Thanks , been reading a lot about the lens but other than VC , no stops stated .
Probably another - varies with temp / light / user / monopod or hand held .
I did not see where it turns off automaticly if on a tripod either .
Oh well in a week they should start delivering them and more examples will be posted .
Both are too expensive . I rented the 400 DO with the 2X II - was not impressed . Borrowed a 300 2.8 - put my 1.4-ii on it - The was on my XTI . [ if it means any thing - I prefer zooms ]
I have the 7D now and the same shots looked better with the 70-200 mk ii +2 X III compared to the 300 2.8 1.4-ii . These were taken years apart , other than different weeds and the trees a little bigger - same shots . [ I also shoot at f 5.6 or 8 for DOF ] Sorry , both shots are in Mexico - I never copied to laptop .
Imagemaster wrote:
For some maybe. Not for those that are already slapping 1.4x TC's on their 100-400's and 400 f5.6's, and ending up with 560mm @ f8.
Yep, I'm more concerned with how this lens is at f/7.1 or f/8 than I am f/6.3, as that's where I'll use this lens at typically at racetracks. H*ll, for panning shots it'll probably be around f/11 or so....
abqnmusa wrote:
If a lens is not sharp wide open I will pass.
Having to avoid F stops is too limiting, and makes the lens worse in lower light situations.
all premature at this point ... we need actual lenses for FM members to test and post results
then we can determine wide open sharpness
I am looking at a Canon 400mm F4 DO + 1.4X
drop back to 400mm F4 in lower light
then maybe the Tamron 150-600 as my sports & nature lens along with the DO
I have a 400 DO that I use almost all the time with a 1.4TC, therefore I'm giving the Tamron a shot, should be here Tuesday. We'll see what I decide to do. I've had such good luck with the 400 DO that the Tamron is really going to have to be solid at 600mm @ f/8 to replace it.
Imagemaster wrote:
From everything I have read, the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is better than the 70-200 mk II + 2x III.
I have to agree here...as good as the zoom is with extenders I would not put the 70-200 II + 2X combo in the same category as the 300/2.8 IS + 1.4X. The latter combo was so good with my copy that you couldn't really distinguish from images taken with the bare lens (whereas I felt the zoom took a noticeable hit with the 2X).
I was in Mexico at that time . I took the shots with the 2X II on the 300 .
There is a really big difference between the 1.4 II and the 2X III .
Wether it was the extenders , camera bodies , lenses , me or a combination of all - the prime would have to be at least 50 % better and a lot cheaper for me to even consider it .
Try any prime and then try to hit that MM on a zoom - I am not that good and frame my shots - but not by MM .
But the question was between the 400 DO and the 300 - nether are worth the money and to me you loose more in framing than you might gain in IQ .
Some one trying to decide on a lens needs all the opinions they can get -
gocolts wrote:
Yep, I'm more concerned with how this lens is at f/7.1 or f/8 than I am f/6.3, as that's where I'll use this lens at typically at racetracks. H*ll, for panning shots it'll probably be around f/11 or so....
Same here, even for airshows I much prefer shooting prop aircraft over jets so again will be at a slow shutter speed and the lens stopped down.
Posted a question but deleted it since I found the answer. In the other thread about this lens, Tamron does not encourage using their 1.4x TC and if I read it correctly, Canon TCs will not work on these so this is a pure 150mm - 600mm lens. Thanks.
