OwlsEyes Online Upload & Sell: On
|
la puffin wrote:
I need a zoom and 500mm + for surfing, that's why I ask about the 1.4x. I have no use for a f/5.6 lens but I could use the 200-400/4 bare, ,occasionally for baseball. So a 300/2.8 + 1.7x won't work for me, and I also have a 200/2 that works really well with the 1.4x III which is 280/2.8. Plus the 200-400 VR1 seems t be had for $2500 or less, which makes it more attractive for what you get.
Thanks a lot.
As stated previously, I have the 300mm f/2.8 AFS-ii, 200-400mmVR-i and 200-500mmVR. I also have a TC14eII. The version two converters can be had cheap now that the 3's are out. Optically, they are very similar though the iii's seem to play better with the newer FL-e lenses (opinion is based on words of others and not experience with version iii converter). I sold my first 200-400VR after getting the 200-500 and immediately regretted it. At $2500, I can not think of a lens that can offer so much for "so little" in the big tele-world. If you are a sports photographer, it is a dream because the AF is responsive and the zoom is as smooth as can be. Furthermore, there is very little image degradation through the zoom range.
Now for the bad... the 200-400VR suffers from quite a bit of sample variation. You will want to get one with a returnable warranty so you can test it out. They are almost as sharp as the older (non-FLe-s) at 400mm when you are shooting within 30m (universally reported by experienced photographers), but seem to lose contrast and detail as things move very far away. My first version showed this pattern and was often a source of frustration for me. Wildlife landscapes suffered from an unexplained softness. My current lens seems to be much better when shooting distant objects. While I lose a bit of detail (expected due to haze, heat waves and the realities of increasing atmospheric interference), this fall off in detail is much reduced than before.
As for with the 1.4x... well, this will be a mixed bag. I use my 1.4x on my 300mm f/2.8 for a lighter & more mobile wildlife package when my wife uses the 200-500. The 1.4x plays well w/ the 300mm f2.8, but the bokeh seems uglier when there is a busy background. I have yet to use the 1.4x on the 200-400, but I know the AF will be more robust than with the 200-500. I will be out shooting all weekend and will give this a try for you and report back... I suspect that within close range it will be very good but distances will result in less acceptable detail.
sorry for the long response,
bruce
|