arbitrage wrote:
Do you have one yet Joshua? Still ordering one?
Joshua is smarter than the average bear 🙂. With the recent FW improvements on MB and Sigma adapters, it looks like he may be putting a few more of his eggs into the adapted Canon lens basket:
mitesh wrote:
Joshua is smarter than the average bear 🙂. With the recent FW improvements on MB and Sigma adapters, it looks like he may be putting a few more of his eggs into the adapted Canon lens basket:
That way Joshua could potentially shoot up to 1680mm or 2400mm.
Rich
Guys,
At my age, I would be happy to get only 1200mm, which is plenty long for my needs. I will have to rely on a 42MP sensor or an APS-C sensor to let me reach longer in a more convenient way. And yes, I am in the process of doing some long lens shuffling as we speak. We will have to wait and see what Sony will bring up next in that arena. But all that is OT in this thread. Let's go back to the regular programing now... the GM 400mm, that is!
Just saw this thread where a guy posted a 126 shot burst with the 2x on of a football player at 20FPS https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4334844
Not sure what value there is in this but there you go
Hi folks,
How you rate the autofocus performance of 400/2.8+2XTC when compared with that of bare 100-4000, with 1.4TC and 2X TC. Yesterday, I was trying to capture a kingfisher in flight (close range) with A9 paired 100-400+2XTC and I got very few keepers. I am wondering how much better would it be with A9 and 400/2.8+2XTC combo.
Thanking you in advance.
Ruhikant
Ruhikant IMO (shooting since 1997 with big glass) that both the 100-400 and 400 give marginal performance for BIF with the 2x (for my standards). Why even bother - even if the 400/2x is faster you still end up with less than stellar images.
ruhikant wrote:
I want to know if it is equal to bare 100-400 or 1.4tc level since I am going to glue 2x to the prime.
Not exactly what you asked though:
ruhikant wrote:
How you rate the autofocus performance of 400/2.8+2XTC when compared with that of bare 100-4000, with 1.4TC and 2X TC. Yesterday, I was trying to capture a kingfisher in flight (close range) with A9 paired 100-400+2XTC and I got very few keepers. I am wondering how much better would it be with A9 and 400/2.8+2XTC combo.
ruhikant wrote:
I want to know if it is equal to bare 100-400 or 1.4tc level since I am going to glue 2x to the prime.
My guess is it will be equal to the bare 100-400GM. f/5.6 vs f/5.6 usually compares more closely IME with lots of different lens TC combos over the years versus comparing how much TC is involved. The quality of the TC does come into affect but with Sony and Canon I wouldn't consider it much of a factor...does have to be considered more so with Nikon.
MILC AF doesn't seem to be affected as much as DLSR AF does by the increasing f-stops, this is why we see people able to use Canon 100-400II + 2xTCIII with success on Canon EOS R but doesn't even AF on DSLR.
Sony 2xTC is proven to be superb even on a slow zoom lens (100-400GM), reports of it being superb on the 400GM are out there and to be expected starting with an f/2.8 lens.
Finally! Lindrelt's pelicans and Phan's Golden eagle at 400mm look very sharp. It looks to me that most of the 400+2xTC shots have significant motion blur. It would be nice to see the 400 + 2xTC locked down to get an idea how sharp the combo can be.
