| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
600 f4L vs. 600 f4L IS
Kurt Jones, Photographer
 |
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 03.02.04 |
->> i want some feedback here.....
Anyone that used the older 600 f4L for a while, that has now been using the new 600 f4L IS, can you help me out.
I've heard the new one is much sharper. Wide open as well.
Is the newer version 'noticeably', optically sharper.
I'm not taking IS into the equation here, just optically.
Is it worth it?
thanks,
kurt |
|
Kurt Jones, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 9:07 PM on 03.02.04 |
->> anyone.......anyone...Bueller, Bueller....
kj |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:53 AM on 03.03.04 |
->> Well, yes, at least IMO.
You are probably referring to what I remarked in your last thread.
Here's my long-winded explanation:
I bought a used 600 non IS and used it for a year or so.. thought it was great. Then I started noticing that in certain situations when I was shooting an event with it and my 400 2.8 II that the images produced by the 400 often seemed sharper. I haven't yet replaced the 600 with the IS version, though would like to... However, I have borrowed a 600 IS from Canon many times and have done some testing against my lens in a more controlled manner. I have determined that the 600 non IS isn't as sharp as I had hoped it would be. In a way, I'm not surprised. I've typically found each new generation of Canon lenses to be better than the previous generation. I.e.: 20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35, for me, each was progressively better in most aspects. The 600 non IS is a product of early '90s design. It's better than the 400 2.8 Mark I, but did not receive the redesign that the 400 2.8 II went through (because the 400 Mark I developed a rather bad reputation, especially after the release of the Nikkor AF-I 400 2.8). I guess the 600 was still considered pretty good and that focal length is not nearly as popular as the 400 2.8 series of lenses, or so I would imagine.
I did some variations of the old newspaper on the wall kind of tests, though not in a manner one would classify as truly scientific. At f/4, the non IS lens is clearly softer (this was consistently evident in the multiple images I made with each lens at each setting, and refocused before each exposure). It's almost as if the file was slightly gaussian blurred. In part, I suspected my 1D's AF as being a bit off with the lens and also tested sharpness by manually focusing. There was a slight improvement with MF, but not enough to match the 600 IS.
IMO, the IS version appears to have better 'snap' or contrast wide open, which enhances the feeling of sharpness. But it's difficult to say that it is an extremely noticeable difference. I even took my non IS lens to Canon (Canada) to have them look at it, but apparently it was "within spec"... though I suspect they glossed over it... and probably thought I was one of those anal, technically obsessed hobbyists splitting hairs and wasting their time.
Interestingly, at 5.6, the lenses seem to be about the same in terms of sharpness and contrast.
So, based on this, I have developed a certain way of shooting with my 600 non IS: shoot at 5.6 and not backlit if possible (due to issues with contrast and focus). I also suspect my 1D does not work with that lens as well as it does with my 400. I have no way of knowing for sure.. other than speaking with and reading comments such as from Bob Rosato at the bottom of this thread: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=4146
I'm sure the relative size of the subject in the frame also plays a role. A small subject does not hold up as nicely as a tight, full frame image. This may be due to focus inaccuracy and lack of resolving power by the lens, but I suspect it is also a limitation of the 4.1 MP 1D sensor. Beyond a certain size, I'm sure the sensor has more trouble resolving detail and results in an image that is less than critically sharp. Perhaps acceptably sharp for some applications, but if you are picky (OK, I'll admit that I can be anal about sharpness) you might be disappointed. I intend to retest this once I get a 1DII and see whether the 600 non IS suffers even more from the improved resolution of the 1DII's sensor.
But this is just based on my experiences and we all have different expectations of our equipment. What I have not been able to do yet is to obtain another 600 non IS to test against my lens. I was initially concerned that my lens perhaps had been knocked out of focus in transit.. (flying to games, etc.) so comparing it against the 600 IS does not directly address whether it is a problem specific to my lens, or one that can be generally applied to all 600 non IS lenses.
What has haunted me is that I can come back with technically excellent images from the 600 non IS at one event, and then be disappointed by the technical quality of images from another event with that lens. It has a lot to do with subject matter, quality of light, f/stop used... and for me it has been a learning (through trial and error) experience figuring out where the lens will work great and where not. For example: great results from motorsports. Not great results from overcast football game. Variables? Motorsports was generally sunny and shot at high f/stops. Football game: f/4, higher ISO and potentially marginal shutter speed for the action (so there was some influence on image quality based on other factors). That said I still generally prefer the 600 non IS over the 400 2.8 with 1.4x TC.
