![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 117
|
dear experts out there, can you give me your much honoured opinion on image quality for the following. i have a 80 to 200 mm L zoom f 2.8 IS and am considering a TC i.4 or 2 or a 300mm prime or even 400 mm
my need sare quite simple - holiday shots where a good reach with a 300 or even 400 mm can get me a sharp image of that bird on a tree branch [ or the occasional shoot of my kids on the football field]so weight and bulkiness of equiupment is a factor but most of all i am a stickler for GOOD SHARP IMAGES is my present 80 to 200 zoom with the TC X2 a good combo? the reach factor aside, is there a great difference in iamge quality with the 1.4 or 2 TC on my zoom lens ? many thanks |
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,347
|
This was kindly highlighted to me by the members at this forum. Some of these reviews/ discussions might be useful to you: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=174226 http://photozone.de http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=131090 If you truly need the reach, then I think the choices you might be interested in are things such as the 300mm f/4L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS, Sigma 50-500mm, 400mm f/5.6 L. In the end, the decision will depend also on whether you need IS, speed of the lens, zoom/ prime and price. The Sigma is the most reasonably-priced of all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Siglap
Posts: 1,645
|
haaa.. the bigma (50-500) is never a holiday friendly lens
(weight factor), you'll also need a monopod since this is 1 big/heavy lens!You should be referring to the 70-200 IS as mentioned by fword. A 1.4x TC stacked ontop of a 70-200 F2.8 (IS or non-IS) should not pose much image degradation but a 2x will. 2x is more suited for primes as most members here would agree. As mentioned always and being debated at times, the flexibility of a zoom is always welcome. The 300F4L IS is sharp and weight wise, lighter than the 70-200 IS definitely. But you lose flexbility. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 117
|
thanks a lot sorry yes its 70 to 200 apreciate your feedback
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
Posts: 3,163
|
IMO, the 70-200mmf2.8L, IS or not, is almost as sharp as a prime.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|