JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4938 posts, RR: 7 Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Been wondering about this because I frequently need more zoom than my 70-200 can offer. What I need to know is if this instrument is noticeably detrimental to images. I'm aware that there will be an inevitable and unavoidable reduction in quality but to what extent I'm not sure.
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2160 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3351 times:
I have the 1.4x converter and its good... not great good. I find that the lens is a bit soft at 200 itself, make sure you don't try to extend it to 280 and expect great results... I have a few pics that are really good. I am going to be getting my buddies 100-400 for my trip to LAS in a few days, I don't want to rely on 280 for long range shots... I will use the big guy if i need it!!
Anyway, I would say get it... and don't waste the money on the 2x, get the 100-400 if you need that range.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Make sure the lens you're mounting it on does not have an aperture value of more than 3.8 at its most zoomed point if you want to maintain autofocus. If your lens, for example, is f2.8-3.5, then the AF will still work throughout the range, but if your lens is f3.5-5.3 then you will only keep autofocus for the first 50mm or so, then you will have to switch to MF, which is never the best for moving objects.
Just keep that in mind.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4