 Marius Liebenberg |
Canon 400 f5.6 L vs Canon 70-200 f2.8 L + 2x Exten How would the Canon 400mm f5.6 L performance compare to a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L with 2x Extender? The 70-200 f2.8 being an f5.6 with the loss of two stops.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Extenders introduce focus softening, flare, and chromatic abberation (purple fringeing) to your images, Marius. If you want 400mm, then get 400mm. Not a bumped up 200mm. Like always: you get what you pay for . . . Have fun!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Ditto. If you are primarily interested in the 70-200/2.8 and only occasional use for 400/5.6, then the 2x TC is an economical alternative and gives ok results. Not bad, but not great either. About the only advantage is that the 70-200 + 2x will still focus as close as 1.5m, where the minimum focus distance of the 400/5.6 is 3.5m. If you're primarily interested in 400 or longer, then the prime would be preferred. The 400 f/5.6 + 1.4x will give a very usable 560 f/8. While autofocus won't work reliably with f/8 maximum aperture, the EF 400 f/5.6L USM has very good manual focus ergonomics. Another alternative would be the EF 300 f/4L IS USM + 1.4x TC. This combination is effectively 420/5.6 and adds Image Stabilization. The 1.4x TC has much less quality loss than does a 2x TC. And in a pinch, 600/8 with a 2x. Still, if you expect to be shooting into the sun, the 400/5.6 has far fewer lens elements and surfaces, and so has better flare resistance.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Side by side comparisons you'll like the 400mm picture better than the 200+2x picture. But if you use a good extender, and the picture is shot well, I think you'll rate it better than ok. But it does effect picture quality. Everything becomes more critical though. Focus, exposure, and the usual suspects. I have a 2x, but I wouldn't get that for a 70-200. I'd get the 70-200 then wait and save for a 400.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||