|
|
|
|
#6
03/10/2006, 08:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you should send the lens to me for calibration and extended testing!
 Looks like you will be putting out some really nice shots with this new lens!
__________________
Originally posted by schanz: I tried daily doses of vodka once. I became beligerant and lethargic. |
|
#8
03/14/2006, 03:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great, now I am singing that "I like to move it, move it" song from Madagascar.
 (isn't that king the same animal as in the pic?)Seriously, those are nice pics. Crystal
__________________
SAVE THE BRISTLEWORMS! The BPA reminds you that "Bristleworms are our pals." |
|
#9
03/14/2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nice ring tails
|
|
#11
03/14/2006, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Doug - v2.0.4 Nuclear winter solves global warming. |
|
#13
03/15/2006, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#16
03/15/2006, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#17
03/15/2006, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#18
03/16/2006, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 
|
|
|
Linear Mode
