Maybe we should start a car sale thread so we can all get one
I could stack a non reporting 2x plus a canon 1,4x on my mk iii, no prob on autofocus on my f4 lenses. One of the big reasons I am hanging on to my mkiii the 7 d hunted on most teleconverters.
The reason I ask, is that when I look at my regular 1.4 teleconverters, I am struck by how tiny the optics sems to be as compared to the total size of the teleconverter. Most of the size and weight seems to go into the making it a sturdy mounting device for heavy lenses and heavy cameras.
Now, when I see the pictures of this new lens, I am struck by how small the side compartment is. I am willing to make a wild guess that the additional weight from the built-in teleconverter is really small, in the 50-100g range.
Andy Biggs wrote:
I hate to say it, but even if I switch back to Canon from Nikon I will still need to purchase a 500mm f/4, because the 200-400mm isn't enough lens out on the Serengeti plains.
Even though it has the brilliant 1.4x TC built-in, giving you an instant 560 f/5.6?
This is a very interesting lens. I have an 800mm and the 70-200ii right now so I have a gap between 400mm and 800mm. (400mm - 2xiii on the 70-200ii tested and blown away by this combo). The flexibility of the 200-400 and filling the gap between 400-560 is appealing over eventually getting another 500mm somewhere down the road.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Even though it has the brilliant 1.4x TC built-in, giving you an instant 560 f/5.6?
Yeah, but it still isn't enough, unfortunately. A 500mm f/4 with a 1.4x can get you to 700mm. And the 500mm actually works well with a 2x, so 1,000mm. My Nikon 200-400mm doesn't work well with either their 1.7x or 2.x teleconverters, and I am not so confident that the new Canon will do very well either.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Yeah, but it still isn't enough, unfortunately. A 500mm f/4 with a 1.4x can get you to 700mm. And the 500mm actually works well with a 2x, so 1,000mm. My Nikon 200-400mm doesn't work well with either their 1.7x or 2.x teleconverters, and I am not so confident that the new Canon will do very well either.
Have you seen the lenses Canon has been making lately? And you don't think this lens is going to do well
It's not that I don't think Canon lenses are great, but it has more to do with knowing that a zoom lens with a teleconverter is never going to be as good as a prime lens with the same teleconverter. It is just an optical fact of life. So my expectations are in check with the new 200-400mm, and I have my doubts whether it will work to my satisfaction with a 2x teleconverter. I hope I am wrong!
Andy Biggs wrote:
It's not that I don't think Canon lenses are great, but it has more to do with knowing that a zoom lens with a teleconverter is never going to be as good as a prime lens with the same teleconverter. It is just an optical fact of life.
My experience with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 300 2.8 IS suggests otherwise.
alundeb wrote:
My experience with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 300 2.8 IS suggests otherwise.
Those are 2 exceptions, for sure. The 300mm f/2.8 is the sharpest lens Canon makes, and is a prime lens not a zoom. We are talking about zoom lenses, and the 70-200mm with a teleconverter is a very very unique scenario. First of all, the TC doesn't buy you much from a focal length standpoint (280mm), and is the only zoom lens in the lineup that Canon officially says can be used with a TC (until now with the 200-400mm).
Andy Biggs wrote:
Those are 2 exceptions, for sure. The 300mm f/2.8 is the sharpest lens Canon makes, and is a prime lens not a zoom. We are talking about zoom lenses, and the 70-200mm with a teleconverter is a very very unique scenario. First of all, the TC doesn't buy you much from a focal length standpoint (280mm), and is the only zoom lens in the lineup that Canon officially says can be used with a TC (until now with the 200-400mm).
What I'm saying is that the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2X TC is as sharp as the 300 2.8 IS with the same TC.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Those are 2 exceptions, for sure. The 300mm f/2.8 is the sharpest lens Canon makes, and is a prime lens not a zoom. We are talking about zoom lenses, and the 70-200mm with a teleconverter is a very very unique scenario. First of all, the TC doesn't buy you much from a focal length standpoint (280mm), and is the only zoom lens in the lineup that Canon officially says can be used with a TC (until now with the 200-400mm).
Actually, all five versions of the 70-200L, as well as the 100-400L IS, can be used with extenders according to Canon...
Technically the 100-400mm can, but again is SUCKS and isn't worth it. It is a hack. Just my $.02 and please flame me if you think I am the village idiot, but it is my opinion, based on experience.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Technically the 100-400mm can, but again is SUCKS and isn't worth it. It is a hack. Just my $.02 and please flame me if you think I am the village idiot, but it is my opinion, based on experience.
No flames from me
Your experience with that lens is not in contradiction with mine. What you see as an exception with the 70-200 II, we see as a trend. The 70-200 4 IS was already very good with a 1.4 TC. It is reasonable to expect that the 200-400 will work as well as the 70-200 II.
I think the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS will work quite well with a 1.4x, but my argument is that the quality will trail off if used with a 2.x teleconverter. We shall see, and I would love to be wrong, that's for sure. I think it would be nice to see Canon come out with a 1.7x TC, just as a side note.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Technically the 100-400mm can, but again is SUCKS and isn't worth it. It is a hack. Just my $.02 and please flame me if you think I am the village idiot, but it is my opinion, based on experience.
No flame, but my 100-400 works fine with a 1.4X Tamron TC. It is slow to AF, but what do you expect with a f8 lens?
Andy Biggs wrote:
In my own experience, the optical quality of that combination isn't good at all
That mirrors my experience as well. That said, I think different people have different definitions of what acceptable IQ is and what may be the case here is just a difference in what each person considers acceptable IQ...
