A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Teleconverters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 07, 05:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nick c
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default 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  
Old May 6th 07, 01:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 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  
Old May 6th 07, 03:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
cmyk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old May 6th 07, 01:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nick c
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default 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  
Old May 6th 07, 02:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default 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  
Old May 7th 07, 12:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default 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  
Old May 7th 07, 03:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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  
Old May 7th 07, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 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  
Old May 19th 07, 03:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teleconverters Dave Digital SLR Cameras 2 November 11th 06 11:27 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.