70-300 DO IS & 4 Gb drive failures in 1DsMkll

pathfinder

Awhile back, I posted some images of deer and birds I shot with a Canon 70-300mm DO IS lens and they were criticized by Fish for their bokeh. There were areas with a typical DO bokeh which is a circular ring of highlight that can be distniguished occasionally.
I just finished reading M Reichman's rehash of "what worked and what didn't" during his 2 week photo trip in Bangladesh here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

I was intrigued that he says approx 70% of his images were shot with the Canon 70-300 DO IS. He had a 70-200 f2.8 IS L and a 300 F2.8 IS L as well. so he had excellent glass with him. He is a very high level landscape shooter and quite critical of lens performance. If fact, he says if he were to go back he would only take two lenses - the 70-300 DO IS and Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L Remarkable. Most of his images were shot with the 1DsMkll. He took a 20D for back up , but rarely used it as its images were inferior to the 1DsMkll. He said the 20D makes very good images, just not as good as the 1DsMkll with its 16 Mgbte files.

He also described a problem with the 1DsMkll and 4 Gb drives. Mostly Hitachi 4 Bg MicroDrives, but also some difficulties with 4 Gb CF, and occassional 2 Gb CF chips as well.

All in all a very interresting read by an articulate and entertaining photographer of the first order. :thumb

gus

pathfinder wrote:

He took a 20D for back up , but rarely used it as its images were inferior to the 1DsMkll. He said the 20D makes very good images, just not as good as the 1DsMkll with its 16 Mgbte files.

:lol4 there goes fish's next tax return

Hey PF...your not allowed to bait him ...ok ?

luckyrwe

I remember the days when I used to get money back on April 15th. Now you guys can just thank me for paying for your photo gear. I send it to the IRS and they send it to you. :cry

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

:lol4 there goes fish's next tax return

Hey PF...your not allowed to bait him ...ok ?

I shoot with a 20D, but I am sure that the files from the 1DsMkll are much nicer and allow more cropping if needed. There is always someone somewhere with more stuff, ya know?

What time is it in OZ right now 'gus? It is 11:33 PM Friday evening here in Indiana.

gus

pathfinder wrote:

I shoot with a 20D, but I am sure that the files from the 1DsMkll are much nicer and allow more cropping if needed. There is always someone somewhere with more stuff, ya know?

What time is it in OZ right now 'gus? It is 11:33 PM Friday evening here in Indiana.

2.30pm sat arvo...no breeze whatsoever & just on 90f ...

ginger_55

This bokeh business bothers me. I asked about it, and thought I understood it. Then I saw a deer with "white", as in light, around the ears, it was cropped to point it out. I didn't know whether it was a joke or not.

My dogs very often show that in a photograph, and they very often show it to my eyes, also. Particularly if there is an backlighting at all, there is that ring of light around their ears. It is not an artifact, it is there. I sat and studied one of my dogs while we were both sitting on the couch the other day. She had the prettiest rim of white light around her ears.

Is that bokeh, considered bokeh in a photograph?

ginger

dkapp

ginger_55 wrote:

This bokeh business bothers me. I asked about it, and thought I understood it. Then I saw a deer with "white", as in light, around the ears, it was cropped to point it out. I didn't know whether it was a joke or not.

My dogs very often show that in a photograph, and they very often show it to my eyes, also. Particularly if there is an backlighting at all, there is that ring of light around their ears. It is not an artifact, it is there. I sat and studied one of my dogs while we were both sitting on the couch the other day. She had the prettiest rim of white light around her ears.

Is that bokeh, considered bokeh in a photograph?

ginger

Hey Ginger, this took me awhile to figure out too.

Bokeh is the out of focus background in a picture. People spend big $$ on lenses with the best "smooth" bokeh, especially for portrait work. Lenses range from bad bokeh, that have rings of light or patterns that distract from the main image. The good bokeh is buttery smooth with gradual differences in tone.

This image is from a lens that is almost 20 years old. It's a Nikon 70-210 f/4 that was discontinued around 1987. I picked it up used for under $150.



This is an example of good bokeh, not the best. I'll try to find some pictures that show some of the worst.

Hope this helps.

Dave

gus

dkapp wrote:

This image is from a lens that is almost 20 years old. It's a Nikon 70-210 f/4 that was discontinued around 1987. I picked it up used for under $150.

Dave

Your pushing some buttons here dave..i was thinking that...just imagine all the old nikon lenses you can get in pawn shops for a few bucks to play with & even find a gem.

pathfinder

ginger_55 wrote:

This bokeh business bothers me. I asked about it, and thought I understood it. Then I saw a deer with "white", as in light, around the ears, it was cropped to point it out. I didn't know whether it was a joke or not.

