I've only had a chance to play with the 2x III TC with the 70-200 II very briefly (I've had it for over a week and yet thats all the free time I've managed to time, criminal I know) and so far its nice but I'm not blown away. In the 15 minutes of testing I did do it was very obvious to me that the 200 f/2 (i.e. a super telephoto prime) was getting much more from the new 2x TC III than the 70-200 was. Interestingly without TCs these lenses are very very close in IQ.
So I guess I can understand Andy's skepticism in a zoom being to deliver the goods with a 2x TC. That said, all of this is just speculation which should cleared up once the thing starts shipping.
100-400 with either 1.4 or 2.0 extenders is crap, agreed.
Artie Morris got pretty excited over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with the 2.0 extender, did a bunch of blog posts about it. Seems to have a definite usefullness. There aren't many lenses you can stick a 2.0X on and call good....
Well, this certainly solves a dilemma for me that I have been struggling with for a while now.
I have wanted to purchase the Nikon 200-400 f/4 mkII, but did not want to spend the money for a Nikon body on top of the lens purchase.
I am sure that I will be an early adopter of this lens as it has been on my wish list for quite some time.
The innovative design feature of a built in TC for this lens is most welcome, and I do not object to the extra cost. Early on, somebody suggested that the lens would still be f/4 with the TC engaged. I believe they are mistaken. I fully expect the lens to drop to f/5.6 when the TC is engaged.
Given that the lens is physically as large as the 500 f/4, I don't expect it to be a any lighter than that lens (probably heavier). Leaves me wondering if I will want to keep my 400 f/4 DO IS or not.
I'm certainly not recommending everyone run out and buy this combo, but if everything you're getting is crap, it may just be your technique...
This is the one and only example I could find in my Lightroom catalog shot with the 100-400L + 1.4x combo, and it's hand-held, wide open at 1/100 of a second at ISO 3200. The composition may be crap, but it seems plenty sharp enough in the zone of focus...
It makes a strong argument for the IS as well. 560mm at 1/100 of a second; I think you should be pleased. I've never tried the TC on my 100-400, but in good light I don't think that I would hesitate to give it a try.
Nice shot , Matt. My personal experience with the 1.4X TC on the 100-400mm has been very positive as well. However, I sold that lens already and now I am debatting whether to get the new 200-400mm lens or not. When I had my Nikon version of that 200-400 zoom, I didn't use it that much. To a certain degree, I am sure it had to do with my habit of using and relying my long end needs on my Canon gear back then. Now, that I sold all my Nikon AF gear, I may consider this new Canon super duper telezoom but I won't be an early adopter; that's for sure. I love the 500mm f/4.0 and chances are, I will just get the newer 500mm II instead of this zoom. Time will tell.
It depends on your requirements. I think a lot of photographers like me in the beginning accept less sharp pictures but after a while we got more picky and want more quality.
When people have seen pictures from a supertele like the 500mm then they know what sharpness is, not many have done this, then they do not know how sharp it can be.
I remember I friend of mine that showed a photo for me, he sad aint it really sharp? I answared no it aint it is soft. Sharp for on person can be unsharp for a another photographer.
Many years ago (film time) I was shooting a lot with Nikon 500mm + 2xtc and with 100 ISO film, I thought the pictures looked nice, but I do not today, I have higher expections levels. Why did I use 2xtc, probably because I was not so good to get close to birds that I am today.
With my former Canon 500mm f/4 I was always using the 1.4 xtc with a tripod. Sold it and bought the Canon 400mm 5.6 and used it handheld, tried the 1.4xtc but did not work so well. But I learned to get close to the birds with 400mm 5.6 handheld.
But now I have ordered the new Canon 500mm II and I will use it handheld and without teleconverter to maximize sharpness, contrast, color, AF speed etc.
A zoom like the 200-400mm would probably not give the same quality as the new 500mm, with sharpness, af speed, focallengt/weight etc
The 400mm 5.6 works very well but sometimes I find the pictures lacked the 500mm sharpness and little probably because I have to shoot at higher ISO settings, 5.6 versus 4.0 and less focallength.
