While I can appreciate anticipating photos from newly released gear, I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I think that someone that starts an image thread should have some images to contribute. Maybe it's just me...
brad-man wrote:
While I can appreciate anticipating photos from newly released gear, I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I think that someone that starts an image thread should have some images to contribute. Maybe it's just me...
And here's a typical Pacific Northwest fall scene as well. In case it's not obvious from the EXIF this image was taken with the extender and the lens at 100mm something you can't do with the 100-500.
OK, but why would you use an extender at 100 mm on a 100-400 instead of just the lens itself at 140mm? Or, with respect to the 100-500, there have been a lot of complaints about not being able to use an extender between 100 and 300mm - which would be the FOV equivalent of 140 - 420mm, well within the natural range of the 100-500 - this seems so obvious I wonder if I'm missing something. It surely can't be for improved image quality . . .
billyboy wrote:
OK, but why would you use an extender at 100 mm on a 100-400 instead of just the lens itself at 140mm? Or, with respect to the 100-500, there have been a lot of complaints about not being able to use an extender between 100 and 300mm - which would be the FOV equivalent of 140 - 420mm, well within the natural range of the 100-500 - this seems so obvious I wonder if I'm missing something. It surely can't be for improved image quality . . .
I think you've missed what the actual problem is. The problem is that the lens HAS to be zoomed out to 300mm (on the 100-500) when using the TC, which almost doubles its length (vs packed without tc). Meaning for many backpacks you will always have to detach the 1.4x before packing it away as it will no longer fit.
I am lucky to have an EF 100-400L with 2x Extender III on my R6.
Focuses quickly and (IB)IS works quickly, till 1/20 sec handheld at 800mm eq.
On the 6D is only focuses slowly in live view mode.
You're right that I missed what the actual problem is. It never occurred to me that it was a problem worth complaining about. I hope that's the least of the problems with it and can't imagine any that would be a lesser inconvenience, if even that.
billyboy wrote:
You're right that I missed what the actual problem is. It never occurred to me that it was a problem worth complaining about. I hope that's the least of the problems with it and can't imagine any that would be a lesser inconvenience, if even that.
Agree, it is not a problem for the majority of photographers that don't carry their gear in backpacks or bags. Take the TC and/or hood off before putting in a pack. A real chore that photographers have been doing for years with 500 & 600 f4's.
billyboy wrote:
You're right that I missed what the actual problem is. It never occurred to me that it was a problem worth complaining about. I hope that's the least of the problems with it and can't imagine any that would be a lesser inconvenience, if even that.
I would think the bigger problem is losing that part of the zoom range when the TC is on. So no TC you've got 100-500. With the 1.4x, instead of a 140-700, you are limited to a 420-700 (lens can't come in past the 300mm position).
Still, having finally seen one in person, it is so compact for a lens with that reach. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
jedibrain wrote:
I would think the bigger problem is losing that part of the zoom range when the TC is on. So no TC you've got 100-500. With the 1.4x, instead of a 140-700, you are limited to a 420-700 (lens can't come in past the 300mm position).
No, it is even less of a problem since the reason you are putting the TC on is to get greater reach than 500mm.
I like the ducks. Fun to see the differing silhouettes of your nearctic Aythya-species. Good to see that the RF 100-400 performs well enough.
I´m apparently not in agreement with Imagemaster tonight, as I would/will miss the 140-420mm with the 100-500 x1,4. I´m in no hurry to get the RF 1,4x of that reason (whenever the 100-500 arrives). When the goodness of the EF100-400LIS2 was evident I exchanged it for my 400/5.6. Sometimes you got one duck, sometimes 20000 in front of you. The lack of 100-420 will/would be burning!
. I hope that's fine
you're right, new gear enthusiasm. Once we get some decent weather here I will post some better shots.
Good to see that the RF 100-400 performs well enough.
