canon version, but here is a shot with a older Nikon AF 300mm f/2.8 mounted to my Canon 40D, so it was manual focus and at f/2.8, the depth of field was very shallow.








Here it is with a D40X I had at the time. It appears to have been front focusing. Nikon had those issues too.


----------



## pierceography (May 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> pierceography said:
> 
> 
> > Two words: Better glass.
> ...



Canon glass has much better contrast and resolution when shooting black BBQ grills.


----------



## Skulker (May 11, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> And fluorite is also one reason that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons " fluorite lenses" in the space.



That's interesting where did you get that detail?


----------



## mb66energy (May 11, 2013)

Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
Canon holds patents which make their teles outstanding, Nikon holds patents which make their wides outstanding (at least the 14-24). Sony holds patents which make their sensors outstanding (at least in DR/dark noise).

Another thing I observed: Different companies' products have different tendencies. I observed 20 years ago that Nikon lenses made sharper images, but Canon lenses had a more 3Dish look with much better micro contrast and texture fidelity. Now I have no comparison because I know only one person who has a Nikon but uses Zeiss glass - the rest uses Canon.


----------



## Skulker (May 11, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



That link does not work for me. It seems I did not explain my question clearly. But what I was meaning to ask was "were did you learn that NASA will not have anything to do with Canons "fluorite glass" in space." I was hoping you would be able to give a reference for that statement.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2013)

Is this link of use?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9970197


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2013)

[quote author=Nikon]
Super ED glass also boasts a higher refractive index than fluorite, 
making it highly capable of correcting aberrations other than 
chromatic aberration.....
[/quote]

So it can correct other aberrations (as can other elements in Canon lenses)...but does Super ED correct CA as well as fluorite? Nikon carefully _didn't_ state that...


----------



## Skulker (May 11, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Is this link of use?
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9970197



Ta, that link worked for me. But its just another version of the story. 

I was wondering if there was anything behind the claims. I've not heard of problems with L lenses cracking all the time and was wondering if there is any substance in the claims that there is a problem in space. I would be interested in a statement from NASA or something like that. Not that its all that relevant until a problem with L lenses cracking on earth comes up.


----------



## Mr Bean (May 11, 2013)

Regarding fluorite v's ED, this link, while it is in the realm of telescopes, has an interesting post (third one down) about the pros and cons of both materials:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/refractors/Number/4135855/page/172/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/2


----------



## mb66energy (May 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
> ...



Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Bayonet diameter doesn*t help for wide angles if the rectangular tube between bayonet and shutter shades parts of the lens' back element. 

Do you have a link of that swedish foto magazin test? Would be very interesting how they measured the data!


----------



## Apop (May 12, 2013)

Also the reviews on other sites than the digital picture

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

Shows that the 300 vrII for exmaple with 1.4 converter needs to be stopped down to 5.6

which seems to match 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=650&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

maybe it's just the tele converter rather than the lenses.
And that with canon you get more a more usable setup wide open with a teleconverter rather than stopping down. Maybe nikon will come with 1.4 III to fix that.


----------



## mb66energy (May 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> There is a *superstition* that Canon, Nikon, etc. have patented solutions that make it one of the brand by far better, fluorite is one such example. All big companies has their own solution as Nikon, Pentax, Leits,Zeiss etc
> I spoke with Per Nordlund Hasselblad lens designers for the new wide angels to Hasselblad down at Photokina some years ago , Per had 21 different types of glass to choose from and analyze to the wide angle lenses (if I recall it correctly). And the glass is made of Hoya,Fuji etc etc



Shure? There are a lot of things that can be patented within lenses: Glass isn't the point I see - there are a lot of design features which affect lens combinations e.g. Patent texts are designed to protect a very wide area of design solutions to protect the own claim. Something like "front element with concave front surface to correct blabla" might exclude others from using a lens shape and there is no chance to circumvent such a design restriction by using other glass ... and just solve some glass issue isn't as simple as "going into the lab and creating a new mixture". Optical glasses are a product from something like alchemy ...

ADD: Just to avoid that I would like to see Canon in front of Nikon ... I am shure that a good photographer can take good photographs with Super tele lenses of both companies. But I have seen some emanations of patent wars in different fields and I have seen very often that there is only one way to solve a problem for decades. Think about rechargeable batteries for cars: Lithium since two decades and no other technically and economically feasible solution in reach ...


----------



## tron (May 12, 2013)

What a pity, it seems I will not be able to take my Canon tele lenses on my next space mission! Oh wait! I have nothing to do with space missions...  

I can enjoy however my Canon lenses on earth ;D


----------



## tron (May 12, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> Myth? At least with a 2xTC:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


The difference is shocking ;D


----------



## rumorzmonger (May 12, 2013)

I've used both Nikon and Canon glass over the past several years, and there's really no comparison when it comes to the super-teles... Nikon's current lenses are at a performance level comparable to where Canon was back in 1999.