I think they thought I posted it (?)
But seriously, though, if all these years I've been shooting with this combo amount to 'crap' results I'd be upset...lucky for me I know crap when I see it, and while some of my images are crap I won't blame the lens combo. And not to muddy the waters of the thread any further, but I feel compelled to post an example. I apologize in advance. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/5369310924_f5cc617921_b.jpg
Sorry, Cliff, I made the same mistake, too. Anyway, are you back on the Canon camp again or are you still shooting both? Or are you waiting to see how the Canon zoom performs at close to or at infinity before deciding?
wtlloyd wrote:
Artie Morris got pretty excited over the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with the 2.0 extender, did a bunch of blog posts about it. Seems to have a definite usefullness.
I have tried this combination myself, and all I can say is that the 100-400mm is better than the 70-200mm + 2x TC at f/8, and that tells me quite a bit. Teleconverters really shouldn't be something that one relies solely on, IMHO. For example if you need 500mm, get a 500mm lens, and not a 400mm lens plus a teleconverter. Now, if you need 400mm and occasionally need more, then a TC is a worthwhile situation.
Man, it's amazing how I struck a chord with the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC comments. Sorry that my opinion is different than others. Again, it is just my opinion that the combination is not worthwhile. My requirements are likely different than others, in that my living is earned partially by selling large prints (24x36 and larger) and I always prefer to have sharp images and not soft ones at those reproduced sizes.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Man, it's amazing how I struck a chord with the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC comments. Sorry that my opinion is different than others. Again, it is just my opinion that the combination is not worthwhile. My requirements are likely different than others, in that my living is earned partially by selling large prints (24x36 and larger) and I always prefer to have sharp images and not soft ones at those reproduced sizes.
I don't think you necessarily struck a chord, Andy... it was the subsequent statements by other posters that stirred the pot.
All I can say is that I also make large prints of my work (although certainly not the cat photo I posted... ) and I would not recommend the 100-400L plus extenders, but that's not to say the results are universally crap. However, the Nikon 200-400 VR lens, used at longer distances (with or without converters), is certainly worse...
Perhaps. I would need to do a comparison at all f/stops to see what I could eek out of the combo. Keep in mind my own experiences may not mimic your own opinions. Just because a TC *can* be used on the lens doesn't mean that Canon intended for it to be used. Just like the 45mm TSE can be used with a 1.4x, but I doubt Canon thought people would actually do it.
I routinely use the 300 f/2.8 with one or the other extender, and get superb results with the 1.4x (420mm f/4) and good to great with the 2x (600mm f/5.6). However, the versatility of this new lens is appealing, to say the least.
I began to wonder how this lens compared in size to the 300mm, so like others, I downloaded available photos to do a comparison. I resized them so that the lens mount was the same size. For those of you that are curious, you can see the comparison image here: http://michaelfurtman.com/images/Canon%20200-400%20vs%20Canon%20300.jpg
It appears the 200-400 is about 25% longer than the 300 f/2.8 (without TCs). Because the teleconverters are much smaller in diameter, and quite light in weight, my guess is that the 300 f/2.8 with either extender is going to weigh less than the 200-400.
I will be very interested to see if the 200-400, with the built in 1.4x extender, yields better results than the 300 with the 2x.
, Matt. My personal experience with the 1.4X TC on the 100-400mm has been very positive as well. However, I sold that lens already and now I am debatting whether to get the new 200-400mm lens or not. When I had my Nikon version of that 200-400 zoom, I didn't use it that much. To a certain degree, I am sure it had to do with my habit of using and relying my long end needs on my Canon gear back then. Now, that I sold all my Nikon AF gear, I may consider this new Canon super duper telezoom but I won't be an early adopter; that's for sure. I love the 500mm f/4.0 and chances are, I will just get the newer 500mm II instead of this zoom. Time will tell.
I think they thought I posted it (?)