Are you finding that there are specific kinds of images that suffer more than others? With a TC? I found I get even less consistent results once I start using a TC (and I've tested the newer Mark II converters with no improvement). Do you typically shoot at f/4?
If possible, try to get ahold of another 600 non IS to test against yours.
You may also contact me through my member page and I'll email to you a file I created comparing the 600 IS, non IS and the 400 2.8 II. Like I mentioned befoe, my test was not super accurate, but it does reveal some differences.
There is one SS member who speaks highly of his 600 non IS: Thomas Witte. Though I believe he may be away for a while, so probably can't address this question for you right now. |
|
Kurt Jones, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 AM on 03.03.04 |
->> Ron,
Thanks so much for that. I appreciate all the insight.
I'm on my 2nd 600 non IS now, after that KEH fiasco.
I had a loaner from Canon that was great. It was also a non IS 600.
I bought this one a few weeks ago and have had 3 chances to shoot with it.
All the images looked just a bit off to me.
Couldn't pinpoint what it was.
I then just thought that i got a Lemon in the sharpness dept.
I compared images from it to the images from the lens I had from KEH and the lens from CPS.
Same subjects, similar lighting and exact same exposure settings.
This lens looked like crap in comparison.
I then realized that it wasn't as sharp and I saw something in the images that made me shoot a test. Back focusing...
I took the 600 f4L, 300 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L.
Shot 'the ruler' type of test with all the lenses on a 1D and a 10D.
The 600 was back focusing !!!! on both the 1D and 10D. The 1D was worse.
The 300 and 70-200 were both tack on, on both bodies !!
So, now I'm off to Canon Irvine in the am.
After I get my 1D-II's in, the next thing is to just upgrade to the newer 600 IS.
Since the majority of my stuff is Surf with the 600, I think at this point in time it'll be worth it.
The 3 full page ads coming out next month will help cover the difference and that is just the way I'll have to look at it.
Another 2400 to upgrade, but it will pay for itself in the end.
Thanks again for all your thoughts. We'll just see where it leads now...
Kurt |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:05 AM on 03.03.04 |
->> Kurt,
I guess we are in pretty much the same situation, though I suspect my lens isn't off in focus as much as you are experiencing.
The difficulty I face, honestly, is trying to convince the Canon techs that there really is a problem and that it isn't in spec (possibly in part because the focus shift I'm experiencing isn't nearly as severe as you describe).
Just proves it's worth taking some time to thoroughly test newly acquired gear. |
|
Erik Hedin, Photographer
|
Paia | HI | USA | Posted: 12:56 PM on 03.03.04 |
->> Kurt,
The 600 is a tough lens to shoot for many reasons. I find that I have to shoot a lot to get those uber sharp files. Why I do not know exactly but I think camera shake, depth of field, spray or haze has the most to do with it. I would say shoot the lens some more and try shooting double the amount of frames.
I have had the best luck over the past three years with the following factors:
Kirk king cobra head, One of the guys over here also puts a ken mar gyro on the tripod plate and swears by it.
I shoot mostly @ 640th but still get some motion blur. Any faster and the depth of field is too low.
Shoot raw. 16bit can cut a lot of the spray or haze when you are shooting through the lineup. Also try turning on a little in camera sharpening if it is off (Raw)
More Frames. Shooting in bursts at 8fps usually yeilds one image that stands out from the rest.
Good Luck and aloha
Erik |
|
Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
 |
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 03.03.04 |
->> I've read all of these comments here so far but no one seems to be talking about AF speed and accuracy. The IS version is clearly superior in this arena, in my humble opinion. It is a departure in optical design from the original version, certainly. But the AF speed is awesome. Part of this is likely due to the more contrasty nature of the glass inside; after all it's contrast that allows AF to work in the first place. The more contrast you have the better the "thang" works. I miss one thing about my old EF600mm f/4L though... The manual focus was sweet. I've never been able to really manually focus the new IS 600, though I've tried...
I would rather shoot the 600IS at night football at 1600 than the 400 at 800. I just like the total lack of DOP, and the look you get from a true supertelephoto. "A 400/1.4x combo will never a 600mm prime be." And you can quote me on that... p. |
|
Kurt Jones, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 4:37 PM on 03.03.04 |
->> Thanks for all the input from you all.
