Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #16 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions? |
PV Hiker wrote:
Here is a question, What would you expect the IQ be if you added a 1.4xIII along with using the built in one?
I wondered about this as well, but someone in another post pointed out that apparently the lens will not physically accept Canon's own teleconverters... Not sure if this is true, but I suppose there are still 3rd party options.
I always wanted the 200-400 after watching the Nikon shooters using them for years. I told myself that when the Canon version came out I would pick one up; however, I always thought that the Canon version would be similarly priced as the Nikon ($7,000) and not the $11,000 price tag associated with this lens. I would gladly buy the non TC version if it was priced similarly to the Nikon but would probably pay another $1,000 on top of that to get it done. The anticipated price is way to high for me TC or no TC.
I am now considering the new Sigma 120-300 if there new QC procedures produce a top notch product with fast and accurate af.
Based on the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, the 120-300mm 2.8 could be pretty spectacular.
Isn't the new 120-300 optically identical to the previous version?
That's what Sigma is saying, optically it's the same formula, electronically I'm sure it's different so that it can work with their new USB dock.