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 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 II.
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.
Feb 12, 2011 at 09:25 AM
Previous versions of bobbytan's message #9309251 « Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS announced »