My dogs very often show that in a photograph, and they very often show it to my eyes, also. Particularly if there is an backlighting at all, there is that ring of light around their ears. It is not an artifact, it is there. I sat and studied one of my dogs while we were both sitting on the couch the other day. She had the prettiest rim of white light around her ears.

Is that bokeh, considered bokeh in a photograph?

ginger

As I undertand the term bokeh, Ginger, it refers to the quality, the smoothness, the eveness of the very out of focus areas of the photograph. Different lenses have a different bokeh, some are famous for it. Canon's 35mm f1.4 L is a case in point. The 85mm F1.2 L is also. Some of the 35mm Leica lenses were loved for their bokeh.
Some telephotos are not as nice in the bokeh department. DO ( Diffractive Optic) lenses have a mixed reputation because bright OOF highlights can be imaged as a bright circle with a dark center - that is what Fish whined about in a couple images I posted. But Diffraactive optics allows for very small light lenses with fewer optical elements - The 400mm f4 DO IS is smaller than the 300 F2.8 IS L lens from Canon. Digital Outback photographer Uwe Steinmuller uses and likes a great deal the 400 DO IS.
The 70-300 DO IS is about the size of your 28-135 IS lens - It uses 58 mm filters. But it is sharp at 300mm and easily hand holdable.
As I said earlier, you can read an interesting opinion about the 70-300 DO IS here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

dkapp

Humungus wrote:

Your pushing some buttons here dave..i was thinking that...just imagine all the old nikon lenses you can get in pawn shops for a few bucks to play with & even find a gem.

This is why I love my Nikon. I'm actually shopping for some great used Primes too. I just missed a manual focus 35mm f/1.4 for $100.

That 70-210 f/4 was mint condition too. Looks like it just came out of the box.

The old lenses are built like a tank too. All metal construction, built to last and be passed down generations.

Dave

fish

pathfinder wrote:

A
Some telephotos are not as nice in the bokeh department. DO ( Diffractive Optic) lenses have a mixed reputation because bright OOF highlights can be imaged as a bright circle with a dark center - that is what Fish whined about

okay...okay... back the freakin' bus up, pathfinder! I didn't "whine," I simply mentioned that I thought the bokeh on that lens was fugly. I'm too lazy to go back and find my quote, so if you wanna put the work in to it, I'll be happy to eat my words with a coating of vegemite. I never said it wasn't a good lens, just that the bokeh wasn't pleasing. Obviously, the 70-300 DO is a fabulous (and expensive) lens, but it's not one of the best for good bokeh. Meaning, I probably wouldn't use it for portraits. Canon has lots of primes and a few zooms (24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L, for example) that produce silky smooth bokeh. As a stopped-down zoom, I'm sure the 70-300 DO is amazing. It's certainly as convenient and flexible as you can get with good glass.

So what makes a good "bokeh lens"? Two things, really: (1) speed...you need a fast lens (f2.8 or better) to be able to shoot wide open and get a very shallow DOF; and (2) nearly round diaphragms, or whatever they're called. If your lens only has six aperture blades, all of the OOF highlights in the bokeh are going to look like hexagons. The more blades, the closer to round the hole is, and the smoother the bokeh.

Example of pleasing 70-200/2.8L bokeh:




An example of bad bokeh (not my photo):


Ken Rockwell explains bokeh:

WHAT IS BOKEH ?

Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.

It describes the appearance or "feel" of out-of-focus backgrounds and foregrounds.

Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.

A technically perfect lens has no spherical aberration. Therefore a perfect lens focuses all points of light as cones of light behind the lens. The image is in focus if the film is exactly where the cone reaches its finest point. The better the lens, the tinier this point gets.

If the film is not exactly where that cone of light reaches it's smallest point, then that point of the image is not in focus. Then that point is rendered on film as a disk of light, instead instead of as a point. This disc is also called the "blur circle," or "circle of confusion" by people calculating depth-of-field charts. In a lens with no spherical aberration this blur circle is an evenly illuminated disc. Out of focus points all look like perfect discs with sharp edges. (OK, at smaller apertures where the image is in pretty good focus you may see additional "Airy" rings around the circle, but that's a diffraction pattern we're not discussing here.) This isn't optimal for bokeh, since as you can imagine the sharp edge of these discs can start to give definition to things intended to be out-of-focus.

There are no perfect lenses, so one usually does not see these perfect discs.

Real lenses have some degree of spherical aberration. This means that in practice, even though all the light coming through the lens from a point on the subject may meet at a nice, tiny point on the film, that the light distribution within the cone itself may be uneven. Yes, we are getting abstract here, which is why some denser photographers refuse to try understand bokeh.

More here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm




So, I'm not criticizing the lens, only that particular shot taken with that lens.

No, I'm not going to buy an $8000 digicam anytime soon, if ever. I love my 20D, it's considerably better than my 10D, and I'm a happy camper.

