RSS 2.0 FeedThe Holding Tank
Photography
RSS 2.0 Feed
| Photos
& Themes
RSS | Hardware | Technical |
Links | Books and Magazines
| Downloads |
Hardware
| Lens Data and Reviews | Lens Selection | Long Lens Selection | Wide Range Zooms | Consumer Zooms |
| Macro Equipment | Tilt and Shift Lenses | My Bags | My Old Hardware |
| My New Hardware | Lens MTF Comparison | Lens Tests | Weather Protection | Canon AF System | 7D vs 20D ISO Performance |
Lens
Tests
| EF 28mm f1.8 USM | EF 50mm f1.4 USM | EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM |
| EF 180mm f3.5L Macro | EF 180mm f3.5L Macro + EF 1.4X II | EF 180mm f3.5L Macro + EF 2X II |
| EF 200mm f2.8L II | EF 200mm f2.8L II + EF 1.4X II | EF 200mm f2.8L II + EF 2X II | EF 200mm f2.8L II + EF 1.4X II+ EF 2X II |
| EF 300mm f4L IS | EF 300mm f4L IS + EF 1.4X II | EF 300mm f4L IS + EF 2X II | EF 300mm f4L IS + EF 1.4X II + EF 2X II |
| EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 | EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM | EF 17-40 f4L USM | EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM |
| Primes | 17mm Region | 24mm Region | 28mm Region | 35mm Region | 50mm Region | 100mm Region | 300mm Region | 400mm Region | 600mm Region |
| EF 180mm f3.5L Macro + TCs | EF 200mm f2.8L II + TCs | EF 300mm f4L IS USM + TCs | Tests With the Kenko TC | Macro Tests |
| Filter Effect on Sharpness and AF | Flare and Filters | Image Stabilizer Tests | TC Sharpness | Best of the Best | Method | Understanding the Results | Real World 100% Crops | Tripod Tests | L-Plate Test |
Table of Content
[Updated with the EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM]
This section looks at the sharpness performance of various macro lens and combinations of telephoto lenses used with tubes and teleconverters in the close-up and macro region.
It is not currently possible to provide SRF/MTF measurements, the main obstacle being to provide macro scale test targets with sufficient edge acuity for meaningful results.
Instead the test method falls back on he tried and tested 100% crop method.
The test method was to use a bank note (20 UKP Elgar commemorative side, 10 UKP for the later Kenko 1.4X tests) taped to a flat and level board with a heavy duty tripod supporting the camera above. A hotshoe sprit level was used to ensure the camera was leveled and parallel to the plane of the bank note. Mirror lockup and timer shutter release was used in all cases, lighting was provided by an adjacent patio window.
Focus was achieved using a geared focus slide using a Angle Finder C 2.5X viewfinder magnification for accurate focus.
Achieving consistently accurate focus was difficult in some cases, so some difference in performance between test case at wider apertures may be simply down to that.
Regrettably it was difficult to keep the target exactly centered across test cases even when the magnification used was identical, unfortunately this hampers comparison.
All shots were recorded as RAW with +1 stop exposure compensation factor on matrix metering. Post processing consisted of setting the white balance to daylight, pulling up the shadow level to the same level on all shots for a well populated histogram, and making minor adjustments to shots exposure control to equalize any small variations.
Finally the same sharpening was used as for the lens tests at normal distances, the TRL Sharpening Toolkit PS Action "Capture Enhanced Edge Masked USM" 0.7, 0, 300 with a 65% layer blend). This should be just enough to correct for the sensors sampling apature.
Test cases are in three main groups:
i) Macro lenses used as is, here the lens magnification scale is used to set magnification, either 1X or 0.5X.
ii) Macro lenses used with teleconvertors and where required a 12mm extension tube for compatibility. Magnification was adjusted to 1X by using an imaged ruler scale.
iii) General purpose lenses used with extension tubes and in some cases teleconvertors, magnification was measured by imaging a ruler. The set lens focus distance will be indicated in the test case either minimum focus or infinity focus.
In all cases the set f-stop rather than effective f-stop is reported. In those cases where a teleconvertor is used but in a non-reporting configuration the "effective" set f-stop is reported, i.e. the set -f-stop minus 1 or 2 stops for 1.4X and 2X teleconvertors respectively.
Extension is provided by some combination of three Canon extension tubes, two EF 25mm and one EF 12mm. Where used the teleconvertors are EF 1.4X II and EF 2X II.
