| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2006 04:11:09 PM · #1 |
Could any one show me two pictures of the zoom range of this lens I have serched the web and not been able to find anything. Also if there is anything with a 1.4x and 2x converteras well that would be great.
Thanks alot Andrew
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:17:27 PM · #2 |
//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=13
and converters are really crappy, i got some examples at home i can post later
Message edited by author 2006-05-03 16:17:34.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:23:26 PM · #3 |
Thanks Troy but what i was looking for was a shot of one thing at 100mm then the same at 400mm sorry did not really make it clear.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:30:46 PM · #4 |
does this help its the only comparison i could find, its pretty close 135-400
//consumer.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html
***I won YEE HAAA***maybe next time bear
Message edited by author 2006-05-03 16:32:22.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:31:10 PM · #5 |
//www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lens101/focallength/index.html
R.
haha, troy and I both hit on the same thing.
Message edited by author 2006-05-03 16:31:39.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:46:52 PM · #6 |
Thanks guys quite useful but will bump anyway to see if anyone has photos
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:51:21 PM · #7 |
For a hands-on test, do this:
- Mount your 28-200 lens and set zoom for 100mm; frame a scene and snap a pic
- Load the pic into your editor. Select an area 1/4 the height and 1/4 the width of the entire image. This is the framing at 400mm. If you do this using the rectangular marquee tool in photoshop, you can move the selection around to see what framing would be like on objects within the 100mm field of view.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2006 12:49:58 PM · #8 |
thanks mate will give that a go
|
|
|
|
05/04/2006 03:33:41 PM · #9 |
If you are referring to the 1.4x converter, I would disagree. With plenty of available light (read: sunny 16 style) then I think the 1.4x performs acceptably on the 100-400mm. Having said that, I am not a huge fan of using the 1.4x but if I need the extra reach, I'll do it, and it is OK.
I have not tried the 2.0x, and don't really want to on that lens, that would be very slow, and I do not hear good things about the degradation in quality using that converter.
Then again, Pitsaman swears by a 200mm F/2.8 with a 2x on it, but that is a much faster lens to start with.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2006 04:04:56 PM · #10 |
With regard to the performance of the 1.4x and 2.0x converters, the 2.0x is really only a workable solution on the sharpest, fastest telephotos in the Canon lineup. If the lens does not have significant sharpness "headroom" and a max aperture of f/2.8, it's problematic. If manual focusing is OK, then the f/2.8 requirement is not needed. The lenses known to perform well with the 2.0x are:
200/1.8
200/2.8
300/2.8
400/2.8
400/5.6 (manual focus only)
There are probably others, but those are the ones I'm aware of off the top of my head. No lens is going to be flawless with the 2.0x on it; contrast will drop somewhat and you won't get razor-sharp results at max combined aperture, but the results can still be much better than cropping and upsampling.
The 1.4x is more forgiving, since it magnifies the projected image much less than the 2.0x.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 12:08:51 PM EDT.
