Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi group

I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.

Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
it).

So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
length, add a 1.4x converter.

Any advice?
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Giulia wrote:
> Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't
get so
> carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

Whatever you think is best....
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I've been through the very same agonizing process, and finally settled
for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as a do-everything kind of lens. Although
I've only had it for a couple of weeks, I've been most favourably
impressed with it's performance. The local photo dealer just called to
announce that my 1.4x has finally arrived, I haven't yet picked it up,
nor had a chance to use it.

>Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
>carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

In view of your previous post, pro or not, I don't believe you will be
at all happy with the 75-300 low-end lens. I've seen comparative photos
posted on the internet, 70-200 vs 75-300; and even with low-rez internet
stuff, the difference between the two lenses is readily apparent.

The 100-400 is the other lens that captures my imagination, but that's
simply something that going to have to wait. While it seems to be a
great lens for it's intended purpose; the 70-200 is a lot more versatile
as a general-purpose lens.

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
>would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
>Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
>or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
>The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
>obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
>focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
>operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
>it).
>
>So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
>length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
>Any advice?
Related resources
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
>focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>Any advice?

That's exactly what I'd do if I could have only one of those two lenses
(wife and I have the 100-400, 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8). The extra
two stops comes in handy many times and image quality with the 1.4x is
still excellent.

Bill
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I had the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L before going digital. Since going
digital I have the f4 version and yes I wish it had IS. However, it is
optical similar and does a great job. I figure it weighs less then
half of its big brother and costs 1/2 as much. With digital I can
increase the ISO to make for the 1 stop loss in the lens maximum
aperture.

Art
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:58:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

It doe not necessarily have to do with selling pictures as much as it is
personal taste and expectations you are looking to achieve.

Yes the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM is expensive (1300 or so depending on where you
shop in the US) and at that aperature, you dont need to worry that you wont
have enough speed to work with.

They also make the same unit minus the IS and its a bit cheaper.

Below that is the f4 version if you are not going to go into low light
situations. If you are going to do sunset shots or need to take pictures
where flash is not warranted, consider the 2.8L.

I am in the same position right now shopping around and it can be hard to
decide whether to go with a fast lens and IS or go a bit more vanilla.(If I
have the extra $$ I would consider the L)

I also read today that the weight of the 100-400 is a bit much unless you
lift weights in your spare time. This is not to say that the 70-200 is a
lightweight.

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114117386.966733.178670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Giulia wrote:
>> Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't
> get so
>> carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
>
> Whatever you think is best....
>
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
April 22, 2005 3:20:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:WNSdnbCENehqj_XfRVnyiQ@pipex.net...
> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
> would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
USM,
> or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
extra
> focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
> operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
> it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
focal
> length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?
>

The 70-200 f2,8 IS or not is a bear to carry around and I suspect the
100-400 is too. The 75-300 IS is a very capable lens and the one I had was
quite good. Obviously it's not as good as an "L" lens, but it is a lot less
expensive. There is a distinct advantage to havin a cheaper lens, you can
carry it around all the time and you will not go paranoid trying to hide it
like the white lenses.

Having said that, a very good compromise would be the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X
TC. "L" quality, not so heavy and the range is almost the same 70-200 and
98-280, the only thing missing is the IS.

Another alternative is the 70-300 DO IS, I have one and I regret my
purchase. It's being repaired or adjusted for the fourth time, my old
75-300 IS was MUCH better. If you try that one, put it trough it's paces,
you could get a good or a bad one, I got the latter.

If I had to do it over again, I would get the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X TC, save
a few bucks and later on get a 400 f5,6 L prime for those loooong shots.

Jean
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:26:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 4/21/05 3:58 PM, in article WNSdnbCENehqj_XfRVnyiQ@pipex.net, "Giulia"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
> would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
> or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
> focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
> operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
> it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
> length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?
>
>
I went through a similar decision process not long ago and elected to go
with exactly what you last mention. That is the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
plus the 1.4x converter. The lens is extremely sharp at all focal lengths
in the range. And being able to shoot at f2.8 is a real plus in low light
or for portraits where shallow DOF is desirable. With the 1.4x converter
only one stop is lost and full auto focus and IS is retained. And, the IS
*really* works! A negative about the lens is that it is fairly big and
heavy. Since it does not move when it zooms it is essentially at its longest
zoom position all of the time. I occasionally use the lens as a walking
around lens; when doing that it gives me a workout (I also use it on a
tripod a lot). I won't really knock the 100-400, but I don't like push-pull
zooms that much. If I wanted a 400mm lens I would probably go with one of
Canon's primes in that focal length.
Chuck
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

birch999@hotmail.com wrote:

> I've been through the very same agonizing process, and finally settled
> for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as a do-everything kind of lens. Although

It can't do everything. But what it can do it does do very well.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:02:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Congrats on the EOS 20D and your consideration in bringing an L lens
into its family. At the prices they demand, these lenses are an
investment for many photogs, but the L's do hold a respectable resale
value.

Click around the following link and take in the atmosphere.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...

While the focal length of the 100-400mm can be an advantage, I feel
the 70-200mm is optically and functionally better. What you might
lose in distant shots (paparazzi or wildlife photographer?) you'll
gain in quality photos. The faster lens would be superb for low-light
situations. An excellent lens for general people shots, and what have
you. If I were to plunk down the change I'd go with the 70-200mm
f/2.8L IS USM in a heartbeat. I think this model has second gen. IS,
so is auto-sensing (turns IS off) when used with a tripod. Sweet.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Hi group
>
>I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
>would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
>Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
>or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

8-< snip >-8
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:01:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:

> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
> lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
> USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
> extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
> push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
> heard comes with it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
> focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?

Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200, but with a
2X you get a 140-400. Granted, it's a f5.6 equivalent, but f5.6 is
still a fairly fast aperture unless you're shooting in the dark.

And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
goes. I've been shooting professionally for almost 30 years, and 99%
of all that I've ever been called on to shoot with 35mm has been done
with just 5 prime lenses: 24, 35, 50, 85, 180 + 2X. About once or
twice a year, I've needed longer or wider, which I rented. Most of the
time, it was a 600 f5.6 with a matched 2X.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:33:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
news:9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03...
> On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:
>
>> Hi group
>>
>> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
>> lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>>
>> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
>> USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>>
>> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
>> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
>> extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
>> push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
>> heard comes with it).
>>
>> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
>> focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>>
>> Any advice?
>
> Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
> it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
> you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
> 70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
> only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200,

All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).
April 23, 2005 7:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:33:13 -0700
In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
> enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
> enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
> 70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
> followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).

I took that advise (from several off-line friends and verified
here)... the 70-200mm IS is a great lens. However, I still use the
75-300mm IS when I'm out-and-about in areas where famous people tend
to congregate. In Los Angeles the 70-200 lens screams "paparazzi".

The 75-300 IS much lighter and more versatile depending on your
location and shooting conditions. It was a good "first tele-zoom" for
me and I still use it. The softer image at over 200MM is good bokeh.

Jeff
April 23, 2005 7:59:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Giulia,

Having used both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM + 1.4 Extender for over a
year now I can safely say if you can afford to go for this combination
you'll not regret it. With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
reach of 448mm and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
extender).

Also (& maybe more important) if you don't you'll probably always wish you
had...

Regards

DM

"Giulia" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WNSdnbCENehqj_XfRVnyiQ@pipex.net...
> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
> would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
> USM,
> or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
> extra
> focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
> operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
> it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
> focal
> length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?
>
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cheers everyone for your comments/advise.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03>,
Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
>lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
>need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
>112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
>goes.

200mm or 320mm(35mm equiv) is very short, though, for shooting small,
wild animals. If you shoot these things, you never have enough.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:10:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:nfkk61d73nipfsmicur8flv9q3a817kd67@4ax.com...
> In message <9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03>,
> Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
>
>>And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
>>lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
>>need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
>>112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
>>goes.
>
> 200mm or 320mm(35mm equiv) is very short, though, for shooting small,
> wild animals. If you shoot these things, you never have enough.

I am well aware of the issues at hand involving the differences between
actual focal
length...and the perception of it via the crop factor. At this point in the
LONG history of discussions/arguments about the crop factor, etc., I think
you can calmly move beyond your disturbance due to the following:

The fact is that the crop factor performs the function most people are drawn
to tele lenses for--that of "spending their pixels" on a smaller portion of
a given scene...which is essentially what teles do--they "spend their light
capture" on a smaller portion of a scene, and then focus that light on your
film/sensor plane.