Nikon may have an edge when it comes to picking sensor suppliers (would they still even be in business without Sony?) but Canon has a huge lead when it comes to lens design (the Nikon 14-24 notwithstanding,...)


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Fluorite still offers superior dispersion control over ED/SuperED/UD/SuperUD elements. Canon has both UD and SuperUD glass, which is exactly the same as ED and SuperED, and they have clearly demonstrated the superiority of Fluorite over low dispersion glass for controlling the dispersion of light. SuperED glass is NOT better than Fluorite at correcting CA! It should also be noted that low dispersion glass only offers improved dispersion control...it is not inherently capable of significantly correcting other aberrations unless it is paired with other elements, or aspheric....however those solutions to other aberrations are not limited to low dispersion glass...any glass, or Fluorite, could be used for those purposes as well.

Fluorite IS more fragile, however not as fragile as many might think. Canon has buffered element mounts that reduce shock on the elements these days anyway, so cracking due to a drop or bump isn't a very big concern. Regarding thermal shock...that requires SHOCK, and that can only occur if the temperature changes VERY rapidly. Moving a lens into a house from outside on a cold night is not going to be cracking any fluorite lens elements any time soon.

Finally, you need to back up that last statement. Why wouldn't NASA take a Canon lens with fluorite into space? To my knowledge, none of the Nikon equipment has ever been used outside the spacecraft...so there is no need to be concerned about thermal shock. Nikon's newest lenses are beginning to employ fluorite (anything with the FL moniker is a lens that uses Fluorite elements)...I'd guess because otherwise they could not compete with the kind of IQ Canon is currently pumping out with their fluorite lenses. An example of a fluorite lens from Nikon is the new 800mm, which uses two fluorite elements. So, according to your anecdote...NASA won't be able to use future Nikon lenses either...right?


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps differences between brands' technologies have much simpler reasons: Patents.
> ...



According to Nikon's *own *MTFs (which, like Canon's, are mathematically generated from the manufacturing models...your notion of a "real" MTF "test" has the fatal flaw of being influenced by the imaging medium used to record the image...total SYSTEM MTF is a convolution of multiple factors, what is effectively the RMS of the MTFs of each and every component of the system combined (including the air between subject and lens, between each lens element, and between lens and sensor)...a mathematically generated MTF is the only way to get a "pure" lens MTF otherwise uninfluenced by system factors), their last generation of telephoto lenses are NOT as good as Canon's. The only lens that currently competes with Canon on the telephoto front is the new 800mm lens, which, as I just mentioned in my last reply, employs fluorite elements just like Canon does. Overall, Canon's lens lineup is more current, and is generally offering superior IQ. The one area where Nikon has a solid lead over Canon is in the ultra wide angle zoom lens range...Canon currently has nothing that can touch the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8.


----------



## RMC33 (May 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *Real MTF tests show different results. * Please explain in what way the super tele from Nikon are inferior to Canon except that the Nikon tele weighs a little bit more.



Yup.. cause we all shoot test charts and that is what matters. 

The weight is a huge factor, I can now handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes. MK1 400 f/2.8, I could never do that. I can now hike into hills and backcountry with my gear without getting winded, so I can make sure I get the shot. So.. from my standpoint the nikon gear is far inferior.


----------



## tron (May 13, 2013)

http://www.superwasp.org/index.html

http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm

The 2 links refer to SuperWASP (W.A.S.P. = Wide Angle Search for Planets) an extra-solar planet detection program.

They use an array of EF200mm 1.8L Canon lenses.

So even if Canon lenses are not taken to space they are used in space projects!


----------



## RGF (May 13, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Canon lenses without TC's are noticeably better. TC's magnify any flaws, so the difference becomes grossly apparent.
> The lack of Nikon top quality telephoto lenses is one reason I sold my D800. They are finally upgrading them (example 80-400, 800), it will take years though to get to where Canon is today.



Not to mention come close to price of Canon glass. Perhaps if their lenses were white (not black) the image qulaits would be better


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2013)

RGF said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon lenses without TC's are noticeably better. TC's magnify any flaws, so the difference becomes grossly apparent.
> ...



The list price of Nikon's new 800mm lens is $17,899. That stomps all over Canon's 800mm lens, which is $13,499, and still more than Canon's newest 600mm, which clocks in at $12,999.

It doesn't matter who manufactures it...new lenses with top of the line, CURRENT optical technology cost. If Nikon starts producing lenses of similar caliber to Canon's lenses, they certainly won't be cheaper. If their new 800mm is any indication, they could be considerably more expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I shall ask if I can get Hasselblads measurements of super telen and show them here



That would be nice, thanks.

In the meantime, there are TDP's mouseovers for the Canon vs. Nikon 300/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4. In all three comparisons, the Canon lens is sharper and has less CA. Or maybe I'm dreaming?


