Looks to be a versatile, low profile, and cost effective option. Coupled with an XTi, alot of bang for the buck too...
Printable View
Looks to be a versatile, low profile, and cost effective option. Coupled with an XTi, alot of bang for the buck too...
Hey Steve.
I don't know from personal experience, but check out the post I made a few days ago. it's right here on the main page about using an extender.
From what I understand if you go 2x the auto focus gets quite a bit slower, and you get a good amount of C.A. in your pictures. Like I said I don't know from experience, but check out that post. There are a few good comments.
I just tried out the 70-200mm 2.8 lens today and wow. It's amazing. I'm going to be getting that with a 1.4x, but eventually I'll be getting the 100-400mm lens. I'm going with the 1.4x because I'll be able to use it on the 100-400, without rendering the aperture completely useless. 2 stops takes a 5.6 way down.
Either way, you'll still get good pictures with the 2x, from what I've been understanding, just don't expect them to look as sharp or clean as what that lens is used to putting out.....but hey, if your options are A: Get this 2x to get to 400mm or B: Don't get it and don't get a 400mm lens, then by all means I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.
What harm can it do? You can take it off.
Hope that helped a little! Good luck!
John
I think that's a bad idea. The 200 f/2.8 with 2X TC is $1,000, 400mm f/5.6, 8 inches long, and mediocre image quality.
The 400mm f/5.6 is only $150 more, 2 inches longer, and image quality that is so much better it's not even funny. It makes the 200+2X combo look like a Fisher Price toy lens. As new, higher resolution bodies keep coming out, the disparity will only grow as the superior resolution of the 400mm f/5.6 gets utilized more and more.
If the white paint is a problem, then I would wonder if a black lens cover, tape, or paint would be a sufficient remedy.
While I agree with Dan about the quality of the 2x extender, if it comes down to you having more focal length with it, I'd still go for it KNOWING ahead of time that your quality is going to be degraded quite a bit. If you already have the 70-200 lens and can't afford a 100-400 just yet, I'd still probably go for it.
Maybe even tone it down to a 1.4, that way you're quality won't be quite so degraded.
Do you already have the 70-200?
LS, I don't have any L lenses. But does the 200mm f2.8L have a better image quality than the 100-400? And if so, how bad would be the degradation compared to the 100-400? I'll have to take another look at Brian's info.
But yeah Dan, the 400mm f5.6L is a mighty fine value. It's just that the two for one idea looks tempting to me. And covered or not, that 400 is BIG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg
It's only 2 inches longer than the 200 f/2.8 and 2X.
Quite true...
Big is relative...
a 400mm f/5.6m compared to a 400mm f/2.8, is downright casual [:)]
Oh I'm sorry Steve, I was thinking you had one, and was wondering if you should get the 2x or not.
If you want the focal length, get the 100-400mm. If you want the sharpness and speed, get the 70-200mm. The extender just won't get you the same quality shots the stand alone lens will.
It all depends on what you are doing. I'll tell you this, the 200mm auto focuses LIGHTNING fast! It blew me away how fast and accurately the lens focused. The 400mm doesn't focus as quick, but it's still fast and accurate.
So, if you need the focal length, you should really get the 400mm. It has a nice clean, sharp picture and good IS. You'll be way happier. The IS works well. Granted it was a sunny day today, I hand held 400mm no problems at all. So, for what the lens is made for (brighter light) it works absolutely beautifully.
The 200mm, I took some indoor shots, and they came out beautifully. I should post some up here when I get a chance. Another great thing about the 200 is the bokeh. It's terrific! Absolutely gorgeous background blur. This would be a prime lens to do candids or portraits.
So, in the end, it all depends on what kind of photography you want to do. To get the best image quality you have to get one or the other without the extender. Like I've heard, when it comes to buying camera equipment you only want to cry once....and that's when you buy it, not over and over when you don't get the quality shots you're looking for.
Hope I helped. Post any more questions my friend!
John
PS: I will get an image from each lens put up by tomorrow on here for you, so you can see what I'm talking about.