While it is most certainly true that your actual focal length is NOT changed
at all by the crop factor, the real-world application of this translates to
a use that is very similar in that you end up using all your resoution on
that small scene element.

Here's an example:

Assume you have two DSLRs.
Both are 8MP...but one is full-frame, and the other is a smaller 1.6 crop
factor sensor.
Now shoot an image of a distant bird, or other subject from the same
position.

Result:
The full frame sensor will render the bird with fewer of it's pixels because
it will "spend" many pixels on the surrounding scene. This will result in a
need to crop the image later in order to produce the same printed
enlargement...but with a smaler number of pixels at your disposal.

Meanwhile, the crop-factored 8MP sensor will spend a greater portion of it's
pixels on the bird, simply because it's using it's full resoution on a
smaller portion of the scene.

In this sense, you are accomplishing via "spent pixels" what only a longer
tele could have done on the full-frame sensor.
This is why it's not really as bad as you imply...to speak in these terms.

-Mark
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:24:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
>enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.

.... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.

This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.

A: I have a 400mm lens!

B: A has a 640mm lens!

C: A has a 1024mm lens!

D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!


Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
have a value greater than 1.

One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
shortcuts that cloud understanding.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:24:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:emlk61do5l9it34kilm0iodaeqcsaml6co@4ax.com...
> In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
>>enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.
>
> ... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
> jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
> of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.
>
> This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.
>
> A: I have a 400mm lens!
>
> B: A has a 640mm lens!
>
> C: A has a 1024mm lens!
>
> D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!
>
>
> Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
> well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
> kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
> medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
> have a value greater than 1.
>
> One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
> the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
> meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
> pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
> which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
> shortcuts that cloud understanding.

I am not participating in some sort of "knowledge shortcut." I am well
aware of the issues at hand involving the differences between actual focal
length...and the perception of it via the crop factor. At this point in the
LONG history of discussions/arguments about the crop factor, etc., I think
you can calmly move beyond your disturbance due to the following:

The fact is that the crop factor performs the function most people are drawn
to tele lenses for--that of "spending their pixels" on a smaller portion of
a given scene...which is essentially what teles do--they "spend their light
capture" on a smaller portion of a scene, and then focus that light on your
film/sensor plane.

While it is most certainly true that your actual focal length is NOT changed
at all by the crop factor, the real-world application of this translates to
a use that is very similar in that you end up using all your resoution on
that small scene element.

Here's an example:

Assume you have two DSLRs.
Both are 8MP...but one is full-frame, and the other is a smaller 1.6 crop
factor sensor.
Now shoot an image of a distant bird, or other subject from the same
position.

Result:
The full frame sensor will render the bird with fewer of it's pixels because
it will "spend" many pixels on the surrounding scene. This will result in a
need to crop the image later in order to produce the same printed
enlargement...but with a smaler number of pixels at your disposal.

Meanwhile, the crop-factored 8MP sensor will spend a greater portion of it's
pixels on the bird, simply because it's using it's full resoution on a
smaller portion of the scene.

In this sense, you are accomplishing via "spent pixels" what only a longer
tele could have done on the full-frame sensor.
This is why it's not really as bad as you imply...to speak in these terms.

-Mark
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In message <EKjae.17926$G8.16739@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
>reach of 448mm

Why do we have to keep saying this? Do you even know that she is
entrenched in 35mm associations? If not, that is totally meaningless to
her. Personally, I am getting really tired of people saying, "that is
really like 1.6x mm", when all my thought and mental scaling is totally
independent of 35mm film.

Reach is only proportional to the reciprocal of the angle of view, or to
"35mm equivalence", in the viewfinder. In the captured image, "reach"
needs to be backed up by lens and medium resolution, or it is
meaningless. What good is a "reach of 1000mm" if it takes 6 pixels to
go from white to black, when the original analog scene did it in an
angle represented by 1/4 pixel? You didn't "reach" any more detail.

>and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
>the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
>extender).