----------



## jrista (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Some of you are dreaming and living in a Canon market dreamworld, I shall ask if I can get Hasselblads measurements of super telen and show them here
> 
> Fluorite has advantage and disadvantage and have been used 100years in different lenses in for example microscope, this is not a Canon concept or patent if any one thinks that. Synthetically-grown fluorite has done that larger surface/element can be produced. It is just a design choice whether to use fluorite or other ultra low dispersion material. Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat , and claim their ED glass performs as well. .



Canon was not the first to use fluorite in a lens, however they were the first to use _artificially grown_ fluorite in lenses (1960s). Canon was also the first to create an ultralow dispersion (UD) glass element for camera lenses (1970, identical to ED elements from Nikon ca. 1975), as well as the first to develop SuperUD elements (1990s, identical to SuperED from Nikon, same timeframe). Furthermore, Canon was the first, and only, company to develop viable diffractive optics using a diffraction grating lens (again, 1990s). Canon was the first to utilize _multiple_ large diameter fluorite lenses in an photography lens (2000s). I suspect Canon will be the first to develop viable particle dispersion diffractive optics (2010s?)

When it comes to glass, Canon has definitely been on the edge, and been the first to either develop or employ new optical technologies in their photographic lenses. Canon was a laughing stock for decades at their insistence that a diffraction grating could be used in a photographic lens to increase refraction while controlling dispersion better than any plain optical glass ever could...yet, despite strong arguments that viable diffractive optics were literally "impossible", they persisted, and are now the only company in the world with diffractive optics (a technology they seem to be developing in earnest, with more than half a dozen lens patents based on the technology produced over the last several years...makes me VERY curious what we might see from Canon in the next decade...a whole new era in photographic lenses?) I give a hell of a lot of credit to Canon for continually pushing the envelope when it comes to optics. 

One concession to be made to Nikon is their development of a nanocoating, a superior coating to multicoating. Canon developed their own design which operates on the same principal with a different approach, a year later (mid 2000s...although I believe both approaches were based on a paper written by an independent about the technological applications of moth eye design a number of years earlier, not sure if I have a link.) Nikon's "Nano Crystal Coat" was a significant development, and improved overall lens transmission to around 99.95% from the mid 90% range or less, by avoiding reflection entirely (vs. multicoating, which simply aims to cancel out as much reflection as possible...thus still costing in overall transmission because light IS still reflected.) Canon SubWavelength Structure Coating (SWC) is similar and achieves the same 99.95% transmission ratio, but the initial development of the technique still goes to Nikon.

There is no question that fluorite is a softer material than optical glass. Fluorite elements are never used for the front or back elements of a lens due to their greater succeptibility to scratching. That does not diminish their superiority for dispersion control as inner lens elements, however. From what I've gathered from Canon's information on their artificially grown fluorite, it has a more uniform structure, lacking the impurities of natural fluorite, which improves its strength over what was probably used in lenses nearly 100 years ago. I know that the EF 500mm and 600mm f/4 L IS II lens is a favorite of bird and wildlife photographers, most of whom usually have to tromp through the wilderness to get to good wildlife and birding locations...always risking a trip and a fall (which does happen). I've seen photos of people who've had their cameras mauled and chewed on by bears...and the majority of the time, aside from some cosmetic horror, the equipment usually comes out functioning perfectly. 

So I have little worry that a fluorite element would actually crack under normal usage, and for all other cases...well, if you don't have insurance on ten thousand dollar equipment, *you deserve whatever disaster becomes you. *


----------



## Skulker (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat



If there was a problem with fluorite cracking in lenses or being susceptible to heat that might be a valid point. There isn't, they aren't and it isn't.

We all know you are very anti Canon, but try to be a bit more "in the real world" The reality of the situation is that both Nikon and Canon make superb systems and any decent photographer would be able to take good pictures with either.


----------



## tron (May 14, 2013)

Just a simple question: How many Canon lenses have suffered fluorite element fracture in the field?

I guess there are professional on this forum to enlighten us...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat



Both are true. However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field? A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way.


----------



## RMC33 (May 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat
> ...



And thats how I had my chemistry lesson for the day.


----------



## jrista (May 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat
> ...



Wow...I guess I won't ever be messing with Nero in the future...


----------



## 9VIII (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.
> I do not trust this guy and he's "tests" regarding lenses or camera houses, to many errors.



I entirely agree that we should rely on multiple sources for test results, but I wouldn't discredit any one tester over the others. The idea is that you have enough tests to get an average and if one or two of them get something wrong it shouldn't affect your overall impression of the lens.
Many (most) of the TDP samples agree with a variety of other tests, so I don't think there's any trickery going on.


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat
> ...



HCl, pK = -7, is a stronger acid than H2SO4, pK = -2. Although H2SO4 has two Hs, the second pK is 2 so only one of them is dissociated in a 10 M solution (pH = -1). Sorry, I am a bit of a chemist.


