The 17-55 IS EFS, 10-22 EFS, and the 100-400 IS L appear to be the most problematic. The 17-55 IS EFS seems to especially garner quality control complaints by users on forums.
on the other hand, it looks like there are some serious issues with Sigma as well, which can be read at this link:
]]>As documented earlier on this site, I had issues with my 300 F4 IS and teleconverters. Well, it appears both items were at fault. I ordered a new Canon 1.4x II TC which also front focused. Upon realizing this, I sent both my teleconverter and 300 F4 IS back into Canon. The combination came back working perfectly. I ultimately sold the Kenko because Canon tech told me they would not touch it, and I wanted a good working TC/300 F4 IS combo.
Upon receiving the unit back from Irvine, I was blown away at how the IQ turned out. I immediately thought, “so this is how a TC should work!”. Based on my experience, I would spend the extra coin for the Canon 1.4x II so you can have it serviced with the lens you plan to use it on. Plus, I noticed better contrast and colors when using the Canon TC with my 300 F4 IS compared to third party TC’s. It also seems to have a more robust build quality along with weather sealing. This does add extra weight though.
These examples were taken wide open(f5.6), hand held. No adjustments were done except for a level 3 sharpening in DPP 3.4.1. Speed was only 1/125th! These are very good results for a 420mm lens handheld at 1/125. Please click the images for the proper sizes.
I have to say from the images that the build quality looks too close to the kit lenses. For an estimated retail price of $699, you would except a little better fit and finish. ]]>
People seem to love their RAW converter comparisons so here we go. Different image this time. All images had *no* adjustments except for 200/ .2 / 0 smart sharpen in Photoshop Elements 5.0. Please click on the images for the full versions.
Link
Some of these look excellent.
]]>
Please click the images for the proper views.
Images were exported from the RAW converters with neutral picture styles and no other processing. They were loaded into Photo Shop Elements and had a smart sharpen of 200 .2 0.
As you can see, Lightroom 2 has made great strides in catching up to the image quality in DPP. There is almost no difference with just a touch more light detail going to DPP, but not enough to overcome the huge array of editing features that Lightroom 2 has over DPP. IMHO opinion, both programs could use higher quality preview modes. Earlier posts on this blog discuss the problems with DPP’s develop previews. It looks like LR2 has some as well. Fortunately, neither affect output but it sure would be nice to get a better idea of what your current image really looks like after editing.
As someone who was not a fan of Lightroom, Lightroom 2 completely changes my mind. The software gradient filter is worth the price of admission alone. They did some serious work to the quality of the RAW converter. However, you must download and install their new camera profiles for this new magic to work. These new profiles recognize which camera the RAW file came from and adapt the picture styles automatically. For this test, the neutral picture styles were used.
When my trial expires I will be purchasing a copy of Lightroom 2.
More later.
]]>Very interesting news. Supposedly it will be around the $1000 mark.
]]>These aren’t exactly the same lenses, but they are popular lenses that have an overlapping focal length. Alot of people are looking at 10-22 and 28-135 IS combos over the traditional 17mm to 18mm starting point - especially those who are buying the 40D kits with recent rebates( the 40D kits comes with a 28-135 IS). While the lens switching would add up, you would have a a very wide range of options from 10mm to 135mm. This test explores the IQ where the two lenses overlap. So for those holding on to 17-40L’s and 18-55’s, you can see if a 28-135 IS and 10-22 combo makes sense.
All images were done in Canon’s Digital Photo Profesisonal with a bump of +1/3rd exposure, standard mode and level 3 sharpening. No other processing was done. Tripod shot.
Please click the images for the large version.
28mm
35mm
40mm
40mm 100% crops
35mm 100% crops
28mm 100% crops
Guesstimated price = $1899
]]>All of the images were shot using F8, RAW, tripod, remote, mirror lockup using a Rebel XT and a Canon 300 F4 IS L. Each image has had zero color or contrast processing, but they have each had a level 4 sharpening done in DPP.
The Canon is $290 retail, and the Kenko is $190 retail. Please click on the thumbnails for the full images.
The first examples were done using manual focus.
Crops:
Things look pretty even when using manual focus at F8. Let’s check out the autofocus results using one shot AF:
100% Crops:
I took many test examples, and with this specific setup, it appears the Canon 1.4x II delivers much better autofocus results. Your mileage may vary based on your specific setup. Why is the Canon showing superior autofocus results over the Kenko? I originally bought the Canon 1.4x II to find out if it was the Kenko TC, my camera or my lens that was causing the autofocus problems with the Kenko. I even had the Kenko sent in to THK for evaluation, and they reported it’s 100% within working specification.
What’s interesting is that the Kenko and Canon have the same IQ when using manual focus, but not even close when using autofocus. Is this because of the XT’s outdated autofocus? Who knows. I did notice the Canon 1.4x II is a touch slower than with the Kenko 1.4x. Perhaps this results in more accurate results.
Some other observations:
The Canon feels alot heftier and more solid. Mounting to the camera and lenses is easier.
The Kenko can work on many other lenses, the Canon can only work on L telephotos.
I’m not quite sure what my angle of action is going to be at this point. Perhaps I should stick with my Kenko 1.4x and try it with the 40D which is purported to have a much better AF system than the XT. But if the Canon 1.4x II focuses better with the XT, won’t that also apply to the 40D? It seems those interested in more accurate AF results may put more stock in to the Canon 1.4x II. The Canon is about $100 more than the Kenko in the states. The loss of versatility, the extra cost and the samey IQ really make we want to return the Canon 1.4x II. However, if it’s going to be giving superior AF results, isn’t that what you want on your lens when it’s all said and done? Versatility doesn’t mean much when you’re losing potential keepers.
I’m leaning to keeping the Kenko and trying it with a 40D.
Bonus images using manual focus, F8, level 4 sharpening in DPP, no color or contrast adjustments:
