thedigitalbean wrote:
Matt, was that taken with the lens wide open?
IIRC it was shot at f/9 (I can't check the EXIF using FF and I don't have the original file on my laptop)--this is where I usually use it because I'm normally pretty close to my subjects and at f/8, of course, its a bit less sharp. While it's not the best lens combo out there it definitely performs decently well, especially if you cannot afford higher end glass.
[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.
AGeoJO wrote:
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?
Joshua
I'm in both camps at the moment... I would like to move back to Canon, but the level of service available from Canon Canada scares me... that, and the market is so flooded with people dumping Nikon gear right now, it's tough to sell anything.
mfurtman wrote:
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.
"Quite light"
My 1.4x weighs about half a pound. Almost as much as a 50/1.4.
Good point Andy Biggs, we all wonder about the quality being a zoom. Well the 100-400 has outlasted most lenses in popularity, so I am guessing this one will too, except for the price.
I can't see them putting out a 100-400 to compete with it though, right now. On second thought, maybe the idea of the internal teleconverter came about to separate the 200-400 from the next 100-400. But it's alot of money to have sub par sharpness, you are right! They had trouble selling the 400 DO prime because it was not as sharp as the 500 and 400 2.8, and very expensive. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
I wonder what the hood looks like. Hope it's smaller.
MVers, thats a quality shot. Certainly sharp for a teleconverter. I alwyas thought the 100-400 had a nice contrasty edge that helps to make images sharper. But that is a close up. All the lenses do well with teleconverters close up. When you have tons of pixels you get away with teleconverters. But at a distance like birding, shooting a bird a tad too far away, and then adding a teleconverter to bring it in closer sometimes just doesn't work, still too far for enough detail. The image isn't close enough. This gets better with primes, but you really can't compare teleconverters with posed close ups.
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. 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!
Yeah, but they haven't made a supertele zoom before. I'd being waiting to see the results before worrying about them.
How would one even get to 2x on the 200-400? Would you use a Tamron/Kenko 2x on the back without the internal TC or double up with an internal and external 1.4x (probably too many elements overall for best contrast). I would assume that 2x is not feasible with good IQ in any case.
M Vers wrote:
I agree with Cliff in regards to the poster that called the combo "crap".
It may be just acceptable under some circumstances such as the best case you have shown. In low-contrast light the reduced MTF performance is quite obvious as are the magnified optical aberrations.
I didn't know that, Linda ... that closer subjects work better with TCs. I never did even once tried to use my 100-400L with a TC because of the AF problem. And I am very surprised to hear (not from you) that you can get sharper images with the 100-400L with a TC than you can with the 70-200L II. I find that really hard to believe. Like with everything else, there are some exceptions. I know the 70-200L II performs incredibly well with a 1.4x TC ... doesn't matter if it's version I, II or III.
Netgarden wrote:
Good point Andy Biggs, we all wonder about the quality being a zoom. Well the 100-400 has outlasted most lenses in popularity, so I am guessing this one will too, except for the price.
I can't see them putting out a 100-400 to compete with it though, right now. On second thought, maybe the idea of the internal teleconverter came about to separate the 200-400 from the next 100-400. But it's alot of money to have sub par sharpness, you are right! They had trouble selling the 400 DO prime because it was not as sharp as the 500 and 400 2.8, and very expensive. I don't think they will make that mistake again.
I wonder what the hood looks like. Hope it's smaller.
MVers, thats a quality shot. Certainly sharp for a teleconverter. I alwyas thought the 100-400 had a nice contrasty edge that helps to make images sharper. But that is a close up. All the lenses do well with teleconverters close up. When you have tons of pixels you get away with teleconverters. But at a distance like birding, shooting a bird a tad too far away, and then adding a teleconverter to bring it in closer sometimes just doesn't work, still too far for enough detail. The image isn't close enough. This gets better with primes, but you really can't compare teleconverters with posed close ups....Show more →
EB-1 wrote:
It may be just acceptable under some circumstances such as the best case you have shown. In low-contrast light the reduced MTF performance is quite obvious as are the magnified optical aberrations.
EBH
I also posted another example on the previous page using the combination on an overcast day...
RamónT wrote:
The integrated focal length extender is not a Canon new idea: here two Canon FD 1200mm f5.6 in action (1984 Summer Olympics, Los Angeles, I think):
That pic intrigues me. I looked at mir and could not find any FD 1200/5.6 lens. I also couldn't find any other lens with build-in extender. Can you please shed some light on this lens?
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.
In my experience, 100-400 + 1.4xTC is not bad with stationary, close and well lit targets......IS helps too for handheld shots.
However, if something moves more-or-less briskly, even naked 100-400 AF is marginal, let alone when one has a TC on it. I tried it a few times on BIF, and it is an exercise in frustration.....I'd rather shoot BIF with 85L.
I somehow managed to get the shot below because I guess the combo was prefocused and the duck flew by without much change in the focusing distance. Probably some luck too.
(Mind you, even on a fast AF drive lens such as 400 f/5.6, TCs ruin it for action photography).
Yakim Peled wrote:
That pic intrigues me. I looked at mir and could not find any FD 1200/5.6 lens. I also couldn't find any other lens with build-in extender. Can you please shed some light on this lens?
According to him only a handful of these were made in FD mount specifically for the 1984 summer Olympics and were thereafter returned to Japan and converted to EF mount.
Tom_W wrote:
you have some type of psychic powers over our flying friends.
Or 8fps and dozens upon dozens of people friendly birds...
Lets be serious here, if you went to a local lake, pond or puddle where birds are frequently fed by humans nearly anyone can obtain shots of incoming and outgoing birds with practically any lens, especially if you have decent timing. Toss in ~8fps and you'll come away with tons of shots.
bobbytan wrote:
I didn't know that, Linda ... that closer subjects work better with TCs. I never did even once tried to use my 100-400L with a TC because of the AF problem. And I am very surprised to hear (not from you) that you can get sharper images with the 100-400L with a TC than you can with the 70-200L II. I find that really hard to believe. Like with everything else, there are some exceptions. I know the 70-200L II performs incredibly well with a 1.4x TC ... doesn't matter if it's version I, II or III.
bobby,
I think you misunderstood or maybe its me.
When zoomed out at 400mm - The 70-200 MK II + 2x TC is not quite as good as the native (no TC) 100-400.
The difference is not huge to some, but it is not great to others.
Opinions vary just like lens/body samples can.
Here is a credible chart with multiple samples of these two combos compared:
gt3rs wrote:
These tests tend to confirm your finding that the 100-400 is sharper: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
Anyway I'm quite impressed by the 70-200 + 2x.
ronnie [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.
I think that PetKal summarized "experience and luck" and cooperation from birds.
So yea, your essentially right that with enough chances and practice you will get good photos.
This seems a universal truth though.
Tom_W wrote:
you have some type of psychic powers over our flying friends.
M Vers wrote:
Or 8fps and dozens upon dozens of people friendly birds...
Lets be serious here, if you went to a local lake, pond or puddle where birds are frequently fed by humans nearly anyone can obtain shots of incoming and outgoing birds with practically any lens, especially if you have decent timing. Toss in ~8fps and you'll come away with tons of shots.
PetKal wrote:
Thank you, Tommy, but it is really easy: stunt birds + luck + years of practice
