lens comparison
Discussion
I'm no expert and i wouldn't say no to either lens but I think I'd go for the faster glass.
Taken from a Nikon forum post, but probably relevant to some degree:
"Its a trade off. Use of a 2X TC will decrease the light to the sensor by 4X and affect angular resolution of the image by 2X as well as magnify any abberations of the optical system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter
Generally, the better the IQ of the base lens, the less the use of a TC will affect the combo's IQ. Many with your lens have reported minimal IQ impact with the use of a 1.4X TC, some noticible degradation with a 1.7X TC and definite IQ degradation with a 2X TC.
Its been my experience that an original image with no TC can have its FOV cropped by between 30% - 50% before IQ degradatio0n really sets in. The 30% limit applies to images with consumer quality glass; the 50% limit to quality glass such as yours.
Its probable that cropping your original image will yield better IQ than the same FOV when using a 2X TC in most all cases.
My suggestion is to consider a 1.4X TC and, if needed/desired, crop from there rather than using a 2X TC..."
Sorry I can't be any more specific.
HTH
Scott
Taken from a Nikon forum post, but probably relevant to some degree:
"Its a trade off. Use of a 2X TC will decrease the light to the sensor by 4X and affect angular resolution of the image by 2X as well as magnify any abberations of the optical system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter
Generally, the better the IQ of the base lens, the less the use of a TC will affect the combo's IQ. Many with your lens have reported minimal IQ impact with the use of a 1.4X TC, some noticible degradation with a 1.7X TC and definite IQ degradation with a 2X TC.
Its been my experience that an original image with no TC can have its FOV cropped by between 30% - 50% before IQ degradatio0n really sets in. The 30% limit applies to images with consumer quality glass; the 50% limit to quality glass such as yours.
Its probable that cropping your original image will yield better IQ than the same FOV when using a 2X TC in most all cases.
My suggestion is to consider a 1.4X TC and, if needed/desired, crop from there rather than using a 2X TC..."
Sorry I can't be any more specific.
HTH
Scott
If you want 300-400 (as per comparison) the 100-400 is better.
Unfortunatly it was also subject to quite a variance in production (now possibly solved) but with individual examples being as sharp (or nearly) as the 400f5.6 prime, others being woefull.
Its IS is also old school 2 stop - and the push pull design is mostly hated (though Ilike the very quick zoom ability) - it has many fans for airshow shooting.
Unfortunatly it was also subject to quite a variance in production (now possibly solved) but with individual examples being as sharp (or nearly) as the 400f5.6 prime, others being woefull.
Its IS is also old school 2 stop - and the push pull design is mostly hated (though Ilike the very quick zoom ability) - it has many fans for airshow shooting.
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I have recently acquired a SIgma 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x teleconverter.
I love the speed & sharpness of the lens wide open for portrait stuff and the ability to pop a t/c on and use it for motorsports etc was a winner for me.
This was snapped at Stansted whilst waiting to collect wifey. Taken with the Sigma & 2x t/c combo...seems sharp enough to me, and no problems with AF.
Chris
I love the speed & sharpness of the lens wide open for portrait stuff and the ability to pop a t/c on and use it for motorsports etc was a winner for me.
This was snapped at Stansted whilst waiting to collect wifey. Taken with the Sigma & 2x t/c combo...seems sharp enough to me, and no problems with AF.
Chris
cbcbcb said:
thanks, not seen that - I liked the last line of that "You really need to have both of these lenses for maximum versatility and image quality". 
Jenx said:
You'de have to wrestle my 100-400 from my broken and bleeding fingers before I'd swap it for a 70-210 and 2X converter.
Martin.
I take it you prefer the 100-400 then? Martin.
chris.mapey said:
I'm not a Canon shooter, but I have recently acquired a SIgma 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x teleconverter.
I love the speed & sharpness of the lens wide open for portrait stuff and the ability to pop a t/c on and use it for motorsports etc was a winner for me.
This was snapped at Stansted whilst waiting to collect wifey. Taken with the Sigma & 2x t/c combo...seems sharp enough to me, and no problems with AF.
Chris
The flexibility of the combo seems good to me, which is why I asked the question originally, I would say that I do quite a bit of portrait, some landscape and some distance/motorsport.I love the speed & sharpness of the lens wide open for portrait stuff and the ability to pop a t/c on and use it for motorsports etc was a winner for me.
This was snapped at Stansted whilst waiting to collect wifey. Taken with the Sigma & 2x t/c combo...seems sharp enough to me, and no problems with AF.
Chris
This is going to be a tricky decision, the 100-400 is lighter (630 v 1570) and smaller (76.5x142.8mm v 86.2x197mm) plus there is the 2x to carry around with the 70-200. Plus looking around the 100-400 is about £800 against £1200 or so for the 70-200 combo.
Time to borrow the 100-400 from a friend for a weekend I think and see how I get on!
Not wishing to thriw the cat amongst the pigeons, but how about the same set up I have - using Sigma lens & t/c.
Mine came in at a total of £630 new from Kerso... (Lens was £490 and the t/c was £129)
Worth thinking about (albeit with no IS - but I use a D300 and can up the ISO if needed)
HTH
Chris
Mine came in at a total of £630 new from Kerso... (Lens was £490 and the t/c was £129)
Worth thinking about (albeit with no IS - but I use a D300 and can up the ISO if needed)
HTH
Chris
x5x3 said:
Jenx said:
You'de have to wrestle my 100-400 from my broken and bleeding fingers before I'd swap it for a 70-210 and 2X converter.
Martin.
I take it you prefer the 100-400 then? Martin.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff