Useless, trust me. And you guys come up with threads like this...
I think I am kind of prime L lens junkie. I now have the most important ones up to 135mm (included). And I try to convince myself that 135 is long enough for all my needs. 200 2.0 IS is on my wishlist...if it would only be a bit cheaper, like the 300 2.8, I would have got one. But for now, the 300 is a bit long and the 200 a bit too expensive. I guess that in the end I will buy some studio lighting with the money for a 200 2.0, but some day I will get my hands on one of these white guys.
p.2 #14 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Allan Bruce wrote:
Has anyone done a comparison of the 200 f/2 + 2xTC against the 400 f/5.6L? I am interested to hear about focus speed and IQ...
I've owned both lenses simultaneously. 2x TC requires stopping down 2 stops to regain sharpness of the bare lens when magnified digitally (across the whole frame)... thus, f/8 is needed. The 400/5.6 will be sharper at f/5.6 than the 200/2 + 2x TC. Focus is faster on the 400/5.6L as well.
The main advantage of the 200 over the 400/5.6 is the IS in this case.
p.2 #15 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Andrew Welsh wrote:
I've owned both lenses simultaneously. 2x TC requires stopping down 2 stops to regain sharpness of the bare lens when magnified digitally (across the whole frame)... thus, f/8 is needed. The 400/5.6 will be sharper at f/5.6 than the 200/2 + 2x TC. Focus is faster on the 400/5.6L as well.
The main advantage of the 200 over the 400/5.6 is the IS in this case.
Thats a pity. I was hoping that I could get the 200 f/2 and that would stop me from needing a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/5.6, but alas not :-(
p.2 #18 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
I should add that 2x TC + 200/2 can be stopped down 1 stop for "good" sharpness and "great" sharpness in the center.. and most wildlife is in the center anyway.