----------



## jrista (May 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances



Sorry, but your just flat out wrong there. Bryan of TDP is very meticulous. He has also provided a page detailing how he does his ISO chart tests here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

According to his explanation, every shot of the test chart is sampled at least 10 times, often 15-20 times. The best shot out of all the samples is used to produce the samples he puts up on his site. Ten to twenty shots is more than enough to get a good reading on how well a lens performs.




ankorwatt said:


> *So here are a real measurements from real MTF test*, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
> *THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL* NOW you can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about for example fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron etc etc
> *Im sorry that Im erasing yet another myth*
> And if Jrista or Neuro want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund via e-mail, he is the lens expert expert at Hasselblad
> ...



What "real" readings? You have provided no link, no concrete information whatsoever, that explains how they did their test. There is nothing "real" about your anecdote here...its just that, an anecdote. The sample test charts need an explanation about how they were performed...that is missing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances
> ...



True. 

Supertele lenses optimized for different distances? If so, is that information publicized? RE the testing distance at TDP, lenses under 460mm are tested on an Applied Image QA-77-4-P-RM chart, which meets the ISO 12233 standard and adds features as well (e.g., squares for SFR analysis). The 3:2 region of that chart is 1200x800mm, and if you understand ISO 12233 testing, you'll know you need to fill the frame with the chart - so, tested distance can be determined by the angle of view of a given focal length. In fact, if you look at his specs and measurement tool, one of the specs is '1200x800 subject framing distance' - why that spec? It's the testing distance for the ISO 12233 shots. Lenses longer than 460mm use a smaller chart (QA-77-3, -2 as needed), and the specs page for longer lenses provides those distances for framing the smaller QA-77 charts. The Applied Image charts are quite nice - I have several sizes (I ran across them originally because they produce excellent standards for characterizing microscopic imaging systems, and I have several for use in the lab).


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The graphs from the picture shows the MTF at 10cykler per mm a frequency that shows the contrast, super telen as for example 500mm has high contrast but lower MTF values ​​around 40cykler per mm compared with shorter telen, , therefore all super tele lenses are measured at 10 cykler per mm , other questions you can email [email protected] technical chief Foto Magazine
> All info are in the picture above, you can translate the text



If you want people to believe you, you can't put the burden of doing all the heavy duty work of actually figuring out what the hell the test is, how it was done, with what equipment, and to what methodology and phylosophy to them. YOU are on the hook to PROVE YOUR point. I'm not going to try to manually type in a bunch of test from a photo into a translator to figure out what it says, especially when I am fairly certain the information I want is not included in it. Ankorwatt, YOU need to provide the evidence I've asked for if you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to believe you. Why are the tests of that particular magazine more reputable than any others...such as TDP? At least with TDP, I know exactly how he performs his tests, his methodology, and I have the ability to do direct comparisons myself using his wonderful database.


----------



## RMC33 (May 15, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
> well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test



Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear. 

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.


----------



## garyknrd (May 15, 2013)

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.


----------



## Apop (May 15, 2013)

Wow that 300 graphs looks nice!

Basically your saying that TheDigitalPicture is fabricating or sabotaging the nikon results?

I think the differences are really small and hard to notice in the field?

How do you explains mansurovs experiences with the tc2xIII , where he states that you need to atleast stop down to f8 and preferably f11?, where as with the canon 300 f2.8 +2x 5.6-6.3 is already very sharp 

Photographylife(Mansurovs)
For example he found that the [email protected] f5.6-f8 is still less sharp than 400 @ f2.8
and : When stopped down to f/11, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II + TC-20E III looks sharper than Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR + TC-14E II wide open , while @ f8 vs f4 more or less comparable.
Read more: http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-400mm-f2-8g-vr#ixzz2TL6jX49v

This post was originally about performance with teleconverters, I don't doubt that the bare lenses are very close if not equal, but it seems that in all reviews that i have seen that canon's like the converters a bit more.



canon 300&400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1







ankorwatt said:


> REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances
> 
> 
> *So here are a real measurements from real MTF test*, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
> ...


----------



## Astral (May 15, 2013)

can anyone tell if those were the Flourite elements that broke in digitalrevTv's real 300mm F4 L lens cup video? the first two front elements seem fine World's First Canon 300mm L Lens Cup (real L lens!)


----------



## Hillsilly (May 15, 2013)

When considering lenses that I've used, I've always thought of the Canon 300mm f/4 as having essentially equal IQ to the Nikon 300mm f/4. Any difference would negligible. But the Canon has IS, which the Nikon lacks, and which would be useful with a teleconverter if hand holding. (And, not that its directly relevant to the question, but I've thought the Canon lens focuses slightly faster (and would probably continue to do so with a teleconverter). Given that they sell for a similar price, Canon seems the better pick.)