Each lens will be tested at a set f-stop of f2.8 or maximum aperture if smaller, each stop down to f22 (except for the MP-E 65mm Macrophoto 1-5X which only stops down to a set value of f16).
The following sections list each test case with a down sampled full image at maximum aperture. Extension tubes and teleconvertors added are listed in order of what is attached to the lens first.
Measured with the lens set to minimum magnification of 1X with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f16.
Measured with the lens set to maximum magnification of 1X with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f22.
Measured with the lens set to a magnification of 1X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f4 to f22. As the teleconvertor is non-reporting in this configuration the camera displayed f-stops f2.8 to f16. A 12mm tube was used between the lens and teleconvertor to allow mounting.
Measured with the lens set to a magnification of 1X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f5.6 to f22. As the teleconvertor is non-reporting in this configuration the camera displayed f-stops f2.8 to f11. A 12mm tube was used between the lens and teleconvertor to allow mounting.
Measured with the lens set to infinity focus and with a total of 50mm of extension not 62mm as marked, providing a measured magnification of 1.05X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f22.
Measured with the lens set to minimum focus and with a total of 62mm of extension followed by a 1.4X TC, providing a measured magnification of 0.76X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f4 to f22. As the teleconvertor is non-reporting in this configuration the camera displayed f-stops f2.8 to f16.
Measured with the lens set to infinity focus and 105mm and with a total of 62mm of extension, providing a measured magnification of 0.64X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f22.
Measured with the lens set to maximum magnification of 0.5X with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f22.
Measured with the lens set to minimum focus and with a total of 62mm of extension providing a measured magnification of 0.58X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f2.8 to f22.
Measured with the lens set to minimum focus and with a total of 62mm of extension following a 1.4X TC, providing a measured magnification of 0.58X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f4 to f22. As the teleconvertor is reporting in this configuration the camera displayed f-stops f4 to f22. NB in this configuration the teleconvertor increases the lens focal length and so reduces the magnifying effect of the extension tubes, thus there is no advantage in magnification with this configuration is used, and little advantage in working distance.
Measured with the lens set to minimum focus and with a total of 62mm of extension providing a measured magnification of 0.58X using a ruler, with a set f-stop range of f4 to f22.
The 100mm macro with the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X teleconverter, no extra extension tubes are need for physical compatibility so infinity focus is maintained. NB the TC is non-reporting on the 100mm macro so the camera reports f2.8 for f4 for example, the results as always refer to the actual set f-stop excluding any magnification loss, i.e. wide open is f4. The focus was set to give life size (1X)
The basic L macro set for 1X.
The 180mm with the Canon EF 1.4X set for a magnification of 1X including the teleconverter.
The 180mm with the Canon EF 2X II set for 1X magnification including the teleconverter.
In this section small 100% crop areas from each of the test cases and f-stop are montaged into a single image for easy comparison. One case is provided for each of the four corners and the centre.
Click on the image for a 100% scale image.
The gold standard macro lens in many ways, very contrast and sharp even wide open. Some slight improvement from f2.8 to f4 may be due to non-perfect focus. Corner sharpness is improving by f8 to f11. The upper right corner is noticeably better perhaps indicating a either little element decentering or imperfect test setup parallelism.
Again very sharp, corner performance generally much more consistent than the MP-E 65mm with only the lower right dragging behind the centre significantly. Peak sharpness around f8-f11.
Centre sharpness is close to the naked lens but with some degradation in corner sharpness.
Centre sharpness is lower compared to the naked lens but not too bad, some increased degradation in corner sharpness over the 1.4X case but generally not too bad by f11-f16.
NB This is actually 50mm of extension not 62mm as marked.
Image quality is fairly sharp in the centre by f4 but away from the centre the image quality at f2.8 is abysmal, very blurred and showing distortion and vignetting even on a down sampled image. The non-centre performance does not start to become even slightly acceptable until f5.6-f8, NB this is on an APS-C camera, so one can only guess as to the full frame performance. How much of this is due to excessive field curvature is difficult to say but the distortion and vignetting does tend to suggest poor resolution.
The corner performance is blurred above f11 and poor at f11 and below.
In summary this combination can not be recommend as a macro set-up even for occasional or emergency use.
This is interesting, because this lens performs very well at normal distances.
This test case starts off badly even in the centre and never seems to pick up, this may be due to poor initial focus accuracy. Corners improve peaking at about f8-f11.
Surprisingly good performance in the centre peaking at about f11. The corners never seems to pickup however showing only small improvements to f11. Examining the original files at about 50% of the way from the centre to the corners shows better performance.
