The big whites focusing speeds
- Thread starter Speedfinder
- Start date
No, not really. I didn't notice any difference between the EF 400 2.8 III and the RF variant.
Now the R3 can apparently focus the RF version faster with the "dual power AF", but I didn't notice the difference. I use it for wildlife and not sports, so maybe you'd notice the difference in that application.
I'm considering getting an EF 800 again, they're so cheap now. Yeah it vignettes at 5.6, but that doesn't really bother me. I should never have sold it.
Upvote
0
With the price of R glass, I also think I will get an EF 800mm. They do not seem to be selling fast in Europe on ebay etc.
My last 800 was an FD :-0
My last 800 was an FD :-0
Upvote
0
No experience with RF big whites, but could it be that they're already focusing fast enough that the difference just isn't evident? I recall that when I got my 1D X, I kept my 7D thinking I'd use it with the EF 600/4 II (I sold it pretty soon). The 1D X was reported to drive the AF faster, but it was hard to notice a difference between that and the 7D. However, adding a TC slows the AF of the lens (by design), and with a TC behind the lens, the AF speed difference between the 1D X and 7D was noticeable (but not a big difference, really).
Upvote
0
Maybe we are looking at this backwards. I know that there are slow focusing lenses. But, perhaps there is little difference between the faster focusing lenses?
Perhaps you start thinking about something like the old EF 85 f/1.2. Or a few other primes, and yeah, they are noticeably slower. As you move into faster focusing lenses, you may not notice much. That this is a gradation. But I would certainly group the Big Whites I've used in the "fastest" category. There may be other lenses in that category as well.
The closest thing I have done to a test that I can reference was a hit rate comparison on birds on a stick...and yes, my 500 f/4 II outperformed all my other lenses. Faster AF? More precise AF? But I have always consistently found great hit rates with the 500 f/4 II.
The results from my post:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
cool
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
Perhaps you start thinking about something like the old EF 85 f/1.2. Or a few other primes, and yeah, they are noticeably slower. As you move into faster focusing lenses, you may not notice much. That this is a gradation. But I would certainly group the Big Whites I've used in the "fastest" category. There may be other lenses in that category as well.
The closest thing I have done to a test that I can reference was a hit rate comparison on birds on a stick...and yes, my 500 f/4 II outperformed all my other lenses. Faster AF? More precise AF? But I have always consistently found great hit rates with the 500 f/4 II.
The results from my post:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
coolEF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
Upvote
0
The EF 600mm II has similar results to the 500mm including the results with the EF 1.4x III TC.Maybe we are looking at this backwards. I know that there are slow focusing lenses. But, perhaps there is little difference between the faster focusing lenses?
Perhaps you start thinking about something like the old EF 85 f/1.2. Or a few other primes, and yeah, they are noticeably slower. As you move into faster focusing lenses, you may not notice much. That this is a gradation. But I would certainly group the Big Whites I've used in the "fastest" category. There may be other lenses in that category as well.
The closest thing I have done to a test that I can reference was a hit rate comparison on birds on a stick...and yes, my 500 f/4 II outperformed all my other lenses. Faster AF? More precise AF? But I have always consistently found great hit rates with the 500 f/4 II.
The results from my post:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
If you want to test your patience: Try the AF with the Canon EF 180mm f3.5 macro and when you think "This cannot get any slower", add the 1.4 TC
.
Upvote
0
This is the only video I’ve seen showing a 1 series driving a lens faster than a contemporary 5 series: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn_vYmTOgZs&pp=ygUPMWR4IGZvY3VzIHNwZWVk
And the 35ii in the same video does not seem to be driven any faster
I don’t know where the R cameras fall. My r6ii and r5ii definitely seem to drive some lenses faster than my old 40D (though I haven’t physically timed it). But I don’t know if that’s due to a power difference vs faster processing etc.
And the 35ii in the same video does not seem to be driven any faster
I don’t know where the R cameras fall. My r6ii and r5ii definitely seem to drive some lenses faster than my old 40D (though I haven’t physically timed it). But I don’t know if that’s due to a power difference vs faster processing etc.
Upvote
0
I wonder where the RF 100-500mm would come in that list? Way above the RF 200-800mm in my experience.Maybe we are looking at this backwards. I know that there are slow focusing lenses. But, perhaps there is little difference between the faster focusing lenses?
Perhaps you start thinking about something like the old EF 85 f/1.2. Or a few other primes, and yeah, they are noticeably slower. As you move into faster focusing lenses, you may not notice much. That this is a gradation. But I would certainly group the Big Whites I've used in the "fastest" category. There may be other lenses in that category as well.
The closest thing I have done to a test that I can reference was a hit rate comparison on birds on a stick...and yes, my 500 f/4 II outperformed all my other lenses. Faster AF? More precise AF? But I have always consistently found great hit rates with the 500 f/4 II.
The results from my post:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
Upvote
0
I only borrowed the 100-500 for a week or so, but I would agree.
And this is my overall point, I think there are several lenses with elite autofocus speed. I have not used a Big White that did not have elite AF, IMO. Others, I am sure, will have used more, but I own the EF 500 f/4 II, and have used the EF 600 f/4 II, RF 600 f/4, and EF 400 f/4 DO II. I was impressed with the AF on all of them. But I am sure several other lenses also have elite AF. I have not run a test, but I am very impressed with the AF speed and my hit rate with the Rf 24-105 f/2.8, for example. The 100-500L may also have elite AF. I remember being impressed by it.
Upvote
0