Anyways...maybe they are hand holding all of these lenses for the tests and it is the IS that's causing the difference?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 15, 2013)

Personally, I think there is as greater difference between photographers than their kit or kit brand. 
I have yet to use a pro Canon lens that I wasn't happy with...except maybe the 50mm f1.2 L. Every Nikon Pro lens I've used has been very good too. A poor lens will show in the results, a quality optic will always shine in the results. But poor technique, ability, composition, tallent or skill will always show much more than the other results. 
Too much time is spent by photographers analysing lens charts, scrutinsing almost tiny descrepencies between comparative optics. A lens which is slightly sharper will not make slightly better pictures, it's down to the skill of the photographer. Top gear helps a photographer in extream circumstances and helps up their keeper rate.


----------



## TexasBadger (May 15, 2013)

I have a friend that shoots only Zeiss glass. I have shot with him multiple times using both Nikon and Canon glass. My photographs are better than his because he sucks as a photographer. What a waste of Zeiss glass. I shoot Canon because in the mid 2000s, they had better autofocus lenses than Nikon. Now I am committed to Canon because of my lens investment. However, the next lens I buy will be a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. From a historical perspective, Canon has always excelled in long lenses. Zeiss had better contrast (t* coating) and Leitz made great wide angle lenses. Their long lenses were lacking. At least compared to Canon. The reality is that skill and timing are often the most important deciders. I honestly believe that once in a lifetime photos depend on what you have at the time the event occurs. I shoot Canon because I had to make a choice. Since when I committed they had better af lenses. If I do not need af (21mm for example) I will buy Zeiss. I cannot afford Leica so that is not an option. Now I wish I was better at Photoshop, but I get better every time I use it and there you go... 8)


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> I have a friend that shoots only Zeiss glass. I have shot with him multiple times using both Nikon and Canon glass. My photographs are better than his because he sucks as a photographer. What a waste of Zeiss glass. I shoot Canon because in the mid 2000s, they had better autofocus lenses than Nikon. Now I am committed to Canon because of my lens investment. However, the next lens I buy will be a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. From a historical perspective, Canon has always excelled in long lenses. Zeiss had better contrast (t* coating) and Leitz made great wide angle lenses. Their long lenses were lacking. At least compared to Canon. The reality is that skill and timing are often the most important deciders. I honestly believe that once in a lifetime photos depend on what you have at the time the event occurs. I shoot Canon because I had to make a choice. Since when I committed they had better af lenses. If I do not need af (21mm for example) I will buy Zeiss. I cannot afford Leica so that is not an option. Now I wish I was better at Photoshop, but I get better every time I use it and there you go... 8)



Factually, Ziess' T* coating is a multicoating, similar to Canon's older SuperSpectra Multicoating. Today, Canon also has SWC, or SubWavelength Coating, which is a nanocoating...and vastly superior to any multicoating. In that respect, modern Canon lenses released over the last few years, the vast majority of which use SWC on the most critical inner elements) have considerably superior microcontrast relative to Zeiss, who has yet to introduce ANY lenses that use a nanocoating. Nikon also has lenses with better microcontrast than Zeiss, as they too use nanocoating on internal lens elements. 

TDP also has some reviews of Zeiss lenses. In every comparison, flare and loss of contrast is much worse on all the Zeiss lenses when compared to Canon lenses. Hell, even my older EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens has VASTLY superior flare control compared to the relative Zeiss EF mount lenses. So, sorry...but T* is NOT a Zeiss strength these days...it's holding them back.

A few years back, maybe 2005-2006 era, I'd have said Zeiss made better lenses. From a lens construction standpoint, they DO make very solid lenses that can really take a beating...but they tend to be considerably heavier than any Canon lens. Today, I believe Canon, thanks to a variety of advanced materials and technologies, makes a better DSLR photographic lens than Zeiss. Nanocoating definitely improves their lens' transmission and microcontrast, fluorite elements improve their wide-open lens performance (requiring fewer elements, which is always better than more) and help to greatly reduce weight, titanium and magnesium alloy lens barrels which are both very strong and very light weight. One cannot forget the technological improvements as well. Canon's newer lenses include advanced IS and AF technologies paired with high speed firmware, allowing them to operate very responsively when paired with a new Canon body.


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2013)

Astral said:


> can anyone tell if those were the Flourite elements that broke in digitalrevTv's real 300mm F4 L lens cup video? the first two front elements seem fine World's First Canon 300mm L Lens Cup (real L lens!)



The EF 300mm f/4 L IS does not use Fluorite. It has two UD elements, the rest are standard optical glass:


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.



Just for clarity, the argument is not that Nikon's lenses are not good lenses. They definitely are...in fact, some of the best in the world, and better than Canon's older generation of telephoto great whites. Canon has a number of superior factors that just make them a bit better. Fluorite is a valuable material in that it offers superior CA control over UD/SuperUD/ED/SuperED (not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin), but also because it is a little lighter in weight, and in the case of Canon's newer lenses...it allowed them to eliminate an element (600mm f/4 L had 17 elements in 13 groups, two UD one fluorite; 600mm f/4 L II has 16 elements in 12 groups, two fluorite.) The new Canon 600mm II is 8.6 pounds (3920 grams), vs. the Nikon 600mm which is 11.2 pounds (5060 grams).

