Bar, what made you get that particular lens? The reason I'm asking is because I have been debating between two lenses. The 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8 with the used of a 1.4x TC and/ or a 2x TC. I'm fully aware of aperture decrease which is fine, but I have read a lot of mixed reviews as to how much image degredation I will get with the 2x TC to get a focal lenght of 400. Bar, did you try this combination before making your decision on the 100-400 L lens? Nice shots by the way.
Nice pics,
Same here i'm still wondering if i should get a teleconverter for my 18-200 or invest in a 200-400 or maybe just a 70-300 any suggestions of what made you make your choice?
As far as Nikon mounts... (Cannon should be a similar story.)
I tried the 80-400 VR (f/4.5-5.6) about a year ago when I was shopping for the 70-200 VR (f/2.8). I guess it depends on what you need. If you need something slow, with better reach, the 80-400 would work fine. But it focuses slow, dosn't have a constant aperture, and telescopes in/out which means it's going to be sucking dust and dirt into the inner glass. The 70-200 on the other hand, focuses lighting fast, has a wonderful fast constant aperture, and dosn't telescope in and out so it's completely sealed. Plus, if I need to go out to 400mm, I can slap a 2x converter on, and have the same f/5.6 that the 80-400 has at 400mm.
I would assume the same can be applied to the Cannon IS lenses... sealed, constant ap. lense that focuses lighting fast, or a non-sealed telescoping lense that focuses a little slower, but has more reach.
Aberg, do you have any experience with the 70-200 VR with a 2x TC? If so, how was your image quality at 400 with the teleconverter. I know image quality with go down with any teleconverter, but by how much. In other words, how noticeable with a 2x TC on a 20-700 f/2.8 lens?
I have not personally tried the 2x... so I can't say for sure. But I would bet that any reports of severe image quality/sharpness loss is mostly "measurebating." I would not be worried about it, because the 70-200 is so sharp to begin with, it's probably still sharper with a 2x TC than the 80-400 VR. But of coarse, I can't back that up with actuall experience...
As for the 200-400 VR... yikes! Is 5 grand really worth that? For five grand, I'll walk my fat butt a little closer. :lol:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.