If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
John Sheehy wrote: I don't even like the AF of the 100-400 without a TC; I can't imagine relying on it *with* a TC. Some additional notes: The 100-400 has no sealed rear end, so as you zoom the lens, it pumps air into and out of the lens and camera, and along with it, dust. I have a 100-400, and do not like it with digital because of the dust factor. Next, some copies of the 100-400 are not sharp. Mine is not and produces soft images at 400. This has been noted by pro bird photographer Art Morris in his newsletters too. So if you want on, be sure to test the specific lens you will buy. If buying a new lens for wildlife, I would recommend the 300 f/4 L IS or 400 f/5.6 L (no IS) over the 100-400. Zoom is nice, but not at the expense of performance, including AF speed, and sharpness. I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. Snip |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
nick c wrote in news:463c0b8b$0$4667
: I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. I have never seen a sample from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC that looked anywhere as sharp as a good 100-400 @ 400. TCs are good for getting a little more subject detail out of a given lens; it is not a substitute for lenses that do the same thing without TCs. -- John P Sheehy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
"John Sheehy" wrote in message ...
nick c wrote in news:463c0b8b$0$4667 : I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. I have never seen a sample from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC that looked anywhere as sharp as a good 100-400 @ 400. TCs are good for getting a little more subject detail out of a given lens; it is not a substitute for lenses that do the same thing without TCs. -- John P Sheehy Oh, but in many ways they are a substitute - that's why they exist. For those of us that lack the budget to buy a set of lenses with the reach we want for any situation, or to hire a porter to carry them for us, a TC is a good substitute. Sure they're a compromise but, hey, that's life. If I have to choose between getting a shot with insufficient detail due to a lack of magnification at, say 500mm, or a shot that's got the extra detail at 700mm but is slightly softer than I'd get with a lens I don't have that costs 6-8 times as much, or more, and weighs 3-4 times as much, or more, I know which I'd choose. Cheers -- cmyk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
John Sheehy wrote:
nick c wrote in news:463c0b8b$0$4667 : I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. I have never seen a sample from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC that looked anywhere as sharp as a good 100-400 @ 400. Mating the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the Canon EF 2x TC will produce results equal to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens @400. I used to use the 100-400 lens, which I ended up getting rid of in favor of having the versatility of using the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the EF 2x TC. Using any other brand 2x TC will not do as well; not even close. The Canon 100-400 is indeed a good lens (I may even say, an exceptional lens), however, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the Canon EF 2x TC, (which is not a cheap item), does surprisingly well too. One may easily say they were made for each other. If I had to decide between having Canon's 100-400 (push-pull) f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens or Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens and Canon's EF 2x TC in my lens kit, I'll take the versatility and quality of both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS & EF 2x TC any time. I've been there and done that. g TCs are good for getting a little more subject detail out of a given lens; it is not a substitute for lenses that do the same thing without TCs. There was a time I would have agreed with you, without doubt. The setup I now use causes me to think that may be an assumption rather than fact. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
nick c wrote:
John Sheehy wrote: nick c wrote in news:463c0b8b$0$4667 : I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. I have never seen a sample from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC that looked anywhere as sharp as a good 100-400 @ 400. Mating the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the Canon EF 2x TC will produce results equal to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens @400. I used to use the 100-400 lens, which I ended up getting rid of in favor of having the versatility of using the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the EF 2x TC. Using any other brand 2x TC will not do as well; not even close. The Canon 100-400 is indeed a good lens (I may even say, an exceptional lens), however, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the Canon EF 2x TC, (which is not a cheap item), does surprisingly well too. One may easily say they were made for each other. If I had to decide between having Canon's 100-400 (push-pull) f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens or Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens and Canon's EF 2x TC in my lens kit, I'll take the versatility and quality of both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS & EF 2x TC any time. I've been there and done that. g TCs are good for getting a little more subject detail out of a given lens; it is not a substitute for lenses that do the same thing without TCs. There was a time I would have agreed with you, without doubt. The setup I now use causes me to think that may be an assumption rather than fact. The OP was wondering about (getting) a 100-400 + TC. There is on the net (I think dpreview.com) where a 70-200+2x TC is compared to a 100-400 and while the 70-200 is one of Canon's best zooms, it is not as sharp with a 2x TC as the 100-400 at 400. But the 100-400 is not as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. Part of the telephoto reach is sharp lens. I have a 100-400 and mine is not the best performer in its class (the 100-400 is one lens that you must test before buying to see if it is a better performer), but even with the best in its class, the 100-400 is not as sharp as Canon's fixed focal length lenses, like the 300 f/4 L IS, or 400 f/5.6 L (no IS), which are also cheaper. So in a purchase decision for a telephoto in the 400 mm range, I would rank a 700-200 + 2x TC lowest on the list (but is a great mid-range telephoto). If you need fastest autofocusing, the 400 f/5.6 L is reportedly (by Art Morris, pro bird photographer) Canon's fastest AF telephoto lens. If you want telephotos with IS, the 300 mm f/4 L IS is a great starter lens, and with a 1.4x TC gives you 420 mm at f/5.6. The 300 f/4 L IS is about $1100. Getting above 400 mm with sharpness and speed costs lots of money. So next up would be a 300 mm f/2.8 L IS (about $3700). Then 500 f/4 L IS, 600 f/4 L IS, 400 f/2.8 L IS. Roger |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
