I don't know, but the 100-200 doesn't really tempt me. I feel that ANY zoom going longer than 200 mm would help. As long as the zooms are 2-ish x zooms, a compromise I am willing to make, is having small gaps in focal length. There isn't much I couldn't do with 20-35 + 45-100 + 135-300
alundeb wrote:
I don't know, but the 100-200 doesn't really tempt me. I feel that ANY zoom going longer than 200 mm would help. As long as the zooms are 2-ish x zooms, a compromise I am willing to make, is having small gaps in focal length. There isn't much I couldn't do with 20-35 + 45-100 + 135-300
If the GFX system had a 150-300mm, I'd sell my 5DSR, R5, and all Canon lenses immediately. But the 250 + 1.4 converter is a non-starter with how heavy and inflexible that would be
Agree about the teleconverter. Most of my GF lens purchases are ahead of me, and one thing is certain, the teleconverter will arrive at the same day as the first lens compatible with it.
Forgot to mention it above. The teleconverter is what will make a 300 mm zoom long enough for me.
I was able to test two copies of the 100-200 against two copies of the 250, when I bought the 250. The zooms had much higher variation between them. One was pretty good, but still had to be stopped down at the longer end (from about 160) for optimal results, to f8 and even f11.
While both 250s I tested were extremely good wide open. I often photograph under dim or even dark conditions, so the optimal results at f4 were what made me chose the 250. If you don’t need that, and are happy to stop down for optimal results, the 100-200 is, of course, more flexible. I prefer the 250 by a pretty big margin though.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 1.4x works on the 100-200, making it 140-280. I don't see why more people aren't using it, short of it being almost a thousand damn dollars.
In fact, that would be my PRIMARY use case with it.
Jim K ran some tests on that combo and wasn't impressed with edge and corner sharpness. That said, he also didn't think the 250mm + 1.4TC would do much better. Kind of surprising but then again, horses for courses. I'm not as fussy about edges and corners as many on the interwebs are. My copy of the 100-200 showed up a couple days ago. Looking forward to getting out with it and putting it through the paces. Again. I liked it the first time I owned it so...
gunmetal wrote:
Jim K ran some tests on that combo and wasn't impressed with edge and corner sharpness. That said, he also didn't think the 250mm + 1.4TC would do much better. Kind of surprising but then again, horses for courses. I'm not as fussy about edges and corners as many on the interwebs are. My copy of the 100-200 showed up a couple days ago. Looking forward to getting out with it and putting it through the paces. Again. I liked it the first time I owned it so...
The more I shoot the 32-64, the grosser the edges seem, but I think that's a result of 100% zoom on a HUUUUUGE file. Totally unnoticable at normal viewing.
People care way too much about this stuff. If you have a moving image, no one is looking at the corners. It's just gearwankery.
I got to take a single shot with the 100-200 before leaving for the weekend. Seems serviceable for my needs in terms of size, and like so many other GF lenses has such a dire MFD The "busy-background" bokeh is nothing special wide open, though more predictable elements fall off nicely.
The "busy-background" bokeh is nothing special wide open, though more predictable elements fall off nicely.