This set-up may be acceptable on an APS-C camera for occasional or emergency use, but full frame use may be more problematic.
A reference test case at lower magnification. Again centre performance is good sharpening up a bit at f4. Corner performance is not quite as good as with this lens at 1X but improves peaking at f11. The lower right corner one of the better cases this time.
Centre good improving to very good at f4 and peaking around f8-f11. Corners quite soft wide open but improving significantly at f4 and improving to peak around f11 to f16.
Centre improves a little one stop closed at f5.6 but does not really pickup after that. Corners are very poor wide open only becoming reasonably decent at f8-f16 depending on the corner. A surprisingly and disappointing result for this configuration.
Sharpness in the centre quite good at f4 improving rapidly to good at f5.6 and peaking to very good at f11. Corners soft wide open improving to reasonable at f8 and peaking to good at f11. All four corners consistent.
Centre and corners do not sharpen up until about f8 except for the lower right corner which picks up below this. All areas were a bit soft at f11 so this is probably due to measurement error, probably some vibration.
Compared to using the Canon 1.4X II the performance is not too good, the Canon TC was as sharp wide open and the Kenko as f8, it is possible this was due to some initial focus inaccuracy, although this as always was done using the Angle Finder C with 2.5X viewfinder magnification.
The corner performance with the Kenko 1.4X was more comparable with the Canon 1.4X II, both peaking up around f8 although the Canon was sharper at wider apertures.
The centre results are clearly better than using the 100mm macro with a TC and interestingly possibly slightly sharper than the 100mm macro on its own; if so this is a reversal of the results from SRF/MTF testing at lower magnifications, though of course the comparisons here are necessarily subjective and prone to systematic error due to manual focus. The centre sharpness compares well with the MP-E.
Centre results are also crisper than the 200mm f2.8L with tubes at a lower magnification, again at normal distances the 200mm is by far the sharper lens. The same seems to be true comparing the 180mm and the 300mm f4L IS with tubes although the difference is less.
Turning attention to the corner performance it is worth noting the upper and lower left corners are better than the two right corners. This might indicate some test subject alignment error, particularly as the SRF/MTF low magnification testing indicated a weakness in the lower left corner. So comparisons will be made using the upper left.
Wide open the 180mm is a lot better than the MP-E in this case, but similar or slight worse than the 100mm macro. Corner performance is similar to the 100mm macro by f5.6 and possibly slightly better, also considerably better than the 200mm and 300mm at lower magnifications although this may due to flatness of field.
Even with the EF 1.4X II on the sharpness seems comparable to the 100mm macro which is a surprise. Indeed centre sharpness seems to be very similar to that of the 300mm f4L IS with tubes at a lower magnification.
The corner performance of the 180mm + EF 1.4X II seems to be better than the 200mm and 300mm from wide open all the way down, although again this may be down to flatness of field.
The centre results with the 2X do not peak until f16 which suggests there is experimental error due to inaccurate focus, so the 2X results are probably pessimistic. (real life subject tests tend to support this). It is worth noting that from the wide open full frame image above the flatness of field is well maintained even with the 2X.
The 100mm macro worked acceptably well with both Canon teleconvertors although clearly a longer focal length macro lens would give much better results more ergonomically if available.
The 100mm macro was also tried with the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC, but the results here were disappointing.
The 50mm f1.4 was a very poor performer but the 25-105mm f4L IS was reasonable away from the extreme corners of APS-C although this was only tested at 105mm zoom.
Neither configuration of tubes and 1.4X with the 200mm f2.8L gave great results but tubes only with this lens were very acceptable.
The 300mm f4L IS with tubes produced a very acceptable like result, the relatively close native minimum focus of this lens means that operationally a good range of magnification is available without having to switch around tubes.
The 180mm macro was a surprise, at normal distances (see SRF/MTF tests) it was sharp but not exceptionally sharp, being outperformed by by the 100mm macro, 200mm f2.8L and 300mm f4L IS. However at close-up and macro distances the 180mm macro was equal or better than these other lenses and often equal or nearly so with the EF 1.4X II fitted.
Last Updated 27/07/2009
All Content © 2005-09 Lester Wareham All Rights
Reserved
All material is supplied as is and without warranty,
use at your own risk.
All opinions stated are the authors own.
All quoted information remains the copyright of the
respective authors.
Contact: (anti spam remove underscores)
Note this email gets spammed a lot so if you want to get your message through please prefix "Holding Tank" in the title
f_ w_ a_ r_ e_ 9_ 0_ @_l_i_n_e_o_n_e_._n_e_t