Oh and yes, they are both pretty large and heavy. Obviously nothing compared to the fixed 400mm and up lenses, but compared to what you're probably used to. You're left arm will surley get stronger. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneSierra
The 400 fixed is lighter than the two zooms under discussion. Here are the weights of each lens in pounds:
1.7: 200mm f/2.8
2.3: 200mm f/2.8 with 2X TC
2.8: 400mm f/5.6
3.0: 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS
3.2: 70-200 f/2.8 IS
3.8: 70-200 f/2.8 IS with 2X TC
I don't want to be a broken record, but the 400mm f/5.6 is really a great deal if you want the absolute highest quality: it can match the $6,000 super telephotos, which are in a totally different class than the $1,500 zooms, despite the fact that it's cheaper.
Well, depends on which lens you're looking at. I wouldn't ever dream of getting a fixed 400mm 5.6 when you can have a 100-400 with the same aperture size.
So, I was refering to the 400mm f/2.8. That baby is 11lbs! He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
I don't know if I'm 2nding or 3rding or what...ing..
but I way agree...
best off getting the naked lens. If you want a teleconverter, that's fine, but a 70-200 with even a 1.4x teleconverter, let alone 2.0x teleconverter, is a highly compromised animal. The first time I tried a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I said "Wow, this is nice." The first time I popped in a 1.4x teleconverter, I said, "Wow, autofocus sucks" When I looked at the images wth the 1.4x, I said, "Well, it's still a lot cheaper than getting the 100-400 zoom." I tried a 2x converter with the 70-200, at a concert and a couple pool parties. The viewfinder was dim, and the autofocus excruciating, but the reach was great. Saw the pictures, and never putthe teleconverters on the 70-200 again got a 400mm f/5.6L. I keep the teleconverters around for the 400mm prime in situations where I don't need autofocus, and I simply have no other option for longer focal lengths, and sometimes for Macro stuff, but for all but a few days out of the year, they sit on the shelf.
I'm not saying that they're not a cost effective way to change focal length, but between a teleconverter and a simple crop, unless the teleconverter/lens combination is exceptiionally acceptable, I think we're often better served by just cropping. If you were to assign a lens a resolution value in the same way that we consider sensor resolution in megapixels, in that analogy, a 2x teleconverter will give you 1/4 of the real optical information, and then add it's own distortion on top of that. Now, if you've got phenomenally more detail than the camera body can capture to begin with, then maybe that works out, but my experience with the 70-200 confirms that Bryan has a sometimesirritating habit about being right.... I know somebody will be happy with the combination, and to be fair, it does what it's supposed to do. You can still get a great picture with a teleconverter, but it's because you got a great picture.
I really love my 70-200. It's the second to last lens i'd give up, right before the 24-105, but only because I'm willing to sacrifice reach for speed and lower light performance, if required, for what I like. The 100-400 isn't quite the same performer as the 400 f/5.6 prime at 400mm, but then again, if you have a 24-105 combined with a 100-400, you've got pretty darn good performance over a really wide range in only a couple of lenses. Compliment that with a 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm Macro for a bit more, and you're really well rounded.
I'm bleeding into a different thread, arent' I [:)]
Thanks everyone for the great advice. I believe I might be a fixed focal length kind of guy. Lighter, sometimes cheaper. I already have the 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm f2.8 Macro. I've been using an OLD 75-300mm 4-5.6 USM (circa 1995), always at 300mm. So the 400mm f5.6 with my XTi would probably be great.
BTW John, either your're telling us your generation, or just watched the Flower Power Infomercial! [:D]
"We're going to travel back in time to a generation of love, drugs and rock and roll."
"That's right Kelly (fake smile), these were a different time!"
haha Actually, my generation is supposed to like rap....I just happen to enjoy everything from the 80's back. :)
Now, let me go get those pics up right now.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/100_2D00_400-resize-2.jpg.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/100_2D002D00_400-resize.jpg.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/70_2D00_200-resize.jpg.jpg[/img]
1. f/5.6 500 ISO 200 400mm
2. f/7.1 500 ISO 320 400mm
3. f/2.8 250 ISO 800 200mm
All I've done is re-size them from over 4000 pixels wide to 800 and drop the file size from 5mb to 70k. lol
The one thing to keep in mind here, I was inside the store, and their windows were not even remotely clean, so the outdoor shots might look like the have a little haze to them for good reason, but it's not the lens. Looking back I wish I would have grabbed a shot inside with the 400mm just to show the clarity.
They are all hand held shots at full zoom with IS active.
Isn't that shot from the 2.8 a goregous shot? Completely un-edited.
So there's a little comparison for ya!