jportraits wrote:
yeah, if it was cheaper i would just buy it.
opinions about it are very polarized. it maight be that for 100mp and 1.4x tc it is not sharp enough and people complain. for 50mp it could be enough.
or maybe there some units are sharper some less sharp and it is about luck.
I've used it on both 50 and 100mp and its very good on both. I've never read an alternative take on it, maybe 1.4x in general but not on this one. The 100-200 just doesn't have much reach without it.
teleconverters requires unresolved resolution from lens. on 100mp that is 100*1.4^2=200mp. lens would have to be able to produces details on level of 200mp to have full gain from tc. from what people say about this lens being soft on long end im afraid if it has enough for 50mp (50*1.4^2=100mp). in that case it would have 0 gain from 1.4x tc on 100mp body - meaning you have better details with digital crop. but i dont know, just guessing
SGinNorcal wrote:
I've used it on both 50 and 100mp and its very good on both. I've never read an alternative take on it, maybe 1.4x in general but not on this one. The 100-200 just doesn't have much reach without it.
I'm sure that there is some actual image degradation using the 1.4x on the 100-200. But in real world use, its not visible on either sensor. Of course you also loose a stop of light.
there is always image degradation from tc optics. from lens optics it depends if there is enough resolution to be enlarged. that is why tc is great on 250mm prime - it has more resolution. same tc will add nothing to lens with resolution on 50mp level. nothing - i mean you would get better image by digital cropping.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'm sure that there is some actual image degradation using the 1.4x on the 100-200. But in real world use, its not visible on either sensor. Of course you also loose a stop of light.
I'm not following your logic and you seem to flipping back and forth, 1.4 better on 50 vs. better on 100. I think we can agree that on some level, the 1.4x will present an image with some loss of detail to the sensor. How visible that is probably depend on a bunch of things, available light, f-stop, others. But the same image is presented to both sensors, why do you think it would look worse on the 50 vs. 100? You could argue the opposite, that the 100 is going to show flaws in the magnified image better than the 50. Regarding digital TC, that's cropping and it seems generally accepted that more cropping with a good outcome is possible with 100mp to start with. Personally, I'll take a good 1.4x (and the GF is the best I have seen) over cropping when that is an option.
Which brings me back to actual use, I've not found that I can detect sharpness differences in the same images from the 50S and 100S regardless of the lens used with or without 1.4x. There are numerous advantages to the 100, but straight up image resolution without cropping isn't one of them to my eyes. Note that I own and have used both of them.
i did some more testing of ttartisan 500mm and i had returned it. focus ring too stiff, sharpness not great. i like 100-200mm much more, maybe with 1.4x tc could be enough for me. or maybe i would try tamron 150-600mm g2
