nmerc_photos wrote:
I agree, the more I learn about the lens the more I see the appeal.
But in my world, a static 300 w/ 1.4x is far more valuable than a 100-300 without a TC. especially when the rumored price was more in line with expectations between $5k - $7k
It's surprising to me that these manufacturers don't put a 1.4x TC in every single prime above $5K. I don't understand the downfall.
It's the easiest way to add flexibility to a lens, and anyone I've ever talked to would happily pay the premium for it
the TC built in is less about swapping from F2.8 to F4 to F2.8 as it is switching from close reach to far reach as subjects approach you. I guess a zoom minimizes that that issue but it'll certainly still happen
also in most cases, I (and others) just disregard the 2x since it leads to a noticeable degradation in quality. so this lens wouldn't really ever fit the bill of a 200-600 f5.6 in my mind. I doubt it would compare to the existing Sony $1500 lens or the rumored Nikon one coming out.
IMO it really depends on the situations you most often experience. A TC implies that the lens often isn't long enough and you're reach limited. In this case a prime with internal TC would make sense. Canon went with the zoom design to address the opposite for situations where 300 (or 420 with 1.4x TC) is just right, but the photographer frequently also requires a wider field of view for closer action. This is pretty much exactly the scenario with most sports. The field of play is clearly defined and unless restricted to an assigned spot (which can happen at larger events), the photographer is usually able to minimize reach limited situations by changing position. What can't be controlled easily is how quickly action approaches the photographer that would make a prime lens too long.
Apr 20, 2023 at 12:36 PM
Previous versions of rscheffler's message #16223303 « An RF 100-300 2.8 lens... »