Hell, yer probably just cheesed off that I sold my 28-75 Tamron. :uhoh

Michiel de Brieder

Bokeh, good or bad
Something that we should always keep in mind is this: the excellence of Bokeh of a lens is determined by your liking for it. I've seen shots where people said: "Hey, that has some awful Bokeh there" while I thought "Hey, that's kinda pleasant, I like it like that". Bokeh is very subjective and your evaluation of Bokeh will probably change when you get to see more pictures of different lenses. It's all very subjective, I really like to see the blades sometimes So there is no good or bad to Bokeh, Bokeh just is

gus

From what i can make out...it changes dramatically with f/stop. The smaller the aperture the clearer the bokeh as the DOF increases.

Usually i cant make out anything in my macro backgrounds but in this shot i remember aperture f8..thus the good DOF.

Well...f8 is as small as i can go anyway.

Andy

bokeh's very subjective
85 f/1.8 i rather like the specular highlights in the distance. considering that they are 1 inch christmas lights about 100 yards in the distance, i think they're kewl..


35 f/1.4 the leaves just disappear in the bg


70-200 f2/.8L butttery smooth

DoctorIt

so this has turned into a bokeh discussion...

I would like to comment this: how old and in what kind of shape do you think mr. reichman is in? cause he sure dragged a lot of stuff around a very rugged couuntry the first go around. Of course he'll say that "if he could do it again"... blah blah blah.

I'm with Fish, bokeh on that DO lens is fugly. I much like the "buttery smooth" bokeh andy just posted above.

Andy

70-300 d.o. i.s. bokeh example

DoctorIt wrote:

so this has turned into a bokeh discussion...

I would like to comment this: how old and in what kind of shape do you think mr. reichman is in? cause he sure dragged a lot of stuff around a very rugged couuntry the first go around. Of course he'll say that "if he could do it again"... blah blah blah.

I'm with Fish, bokeh on that DO lens is fugly. I much like the "buttery smooth" bokeh andy just posted above.

how's this? i used that lens for a week. (click on pic for exif)

wxwax

andy wrote:

how's this?

Ummm... buttery smooth? Or like heavy cream? But wait, that's impossible with that lens.



Seems like there's a lot of snobbism about bokeh. Bottom line, you want a smooth background so your subject jumps out. Some folks like to spend a lot of time reading about stuff on the internet and debating the relative merits of this or that lens, a lens they've often never used. It's like arguing which is better - a Mac or a PC. As Nikolai says, it's just a tool.

Who cares? If you make a nice shot with the blurry background that's not distracting, and your subject is highlighted - congratulations! That, after all, is the goal. I don't think the flash card cares what lens was used. As Andy just proved.

Rant off! :flush

wxwax

BTW, wrt 4gb flash card failures. Just heard of a photog shooting a 1DsmkII whose 4gb flash will only recognize 2gb - it will only give him half the capacity of the card. This is second hand info - Patch told me about him. Sounds like he's trying to reformat the card.

This bums me out, as I'm anxiously waiting for 4gb card prices to fall... and they're just beginning to.

Andy

wxwax wrote:

Ummm... buttery smooth? Or like heavy cream? But wait, that's impossible with that lens.



Seems like there's a lot of snobbism about bokeh. Bottom line, you want a smooth background so your subject jumps out. Some folks like to spend a lot of time reading about stuff on the internet and debating the relative merits of this or that lens, a lens they've often never used. It's like arguing which is better - a Mac or a PC. As Nikolai says, it's just a tool.

Who cares? If you make a nice shot with the blurry background that's not distracting, and your subject is highlighted - congratulations! That, after all, is the goal. I don't think the flash card cares what lens was used. As Andy just proved.

Rant off! :flush

agree waxomonium... bokeh is highly subjective. anyhow, that do shot of mine isn't butterysmooth like other canon glass, but it's okay...

pathfinder

fish wrote:

okay...okay... back the freakin' bus up, pathfinder! I didn't "whine," I simply mentioned that I thought the bokeh on that lens was fugly.

So what makes a good "bokeh lens"? Two things, really: (1) speed...you need a fast lens (f2.8 or better) to be able to shoot wide open and get a very shallow DOF; and (2) nearly round diaphragms, or whatever they're called. If your lens only has six aperture blades, all of the OOF highlights in the bokeh are going to look like hexagons. The more blades, the closer to round the hole is, and the smoother the bokeh.

An example of bad bokeh (not my photo):


So, I'm not criticizing the lens, only that particular shot taken with that lens.

No, I'm not going to buy an $8000 digicam anytime soon, if ever. I love my 20D, it's considerably better than my 10D, and I'm a happy camper.

