dclark Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
davev wrote:
A year ago I did a quick test of my 400 with the 1.4, and the 2x tc's.
These are tight crops of the full photos, I don't believe I did anything else to them other than crop and save.
All shots are wide open. (f2.8, f4, f5.6)
I measured out 20 feet, 28 feet and 40 feet to keep the target the same size in the photos.
I see very little difference between the lens alone, and the lens with the 1.4 tc.
The 2x isn't very good in my opinion.
For a larger view, go here:
<<< ;https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52300939174_1f55d31735_3k.jpg>>>
|
|
|
|
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52300939174_27fb50e82b_h.jpg |
|
|
|
|
I think this comparison may be misleading. Even if all the lens+TC are diffraction limited, the image at f/5.6 should be less sharp than the image at f/4, and the f/4 image should be less sharp than the f/2.8 image. Remember that the diffraction limited spot size is proportional to the f/#. What you need to compare is the 400+1.4X at f/4 with the 600 at f/4. That is not a perfect comparison since the focal length is a bit different, but it is the operational comparison you want to make. The second case is the 400+2x at f/5.6 with the 600+1.4x at f/5.6. Again the focal length is a bit different but close. I would say you should not adjust the distance to compensate for the focal length difference if you want an operational comparison. In actual use you take the shot from where you are; if you can move closer with one you can move closer with the other. Crop the images to the same part of the subject to compare the imaging performance.
I think if the comparison is between lens+TC's that are shot at the same f/# and nearly the same focal length, the 2x TC looks pretty good. At least when I had both that was my conclusion. I decided at 560/600 and 800/840 they were essentially identical, but I preferred to have 1200/8 rather than 400/2.8, so I sold the 400/2.8 and kept the 600/4.
Dave
|