The other benefit is tighter matching of firmware between Canon's newer generation of lenses and their newer bodies. The 1D X, 5D III, and probably 7D II all have better firmware feedback for IS and AF (particularly AF). People have been getting at least 5 stops if hand-holdability improvement with IS and newer bodies (sourced from TDP, DPR and other review sites). When it comes to AF, phase-detect AF is as good and consistent as contrast-detect live view AF when a new Mark II lens is paired with a new body (1D X or 5D III; sourced from LensRentals Blog.) AF is also extremely snappy with Canon equipment, something that has NOT been demonstrated even with the top of the line D800 and D4. Overall, the improved IS and AF functionality, along with considerably lighter weight and top notch optical design, lead to overall better real-world IQ with the new Mark II Canon lenses, even though the MTFs are similar (both are similar in the center, Nikon loses out a bit more as you reach the corner.)


----------



## RMC33 (May 15, 2013)

jrista said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.
> ...



I can second this from real world testing/working with a Nikon shooter (both using top-end gear/been shooting 10+ years now)~ When we both nail focus on a subject you can not tell the difference, just the Canon lenses/bodies seem to nail it more often/reliably. I know his 200 f/2 had some serious back focus issues too that took 3 trips to Nikon to fix, but it also took Canon almost a month to do the service on my 200 f/2 for the 5D3, and shipped it back sans lens hood. In all honesty IQ is just a fraction of the equation, and both Canon and Nikon do that very very well. Over all use of the system (lens, body etc.) are FAR more important then just IQ, which is on equal footing. 

It honestly blew my mind the other night using live view on my 1Dx (never had before) and how good the QOF/Speed was. The contrast detect goes for non-supers as well, my 24-70 f/2.8 II performs like a champ under these circumstances. I will have to try some of my older lenses, but I was just amazed.


----------



## RMC33 (May 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Well you must not have read what I posted and went straight off of emotion about my dis-agreement with you. I have loyalty to Canon because they have delivered time and again in quality not of JUST the lens, but the overall camera eco-system. 

Real world results/testing can go up against your coveted "real MTF". A real world test will show more useable data then a test chat in a controlled environment. I have a good eye for solid resolution and contrast, trust me. The IQ of any shots my friend (Nikon shooter) or I (Canon shooter) make are identical in a controlled environment. In an un-controlled environment test, say a sporting event, will show the true value of the quality of the WHOLE system and not just the lens. 

Stop blindly following this "Hasslebad Real MTF" and go out and shoot. That is the ultimate test.


----------



## RMC33 (May 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> and what do you think I have, I have tested lenses from Leitz, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon ,Pentax since 1978 , if you even was born at that time, but MTF is the only real test .
> no human errors, its a measurements of the lens only
> nothing you can explain away



Lens is not the only factor in making great images. If you have been testing for the last 35 years you would know this. Real MTF/any test chart is great for finding out how a lens performs in a *controlled test environment*, but outside of this environment you do not have this luxury. I trust a test chart and the data it produces to tell me the assumed optical performance and to calibrate my *gear for the best shot possible*, not how it will do in -30 degree weather, snow storms or other less then ideal (Read: non test environments ) conditions. Also, no human error? Did a Human invent the test and is a Human performing the test? If so, then there is always space for error. 

Please start reading my posts and don't stoop to assumptions of my age/experience if you want people to take you seriously.


----------



## Apop (May 17, 2013)

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on


----------



## Apop (May 17, 2013)

Oh, well not according to themselves atleast 

Nikon 800 lens construcion










NIkon 500 lens construction






etc
etc 

Nikon 600 lens construction
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2010/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR/Misc/2173_AF-S-NIKKOR-600mm-f4G-ED-VR_Construction-2.jpg

Nikon 300 2.8 VRII







So if the 800mm is any indication, the next generation of tele's will make use of fluorite elements as well.


----------



## Apop (May 17, 2013)

Well maybe your right, but I just see the latest tele from nikon have 2 fluorite elements (like canon?)

and their own words: The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''


Which leads me to believe that the next 300 2.8 / 400 2.8 / 500 4 /600 4 will also incorporate fluorite elements, if not for the superior optical characteristics , for the weight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2013)

Apop said:


> All this to fluorite or not.....
> 
> The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)
> 
> ...



But Mikael/ankorwatt says that Nikon's SuperED glass is just as good as fluorite optically, and stronger, too. Why would Nikon need to use fluorite at all, much less state that it "provides superior optical characteristics"? :


----------



## Apop (May 17, 2013)

That is a good point..., so either nikon has a new way of measuring their MTF's , or fluorite is actually used for it's optical superiority? 

800mm





600mm






Edit: Sorry, did not notice that superED is not used in the 600mm , it's in the 80-400 though, maybe they will use supered/fluorite in future lenses.

Seems like Nikon does not know their own products at all
-Two fluorite lens elements
The fluorite elements also deliver superior optical performance, achieving high transmission rates with minimal chromatic aberration and lower dispersion properties than even super ED glass, according to Nikon.

Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements



neuroanatomist said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > All this to fluorite or not.....
> ...


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (May 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> REGARDING TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances
> 
> 
> *So here are a real measurements from real MTF test*, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG and for the magazine Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4 600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON, (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
> ...



Hello sir!
Thank you for publishing this page from the "FOTO" magazine! Excellent and I hope no one will sue you for this! 

So from this page I can read that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is "one of the very best lenses we (ever/so far) tested" freely translated from the page.
Not really understanding the concept of what this is about: " the higher frequency 40 cycles/mm" where the page text tells that for both 500 mm -tele lenses the curves are substantially lower than for the 300 mm - lens. 
The test shows that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM also gives a better IQ with a small amount and also giving better contrast (compared to the Canon 500/4 II and Nikon 500/4 (10 cycles/mm), but the differences are not significantly big between the 500/4 and the EF300/2.8L II.

In addition the text from this page also, states that the 500mm and 600mm lenses from both Canon and Nikon are optically totally like-valued (lik=same + värdiga=value) [when translated from Swedish.]
I hope my short direct translation from Swedish language into English, might help you native English speaking in order to convey what this magazine FOTO test, is stating in their test with only short text.

Wishing you all the very Best and happy shootings!

C


----------



## jrista (May 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Because they get similar results with theirs ED glass



Similar results, but still not as good. You can't forget the weight savings that can be had with fluorite elements as well...it is a lighter material, and often allows FEWER lens elements to be used in the overall design, thus further reducing weight and improving IQ (as every additional lens element has it's own impact on IQ.)


----------



## jrista (May 17, 2013)

Apop said:


> Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements



Mmm, yes...such an extremely lucky happenstance... 

Thanks for the analysis! I do wish Nikon would use thinner lines in their MTF charts. The thick bold lines make it difficult to tell exactly where the MTF plot lines lie relative to Canon's...Canon uses much thinner lines these days as the MTFs are all stacking up on 1.0, which makes it easier to see exactly how close to 1.0 the MTF approaches.


----------



## Skulker (May 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements
> ...



And we are so lucky that he has time to correct us as well.


----------



## RMC33 (May 17, 2013)

Skulker said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...



Ya, Seems very reminiscent of other threads...


----------



## Skulker (May 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Yes the 300/2.8mk2 from canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements



and much more importantly it works well when you use it to take real photographs. :

Had a good time with mine today. 8)


----------



## Apop (May 18, 2013)

Skulker said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the 300/2.8mk2 from canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements
> ...



Do you use it with the 2x converter at times?

Also im close to ordering the 500 lens foot to put on the 300 for comfort!, i hope that it will fit....
Since the 500 comes with both a small and big foot , and the small one looks identical to the 300 foot I am kinda anticipating it will!

Will provide a bit more comfort for handholding with my hands


----------



## Skulker (May 18, 2013)

Apop said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I use the 2x TC MKIII and find it very good indeed, that's what I was using today.


----------



## jrista (May 18, 2013)

Apop said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I've used the 2x TC with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II, and the IQ is phenomenal. Even with the 2x TC, it is still one of the sharpest lenses on earth. Sharper than my 100-400mm at is BEST, by a long shot. Background blur is also dependent upon the ENTRANCE pupil, so even with a 2x TC, your background blur is effectively the same as an f/2.8 lens...so it is a fantastic combination. You really couldn't go wrong with it.


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (May 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



Dear Sir,
Thank you for this posting! I really needed to hear this from someone using the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II together with the 2x TC.
I was reminded that Bryan C in TDP maybe for first time admitted that the 2x TC III from Canon together with this lens was useable.
Of course that is based in the top-notch optical quality from the lens itself because we all know that all flaws and weaknesses from the lens that is in front of the TC will be also magnified.
Thank you jrista for all your postings!
Wish you a very good weekend!
All the Best!

C


----------



## Skulker (May 18, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



here is a shot taken yesterday with mkII 300 f2.8 and mkIII 2x TC. i underexposed by 1 stop that i pulled back in PP. It was overcast and raining but i was looking for a gritty look to match the wire.


----------



## Apop (May 19, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...




Nice picture !, if you got any more where those came from don't hesitate to put em here


----------



## Skulker (May 19, 2013)

Apop said:


> Nice picture !, if you got any more where those came from don't hesitate to put em here



Thanks glad you liked it.

I don't use this combination every day, but I was out with it again today. Just in the last few moments of daylight some red deer were in the sun and I took this shot hand held @ 1/320 sec. The head is a crop of the main shot to show just how good this combination can be.


----------



## jrista (May 19, 2013)

ZoeEnPhos said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...



You are welcome. Glad to be of service. 