Hell, yer probably just cheesed off that I sold my 28-75 Tamron. :uhoh

I knew you would take my bait, Fish. Unfortunately I agreed with your assesment of the bokeh in the image I posted of the deer. Maybe not as strongly as you voiced it, but it was notable. So no, I am not annoyed with you or that you sold your Tamron lens.
What intrigued me is that Reichman made no comment about this aspect of the 70-300 DO IS in a 3 page article. And he wrote about this aspect of DO lenses when he reviewed the 400 DO IS. Surely he must have seen it at times - he has a good critical eye. Does it not show up as often with the 1DsMkll - I don't think the camera would make any difference. It is inherent in the lens. Uwe Steinmuller praises the 400 DO IS highly also, so this bokeh effect must not be a common effect or something.
And I was not saying anything bad about the 20D, nor was Mr. Reichman really. He was just saying that the images from the 1DsMKll have more detail and are noticeably better - one would certainly hope so for over 5 times the price of the 20D. For most of us, the 20D will answer whatever we ask of it.

Anyway, it is always fun when you're fishing to see a surface lure get nailed, Fish. Thanks.

And read M Reichman's post about what worked and what didn't in Bangladesh. He talks about security and travelling through a very poor country carring bags of photo equipment that are more valuable than any of us possess - Interesting reading.

wxwax

From what I gathered in the Reichman article, he used the 70-300 because he was often shooting from a boat, and it had IS plus it was lighter than the 300 prime for extended shooting.

IOW, bokeh wasn't an issue - he was shooting at distance.

fish

pathfinder wrote:

I knew you would take my bait, Fish.

:smooch http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

pathfinder

fish wrote:

:smooch http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

Good article, and it is the positive things he said that convinced me to buy it.

fish

pathfinder wrote:

Good article, and it is the positive things he said that convinced me to buy it.

No tool does everything perfectly.

pathfinder

fish wrote:

No tool does everything perfectly.

:duel :lol4 :lol4 :lol4

tmlphoto

pathfinder wrote:

Good article, and it is the positive things he said that convinced me to buy it.

Hey Path. I'm headed to Seaworld with the DW and a couple of my small children. I'm thinking that the 70-300 DO would really save me from having to drag around my 70-200 2.8 for 2 days in a crowded park. Are you still happy with this lens. Anyone else feel free to chime in with an opinion as well. TIA.

Andy

tmlphoto wrote:

Hey Path. I'm headed to Seaworld with the DW and a couple of my small children. I'm thinking that the 70-300 DO would really save me from having to drag around my 70-200 2.8 for 2 days in a crowded park. Are you still happy with this lens. Anyone else feel free to chime in with an opinion as well. TIA.

i liked the lens, shot with it for a week. i decided to return it as i have the 70-200 f/2.8L. in the environment you are talking about, it's perfect. a great travel lens. the i.s. works great. and with your 20d, you can shoot at 800 or 1600 iso if you need to get the speed up.

here in this thread are three shots taken by me with this lens

tmlphoto

andy wrote:

i liked the lens, shot with it for a week. i decided to return it as i have the 70-200 f/2.8L. in the environment you are talking about, it's perfect. a great travel lens. the i.s. works great. and with your 20d, you can shoot at 800 or 1600 iso if you need to get the speed up.

here in this thread are three shots taken by me with this lens

Thanks Andy!

tmlphoto

Well, I ordered it yesterday afternoon from Adorama and had it overnighted. It arrived today before lunch according to my DW. Nothing like waiting until the last minute eh? Kudos to Adorama for getting it out as promised. I'll put it through its paces this weekend prior to heading down to Seaworld. I'll post some pics from down there if I'm able.

pathfinder

tmlphoto wrote:

Well, I ordered it yesterday afternoon from Adorama and had it overnighted. It arrived today before lunch according to my DW. Nothing like waiting until the last minute eh? Kudos to Adorama for getting it out as promised. I'll put it through its paces this weekend prior to heading down to Seaworld. I'll post some pics from down there if I'm able.

I am going to the Butterfly Exhibit at the Indianapolis Zoo tomorrow and I am taking a 180 Tamron macro on a 1DMkll ( butterflies after all ) and the 70-300 DO IS on my 20D. I thought about taking the 70-200f2.8 IS L but the shorter length and lighter weight and longer reach convinced me that I will be happier with the 70-300 DO. We'll see, I guess. I'll be interested to hear your opinion too.

tmlphoto

pathfinder wrote:

I am going to the Butterfly Exhibit at the Indianapolis Zoo tomorrow and I am taking a 180 Tamron macro on a 1DMkll ( butterflies after all ) and the 70-300 DO IS on my 20D. I thought about taking the 70-200f2.8 IS L but the shorter length and lighter weight and longer reach convinced me that I will be happier with the 70-300 DO. We'll see, I guess. I'll be interested to hear your opinion too.

Sound like a fun trip. I'm really hoping I like the 70-300. The weight & size are right even if the price isn't. Here's a sample from my first few clicks with it.