Most of the blame that goes to TCs is usually really from the main lens.
If it doesn't have more detail than the capture medium can capture
without the TC, the TC is only going to lose light, possibly forcing you
to a faster shutter speed for even more loss, giving you an image that
isn't much better than cropping an image from the main lens without the
TC (or even worse, if it forces the lens' aperture wide open in Tv
mode). Apparently, good TCs aren't really that hard to design and
build, as the main lens does most of the focusing work.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
April 24, 2005 4:52:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:55:20 GMT
In message <9cnk619rplh5djjoeqp887v45b1gr9bet8@4ax.com>
JPS@no.komm wrote:

> > With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
> > reach of 448mm
>
> Why do we have to keep saying this?
> <SNIP>

I agree... it's not a multiplier, it's a field of view crop factor.

We don't HAVE to be reminded, but it's a good idea to remember that
you're not using a full deck if you plan on getting a future 1Ds Mark
II type camera and will be using the same lenses. There are two
problems to contend with.

(1) After framing photos for a couple years with 1.6 crop factor it
will be like having all new/different lenses. (Including a an
additional 20D 1.4 resolution factor relative to a 1DsMkII. That
factor will only increase over time. ;^)

(2) Barrel distortion will be considerably exaggerated. It's bad
enough as it is on a Rebel and 20D... how much worse is it with a full
frame sensor and viewfinder?

> > and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
> > the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass'
> > (unlike the 2x extender).
>
> Most of the blame that goes to TCs is usually really from the main lens.
> If it doesn't have more detail than the capture medium can capture
> without the TC, the TC is only going to lose light, possibly forcing you
> to a faster shutter speed for even more loss, giving you an image that
> isn't much better than cropping an image from the main lens without the
> TC (or even worse, if it forces the lens' aperture wide open in Tv
> mode). Apparently, good TCs aren't really that hard to design and
> build, as the main lens does most of the focusing work.

I made the mistake of using the 1.4x extender with a 70-200mm f2.8 IS
lens at the long beach grand prix main race. There was a significant
degradation of overall image quality. I had to keep the aperture at
F4 to one stop down to keep the shutter speed high enough to freeze
cars going by at 200+ mph directly below me.

Jeff
April 24, 2005 8:45:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

John,

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:9cnk619rplh5djjoeqp887v45b1gr9bet8@4ax.com...
> In message <EKjae.17926$G8.16739@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
>>reach of 448mm
>
> Why do we have to keep saying this? Do you even know that she is
> entrenched in 35mm associations? If not, that is totally meaningless to
> her. Personally, I am getting really tired of people saying, "that is
> really like 1.6x mm", when all my thought and mental scaling is totally
> independent of 35mm film.

I don't KNOW if Giulia is 'entrenched in 35mm associations' but was making
the assumption that if she is considering coupling a 20D with either L lens
mentioned then it was unlikely that this would be her first SLR (I may be
wrong).

For those of us that are '35mmm entrenched' the comparison is useful in
terms of mentally getting a feel of how far the lens will 'reach' without
cropping (that is without ME cropping the image) compared to the same glass
attached to my previous film based SLR.

> Reach is only proportional to the reciprocal of the angle of view, or to
> "35mm equivalence", in the viewfinder. In the captured image, "reach"
> needs to be backed up by lens and medium resolution, or it is
> meaningless. What good is a "reach of 1000mm" if it takes 6 pixels to
> go from white to black, when the original analog scene did it in an
> angle represented by 1/4 pixel? You didn't "reach" any more detail.

No offense m8 but this is nonsense. There is no way any of the 35mm slide or
print films I used before was capturing 24x the detail the 20D sensor
manages.

>>and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
>>the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
>>extender).
>
> Most of the blame that goes to TCs is usually really from the main lens.
> If it doesn't have more detail than the capture medium can capture
> without the TC, the TC is only going to lose light, possibly forcing you
> to a faster shutter speed for even more loss, giving you an image that
> isn't much better than cropping an image from the main lens without the
> TC (or even worse, if it forces the lens' aperture wide open in Tv
> mode). Apparently, good TCs aren't really that hard to design and
> build, as the main lens does most of the focusing work.

My comments come from actual use of both 1.4x & 2x Canon extenders with a
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (one of the lenses the original poster
stated an interest in). Tests shots were taken using a tripod to eliminate
camera shake at max zoom. The 1.4x allows extra reach without much
discernable loss of image quality & therefore produces an image that is
better than one cropped to equivalent proportions from just the original
lens alone. However, the 2x results in an image that is worse than cropping
from the 1.4x image and therefore is difficult to recommend (you may as well
shoot the 1.4 & crop).

Regards

DM
!