Pat, I've heard great things about the 600 IS and will be picking one up after my 1D-II's arrive. Sharpness and AF speed alone will be the factors.
Erik,
I've shot ALOT of images with the 400 2.8L and 1.4xII or 2xII.
It's not my long lens technique, as I shot tons of frames with that set up AND with the loaner non IS 600 I had from Canon. ALL those shots are tack sharp and crisp. This lens was just another bummer in my quest for a good used 6hundy. It's at CPS Irvine as we speak being overhauled.
I shot focus tests last night and brought them all the samples to prove that it did it 'grossly' on 3 different bodies.
So, we'll just have to see how good it is when it's done.
I usually shoot at 1/1000 @ 6.3-7.1 at 200 asa. I've always gotten GREAT results until this bad boy....
And thanks again for your insight Ron.
As you said, from this day forth, the first thing I'll do before leaving the house with a new lens or camera is do a focus accuracy check and then test AF performance, before ever using it on a job.
Kurt 'I have a parking spot at Canon Irvine' Jones |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:58 PM on 03.03.04 |
->> Yeah Kurt, definitely test, test, test.
One of the 600 IS lenses I borrowed from Canon had problems too... focus seemed fine on cold days, but on a hot day (80-85 degrees F in the sun), it would back focus considerably. Turns out it was a dud that the technicians never could figure out how to fix (probably because they work in an airconditioned environment). Point is, even a new out of the box, super expensive lens like that can have problems. And, that's the second lens I've had problems with in hot, sunny conditions. The other was a fisheye that would lock up... but that's another long, long story.
I also agree with Patrick on the feel of the old 600 MF vs. the new. It is a lighter, smoother feel, which takes getting used to. The new one seems kind of stiff and imprecise in comparison. That and the stiff tripod collar (though it might be worse with the 400 IS). |
|
Nick Walker, Photographer
|
Bedfordshire | UK | UK | Posted: 6:04 PM on 03.04.04 |
->> Kurt
One quick and reliable way to check either lens or camera body accuracy
Gat a camera body and lens that you know are accurate, the lens must have a tripod mount collar and preferably fixed focal length. I use an F5 which I know is spot on.
Tripod mount the lens.
Focus using AF back button > One shot > single servo > central focus point only.
Take frame.
Turn off camera and carefully remove it. Do not touch the lens focusing ring/system in order the focus point is not altered.
Attach another camera body and check to see if the AF confirmation light is on.
If it does not agree with the other camera body then the possible fault will be the tested camera body.
If both cameras AF systems agree but you can focus the lens more accurately then the lens could be out, or of course if you are unlucky both bodies faulty.
I use this system to good effect when ever I purchase new equipment. As today’s cameras and lenses are so complex there are bound to be the odd problems.
I suspected a newly purchased Nikon 2DH was out during initial testing. I placed a 400mm F2.8 AFS lens on a tripod and both Nikon F5's and D1X camera bodies Af systems all agreed with each other.
However when I tested the 2DH the AF rangefinder indicated the focus point was inaccurate (It wasn't) and suggested I needed to refocus the lens. The 2DH was poorly front focusing and making my expensive tack sharp lenses a third division item. The camera was returned as faulty.
The test takes all of 5 minutes to complete and with digital the results are virtually instantaneous. Whilst not scientific it will help identify any problems.
Nick Walker |
|
Kurt Jones, Photographer
|
Sherman Oaks | CA | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 03.04.04 |
->> Great idea Nick.
I'll certainly be testing any lens purchase in the future.
This whole 600 fiasco is getting old...
Kurt |
|
Robert Jones, Photographer
|
Newport Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 1:14 AM on 03.05.04 |
->> I wonder if the superior sharpness of the 600 IS is due to the use of a meniscus lens. In the Canon LensWorks III book, near the end just before the MTF section, it mentions the use of a menicus shaped first element in all IS super-telephotos. (The menicus design is a parallel-curved lens that does not have its surfaces parallel to the sensor plane.)
If the older versions, such as the 600 non-IS, used a planar first element, this might account for some of the (relatively) poorer quality images. The book shows an example of images taken with planar and menicus style lenses. The planar design has an obvious reflection and would appear to have slightly lower contrast.
For those without the LensWork III book, an abbreviated version can be found at http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html The 2nd image from the bottom describes this matter, but excludes the sample photos. The way the article is written suggests that these menicus lenses are used in other lenses, such as the 17-40L, and implies that digital sensors have to contend with various distortions not previously noted on film. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|