Theoretically you wont see an improvement with the extender unless your subject is blue, your camera is <= 33MP and the TC has negligible image degradation.
The diffraction limit drawn assumes the best case scenario (perfect lens, perfect TC). In reality you may not see an improvement even if the TC point is below the line.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The diffraction limit is not an f/number that you should never shoot at or God forbid go shoot higher than.
This is obviously NOT the point I was making.
My point is that if the Airy disk diameter already spans two pixels with the lens wide open, using a teleconverter is worse than useless. Once you’re sampling at or beyond the Nyquist rate, increasing the sampling rate further with a TC yields no additional captured detail. Instead, the teleconverter adds more glass to the optical path, introducing further image degradation while also reducing autofocus performance.
Use whatever aperture you want, just don’t use the TC.
I don't watch a lot of influencer videos, but my intern at work sent me this link because the guy uses it on both FF and the 6700 plus using both extenders.
Theoretically you wont see an improvement with the extender unless your subject is blue, your camera is <= 33MP and the TC has negligible image degradation.
The diffraction limit drawn assumes the best case scenario (perfect lens, perfect TC). In reality you may not see an improvement even if the TC point is below the line.
My question about these plots is that I am not seeing the impact of the size of the subject in the frame and number of pixels on the subject. If you put a 2X on and double the size in the frame and the number of pixels on the subject. I would think that this would provide more pixels to resolve a particular feature and counter some of the softening by diffraction. I.E. if I have a difference in light levels across 2 pixels without the TC, I would then have 3 to 4 pixels to record that difference in light level, depending on exact positioning of the peaks in light level, with the TC. While any given pair loose the ability to resolve due to diffraction, going across 4 pixels should be able to resolve the difference in light levels. Again this is in the perfect lens and perfect TC scenerio.
freaklikeme wrote:
Well, those aren't the most promising samples. Did it look to you like a lot of near-focuses?
I have yet to download any Raws but I flicked through it and felt most or many of the photos that should scream micro detail looked plasticky. I doubt this is a contender to replace my old 100-400 unless it matches performance ... 1st glance it does not but I will look at some raws. Also, I use the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC a lot and F11 does not seem attractive/
I cancelled my order due to an unexpected item in my safe. I thought that I had sold all of my Sony telephoto lenses when I sold my Sony bodies, but to my surprise, sitting in the original box was the FE 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 GM OSS. Not state of the art and certainly heavier and larger than the new lens, but also a bit faster. I tested it on my A7R6 and it looks promising. It balances nicely with the use of the vertical grip.
mcbroomf wrote:
I have yet to download any Raws but I flicked through it and felt most or many of the photos that should scream micro detail looked plasticky. I doubt this is a contender to replace my old 100-400 unless it matches performance ... 1st glance it does not but I will look at some raws. Also, I use the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC a lot and F11 does not seem attractive/
I think it would be a tall order to match the old variable aperture GM in optical performance, but it does look like the AF can keep up. I doubt it would replace mine, though I'm open to it if it works out. My guess is I'll keep hiking with the bigger lens (which isn't really that big or heavy for what it is). It might just be a fascination with the size, weight, and price, but I am going to have to rent it to see if it can fit into the kit without being a replacement. The occasional super-tele that's not hard to pack?
bwcolor wrote:
I cancelled my order due to an unexpected item in my safe. I thought that I had sold all of my Sony telephoto lenses when I sold my Sony bodies, but to my surprise, sitting in the original box was the FE 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 GM OSS. Not state of the art and certainly heavier and larger than the new lens, but also a bit faster. I tested it on my A7R6 and it looks promising. It balances nicely with the use of the vertical grip.
I was wrong when I said "I have no doubt this lens will be sharp" when I started this thread. I guess there is no free lunch ($$$, size, weight, sharpness). I just bought back a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. This f8 version won't be in my bag any time soon.
Douglas L wrote:
I was wrong when I said "I have no doubt this lens will be sharp" when I started this thread. I guess there is no free lunch ($$$, size, weight, sharpness). I just bought back a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. This f8 version won't be in my bag any time soon.
The 100-400 f/8 seems to have the same crappy close range performance as the Tamron 35-150.
The optical design of the 100-400 f/8 probably needs floating elements to improve close range performance, but omits the floating elements to save on costs.
Having viewed Steve Perry's video, I will hold off from jumping in the 100-400 f/8 train mainly for the poor close-up performance. My use cases (landscape with mainly tripod, portability, footprint, ...) are fulfilled but my desire to consolidate my macro and slow tele into an "all-in one tele zoom lens including macro/semi/macro" was probably too ambitious.
So keeping my Sigma 100-400 for now which has decent quality tbh but is a little bit too large and heavy for my taste/use cases.
I may end up with the 70/200 GII with 1x4 extender but ,for now, will wait to see what may come from Tamron (but the reviews I saw of their 0,5 macro feature for the 50-400 and 50-300 at wide end are not great so don't have much hope for - say - a 50-300 v2) and Sigma (but Sigma seems now only focused on "special" lenses (eg. super fast wide zoom) and mainly fast primes which I don't have any interest for.
gocolts wrote:
A potential trip to Maui during whale-watching season has this lens on my radar...I travel light as possible, but would need reach in good light. Plus I could throw in the 1.4TC if the situation was desperate and called for it. Price seems fair too, but I need to watch/read more reviews.
If you end up doing a whale watch on a RHIB, good luck.
We were thrown around so much I didn't get any useful shots, and when I did want to shoot something there was always someone in the way.
But then again, our captain was terrible to say the least.
Seemed he kept going to areas where there was nothing to see, except stuff out in the distance.
I don't think I'll ever beat the whale shots I got on an Alaskan cruise with their 2 level excursion boats with an open upper deck where you can move around.
aCuria wrote:
The 100-400 f/8 seems to have the same crappy close range performance as the Tamron 35-150.
The optical design of the 100-400 f/8 probably needs floating elements to improve close range performance, but omits the floating elements to save on costs.
I picked up an a7cII and 16-25/2.8 in partial trade (divesting myself of dedicated video gear) and already had the Tamron 35-100/2.8 I've been using on the 6700. It's a fairly sweet combo, and it has me thinking...
Sony 100-400/5.6-8 654g
Tamron 35-100/2.8 565g
Sony 16-25/2.8 409g
a7cII 514g (with battery and card)
Total: 2142g (4.72lbs)
You could get a ton of mileage out of a sub-five pound kit that isn't going to require a special bag and gets you good coverage from 16-400. Plus, you've got a single filter size to cover (though I am curious to see how thin a circ pol has to be to keep the G from vignetting) making packing easy. It's not the kit I'd want for wildlife-focused adventures, but it could be a great travel partner for more family-focused trips where a limit of 400 is more a bonus than problem.