To be clear, there is definitely a drop in sharpness when using either TC, however the 300/2.8 II with 2x was still sharper than my 100-400mm at f/7.1 or f/8 (the two ideal apertures). In my experience, ANY of the Canon great whites, at any aperture with or without any TC, are all sharper than pretty much any other lens in the Canon lineup, with perhaps the 70-200/2.8 II as an exception.

I had a long, hard debate about which lens to get next, between the 300/2.8 II and 600/4 II. In the end, I decided the 600/4 II offered me more for the kind of photography I do most (birds, wildlife, and some aerial stuff for model planes and air shows), than the 300mm with a teleconverter. I'll probably still pick up the 300/2.8 II, but it'll be a couple years, as I'll have to recover from the 600mm purchase this year. Regardless...whether you intend to use teleconverters or not, you really can't go wrong with any of the Great Whites.


----------



## jrista (May 19, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...



I like it. The deeper contrast on the barbed wire definitely looks better.

(Note: Although I suspect you could have achieved the same thing (and with less noise) by exposing to the right, and correcting in post. Contrast of a RAW is really all about the default tone curve...fundamentally, digital sensors are nearly linear devices (there might be some slight attenuation due to the electronics). You never really lose anything with ETTR in a digital camera, and you'll always improve your SNR (and thus, reduce noise.) Think of a raw image more as a digital signal than as an image...it is very fluid and flexible in post.)


----------



## Skulker (May 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> I like it. The deeper contrast on the barbed wire definitely looks better.
> 
> (Note: Although I suspect you could have achieved the same thing (and with less noise) by exposing to the right, and correcting in post. Contrast of a RAW is really all about the default tone curve...fundamentally, digital sensors are nearly linear devices (there might be some slight attenuation due to the electronics). You never really lose anything with ETTR in a digital camera, and you'll always improve your SNR (and thus, reduce noise.) Think of a raw image more as a digital signal than as an image...it is very fluid and flexible in post.)



Glad you liked it, thanks.

I probably didn't make it clear, the original under exposure was not intentional. (were has the little embarrassed face gone when you need it) (I had not reset the camera from the shot before) I choose that shot over others almost identical with more exposure because I liked the "grain", "texture", "noise" or any name it's given. There was minimal noise reduction in PP just LR4 standard settings, if anything the bit of clarity, vibrancy and hint of sharpening all will have increased the noise. I liked the effect as I thought it added something to the image. I only mentioned it to explain why it looked like it did, not to say I couldn't get rid of the noise. 

I'm happy with the expose to the right idea, though I seldom use it. Normally I'm thinking of the highlights and what I want to achieve with them and I expose as much as I can with them in mind.

Although I have a very technical background I think of my photograph as a way of producing images not photographs. I often find my most interesting shots, from my perspective, are not the most technically "correct" but ones that give a feel of the real world rather than a studio look.


----------



## Apop (Jun 4, 2013)

I downloaded the jpg of the full picture, and when i take 100% crop it looks very impressive! and that at 1/320th 

For some reason it shows a lot more detail than when looking at the displayed crop in your post , maybe compression?



Skulker said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Nice picture !, if you got any more where those came from don't hesitate to put em here
> ...


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 5, 2013)

Those are nice with the new Nikon lens. I have been thinking of that lens for a walk around lens.

No offence. But I kinda shudder every time I see people pushing any lens with T.C's as being an alternative. I have the 300 II and I will use the 1.4x only with it. The image is sharp but it looses allot with the 1.4 connected. I won't even connect a 2x to it? Same with another II lens I own. Just me I guess.


----------



## Apop (Jun 5, 2013)

If that is really true there might be something wrong with the lens/converter or af adjusment.
I find it very hard to spot any differences in 100% crops and the drop in AF speed difference isn't noticeble to me either 

There must be a difference in AF speed an quality, no doubt ,but I think it is just very small



garyknrd said:


> Those are nice with the new Nikon lens. I have been thinking of that lens for a walk around lens.
> 
> No offence. But I kinda shudder every time I see people pushing any lens with T.C's as being an alternative. I have the 300 II and I will use the 1.4x only with it. The image is sharp but it looses allot with the 1.4 connected. I won't even connect a 2x to it? Same with another II lens I own. Just me I guess.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 5, 2013)

Where mine really impress me is the flat sharp field. The two I have are amazing. A good flat sharp field with little or no distortion. Which is very important to me. Close quarter shooting makes the lenses a perfect match for me. Bare lens my 300 is so sharp it is amazing. Shooting with it everyday I can immediately see the quality drop when I put on my 1.4. Not only that with the 1.4 on a bigger lens it slows me down to a crawl. Af speed, Long lens technique has to kick in to get sharp shots. Just not fun for me. The 1.4 on the 300 I find acceptable. It is light and IS does a good job. The 2X is strictly a no go zone for me with either lens. 

Kinda curious about the new 200-400. Looking at the MTF charts. I personally do not think I would buy one. For me that is. Again, not for most I guess.

That is just me. It looks like it is not for most. So no sweat.. But that is the way mine work, and the way I like to use them for my style of shooting.


----------