Here is the web url for a review of just this question. I found it most
enlightening. http://luminous-landscape.com/review.../400v400.shtml regards Don from Down Under "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in message ... nick c wrote: John Sheehy wrote: nick c wrote in news:463c0b8b$0$4667 : I would like to add: Canons 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens coupled to Canons 2x telextender attached to a 30D (or 20D) gives excellent results at F5.6 at an equivalent 640mm; keeping the use of Modes 1 and 2 IS. This setup is what I use for wildlife photos; still retaining the basic 70-200 for conventional use. I have never seen a sample from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 2x TC that looked anywhere as sharp as a good 100-400 @ 400. Mating the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the Canon EF 2x TC will produce results equal to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens @400. I used to use the 100-400 lens, which I ended up getting rid of in favor of having the versatility of using the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the EF 2x TC. Using any other brand 2x TC will not do as well; not even close. The Canon 100-400 is indeed a good lens (I may even say, an exceptional lens), however, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the Canon EF 2x TC, (which is not a cheap item), does surprisingly well too. One may easily say they were made for each other. If I had to decide between having Canon's 100-400 (push-pull) f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens or Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens and Canon's EF 2x TC in my lens kit, I'll take the versatility and quality of both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS & EF 2x TC any time. I've been there and done that. g TCs are good for getting a little more subject detail out of a given lens; it is not a substitute for lenses that do the same thing without TCs. There was a time I would have agreed with you, without doubt. The setup I now use causes me to think that may be an assumption rather than fact. The OP was wondering about (getting) a 100-400 + TC. There is on the net (I think dpreview.com) where a 70-200+2x TC is compared to a 100-400 and while the 70-200 is one of Canon's best zooms, it is not as sharp with a 2x TC as the 100-400 at 400. But the 100-400 is not as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. Part of the telephoto reach is sharp lens. I have a 100-400 and mine is not the best performer in its class (the 100-400 is one lens that you must test before buying to see if it is a better performer), but even with the best in its class, the 100-400 is not as sharp as Canon's fixed focal length lenses, like the 300 f/4 L IS, or 400 f/5.6 L (no IS), which are also cheaper. So in a purchase decision for a telephoto in the 400 mm range, I would rank a 700-200 + 2x TC lowest on the list (but is a great mid-range telephoto). If you need fastest autofocusing, the 400 f/5.6 L is reportedly (by Art Morris, pro bird photographer) Canon's fastest AF telephoto lens. If you want telephotos with IS, the 300 mm f/4 L IS is a great starter lens, and with a 1.4x TC gives you 420 mm at f/5.6. The 300 f/4 L IS is about $1100. Getting above 400 mm with sharpness and speed costs lots of money. So next up would be a 300 mm f/2.8 L IS (about $3700). Then 500 f/4 L IS, 600 f/4 L IS, 400 f/2.8 L IS. Roger |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
John Sheehy wrote:
The AF switch has been off for a long time on my 100-400. Learn to focus manually, IMO. There are too many wrong things for AF to focus in in telephoto work, unless you are shooting things that are isolated from the background. There is nothing more frustrating than AF that was just spot-on hunting the wrong way or focusing on the wrong thing while your photo-op ends. You have to learn how to use the auto-focus modes of you camera and to specify which points get priority. Still, for tripod work, I nearly always switch to manual focus on my D200. My D70 was more problematic as the viewfinder was too small. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in
: You have to learn how to use the auto-focus modes of you camera and to specify which points get priority. I only have the center point enabled. When I use AF, I recompose after focusing. -- John P Sheehy |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Teleconverters
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
: But the 100-400 is not as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. Part of the telephoto reach is sharp lens. Sharpness is a more complex subject than "lens X is sharper than lens Y", IMO. My copy of the 100-400 is extremely sharp, based on comparisons to other people's 100% crops of teleconverters used with other lenses (including primes), but only in certain conditions. At 400mm (the only FL at which I have shot substantially), the lens is sharpest at close focusing distances (no, I am not fooled by the higher subject detail of higher magnification; I am talking about real MTF, such as transition distances of black/white edges at 100% pixel view). If you are shooting the moon, for instance, it is an average performer. If you are shooting a warbler 10 feet from the lens, however, it can be very sharp in the plane of focus, maintaining pixel-level detail even with multiple stacked TCs. The problem then is what happens to the bokeh behind the subject; if you are not stopped down at least a little (2/3 to 1 stop) then an OOF point of light becomes a disk that is generally uniform in brightness, but slightly brighter at the edges. With certain background textures, this can become a bit ugly, not resembling anything in natural vision. It also, IMO, reduces the effective DOF in the depths behind the subject. The common notion of DOF being determined by distance, FL, and f- stop (or simply by magnification) is over-simplified and ignores the variations in distribution of an OOF point of light. The bokeh deteriorates faster when you add TCs; one 1.4x doesn't make it much worse, but adding anything else puts it over the line. -- John P Sheehy |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Teleconverters | Dave | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | November 11th 06 10:27 AM |
teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 1st 06 03:33 PM |
Teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | September 1st 06 01:47 PM |
Teleconverters | Paul J Gans | Digital Photography | 3 | May 16th 06 03:39 PM |
Teleconverters | Mister_K | Photographing Nature | 1 | May 16th 04 04:23 AM |