schristie11 wrote:
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:
While we are at the TDP comparison, we can also learn a couple more things:
Stopping down just 1/3 stops makes it a closer call.
There are copy variations. You will not want to get something like the copy "2" of the 70-200 2.8 IS II tested by TDP when you buy a new lens.
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.
Maybe "stunt bird" photography has a lot in common with sports photography and less with wildlife photography?
Anyway, It takes a good eye and more than luck to match an interesting background with a bird in flight, no matter if this was done by timing or selection from a thousand photos.
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.
Very interesting. I was not aware of that either. I assumed that the 1200/5.6 was developed in the early 90s for EF. Maybe the FD ones were prototypes. One can only image what a 2010-designed 1200/5.6 IS could do. It would probably cost close to 200 grand, but the weight savings over the old EF L would be worth it.
alundeb wrote: Maybe "stunt bird" photography has a lot in common with sports photography and less with wildlife photography?Anyway, It takes a good eye and more than luck to match an interesting background with a bird in flight, no matter if this was done by timing or selection from a thousand photos.
That is a clever thought, Anders.
Except I shoot those kinds of shots in a "single shot" mode. High frame rate of 8 or 10 FPS is really not needed much of the time, and the camera high speed prattle may impair concentration which is an important consideration.
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.
Hi Andy. I read here and on your blog that you regard the Nikkor 200-400 as an essential tool for your safari shooting, and I gather that you use FX bodies primarily.
The last time I was in Africa was way back in 2003, on a trip with Art Wolfe. I was using 10D bodies then, and had a 70-200L IS along with a 300 2.8L IS with 1.4x and 2x TCs (Art was still shooting film on his 1n RS.) Article here: http://www.vothphoto.com/recent/africa2003/africa2003_main.htm
After seeing your endorsement of this lens, I did a scan through my shots from that trip and found that the vast majority of my captures with the long lens were with the 300+1.4x combination; a comparatively fewer number were with the bare 300. Keeping in mind this was on APS-C, I was favoring use of an effective 670mm lens.
It's possible that I was focused on making too many portraits and not enough animals in their habitat (a common case probably for people who don't travel there frequently), but still it was interesting to me to see this.
Do you find the 200-400 to be long enough on your Africa shoots? Do you supplement the zoom with teleconverters, or with a D300 body when you need more reach? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how this range works out for you given your experience there.
I doubt it ... at least not for the rest of this year. But it would be interesting to see what happens. If you can have a 200-400 zoom with an IQ that is, say 90% of the 500/4 ... is about the size and weight of the 500 ... and cost approx $1,000 more, which would you rather have? It may be a tough decision if you already have the 500 but for someone who doesn't, he or she would probably lean towards the 200-400L. At least that's how I feel. If anything, I think it will affect the sales of the 500 II more than the 500 I.
Netgarden wrote:
And I can't help but wonder if it will knock down the 500f4 orders.!
The internal TC totally turns me off. Not that I'm in the market for this lens anyway... but it's like this monstrous addition. A TC is something I use rarely and it makes more sense as an additional accessory so that it's not always hanging around inside my 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.
Thank you for the link. It solves the FD mystery but not the mysterious bulge. Is it a build-in extender? Is it something else? If so, what?
"Two crystal fluorite lens elements (3rd & 6th) (the ones that take a year to grow) are intended to eliminate the secondary spectrum...
...and has a MFD (Minimum Focus Distance) is 45.9' (14.0m)."
walter23 wrote:
The internal TC totally turns me off. Not that I'm in the market for this lens anyway... but it's like this monstrous addition. A TC is something I use rarely and it makes more sense as an additional accessory so that it's not always hanging around inside my lens.
Ironically I think that is the most innovative feature. If it works better optically than an external TC and since it reduces the switching time/effort to practically nothing, we may see more of the same. OTOH, if there are frequent complaints of mechancial problems or misalignment it may fall out of favor. I'm confident there will be zero-day user comparison tests of the 1.4x internal vs. Tamron/Kenko external TCs.
EB-1 wrote:
Ironically I think that is the most innovative feature. If it works better optically than an external TC and since it reduces the switching time/effort to practically nothing, we may see more of the same. OTOH, if there are frequent complaints of mechancial problems or misalignment it may fall out of favor. I'm confident there will be zero-day user comparison tests of the 1.4x internal vs. Tamron/Kenko external TCs.
EBH
I could see this if it was new unproven technology, however, Canon have been making lenses with built in extenders for 20 years or so, they are widely used in the film industry, and cost multiples of what even this lens will retail for, so I would guess if there were reliability problems to be found, they would have been by now.
Indeed, my thoughts were more along the 'why not sooner' than 'will it work'.
I think the wildlife pros will love the lens, but I expect the real target is London 2012
Yakim Peled wrote:
Thank you for the link. It solves the FD mystery but not the mysterious bulge. Is it a build-in extender? Is it something else? If so, what?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
was the FD 1200 fully MF?
that bulge looks something like the bulge on the side of the AF FD lens of 1981 vintage. I wonder if the 1200 was an experiment with some form of either AF drive or assisted power focus?
Just a thought.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
was the FD 1200 fully MF?
that bulge looks something like the bulge on the side of the AF FD lens of 1981 vintage. I wonder if the 1200 was an experiment with some form of either AF drive or assisted power focus?
Just a thought.
Mark Bishop wrote:
I could see this if it was new unproven technology, however, Canon have been making lenses with built in extenders for 20 years or so, they are widely used in the film industry, and cost multiples of what even this lens will retail for, so I would guess if there were reliability problems to be found, they would have been by now.
Indeed, my thoughts were more along the 'why not sooner' than 'will it work'.
I don't think the technology is unproven, but Canon's execution of it in the consumer lenses is.
May be a turn off for a few people but I think most people welcome it as (a) you may miss a shot if you have to dig into your backpack to look for your extender and/or to put it on, and (b) you don't have to readjust the balance on your gimbal head, as someone else had mentioned earlier.
walter23 wrote:
The internal TC totally turns me off. Not that I'm in the market for this lens anyway... but it's like this monstrous addition. A TC is something I use rarely and it makes more sense as an additional accessory so that it's not always hanging around inside my lens.
bobbytan wrote:
If you can have a 200-400 zoom with an IQ that is, say 90% of the 500/4 ...
This may be the case, but we may be surprised. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II has about 110% of the IQ of the 100 f/2 and the 200 2.8L II.
I don't expect the zoom to fully match the 400L II, but I would not be surprised if it was hard to see a practical difference between these lenses, at least with current sensors.
Certainly compared to the other 400mm options in Canon's linup, including the 300+1.4 combinations, the potential exists for the zoom to be as good as or better than most, if Canon executes as well as they have done with the 70-200 II.
This is a sign that the 200-400 is probably just as good as the 70-200 II which we all know now that it's prime-lens quality.
schristie11 wrote:
Wow..
"Two crystal fluorite lens elements (3rd & 6th) (the ones that take a year to grow) are intended to eliminate the secondary spectrum...
...and has a MFD (Minimum Focus Distance) is 45.9' (14.0m)."
), which brings us full circle, I'm going to have to find me a suga-mama to acquire this lens...