Should we pay more for prime tele lens?

Photoskipper

Just for discussion.

It is nice to have the longest super tele lens for bird photos. But comparing the super tele lens and tele lens, why we need to pay more for the 600 or 800 mm if we can make use of the 1.4 X extension. Here are just some comparison :
1. 800mm F5.6 costs 12,500 weight 10 lbs
2. 600 mm F4 costs 9000, with the 1.4X ($300), the 840 mm F5.6 costs just $9,300 weight 9 lbs
3. 500 mm F4 cost 6,900, with the 1.4X ($300), the 700 mm F5.6 costs only $7,200 weight 7.5 lbs
4 the 400mm F2.8 costs only $8,000 with 2X ($300), the 800 mm F5.6 costs me only $8,300 and weight 12.5 lbs. Just 2/3 the price of the 800 mm F5.6 and yet I have two lenses to use.

Overfocused

The 1.4x with a good prime really is the best option for balancing dollars and IQ... and APS-C sensors too if there's enough light. The Canon 300 F/4 is going to enter my arsenal soon + 1.4x and I know I'll have a blast with it The IQ degradation is virtually null from sample comparisons I searched for on google for the 1.4x. The 2x converters aren't any good and really kill resolution and block a lot of light out... so if you really need length it might be better to get a 1.6x APS-C camera with a 1.4x tele on a 400 lens

craig_d

In terms of pure image quality, a top-quality 600mm or 800mm lens will be superior to any 400mm lens with a 1.4x or 2x extender. However, you may find that a 400mm lens plus extender is good enough to satisfy you, and it's certainly smaller, easier to carry around, and less expensive. Ultimately, it's your money and your decision. Others may come to different conclusions, and their choice, though different from yours, may be right for them.

Icebear

Can't argue with your logic Skipper. And for a while, I was OK with my 300 f/2.8 and a 1.4TC. Trouble is, I got to thinking "Gee, this is pretty cool, what if I stuck the TC on a 500 f/4.5?" Dead man walking from then on. Let's see D300: 500 x 1.5 x 1.4 = Holy S**t Batman! Actually, it's not a very practical combo. In order to get anything really sharp, I need to use a beanbag (and yes, I do have some gonzo tripods) mirror lock-up, and a cable or wireless release. By that time the critter has died of old age.

But oh, my, what a combo on the D700 with higher ISOs and without the crop factor. 700mm is doable for me.

Photoskipper

Have been using the full frame body from 5D to mark II for 5 years, really happy with the 500 F4 combine with 1.4X. But sometimes, it still not able to reach the bird at certain range. Crop sensor may be one of my consideration in near future.

Getting another big gun is rather difficult. Just no more space in the dry box! Or not possible to carry two lenses in the field.

DeVerm

The 1.4x TC on a 7D gives 1.6 * 1.4 = 2.24x

It would be nice to compare test shots of FF sensor with TC 2.0x vs crop sensor with TC 1.4x

ciao!
Nick.

davev

Overfocused wrote: »

The 2x converters aren't any good and really kill resolution and block a lot of light out...

That's one of those blanket statements that kind of bug me.
Is this from something you read, or something you've experienced?

It blocks 2 stops of light. If you start at f2.8, you wind up with the equivalent of f5.6.
In sunlight, this isn't a problem.

I use a 300 f2.8 with a 2X tc, and although in some situations it can show limitations, for the most part, it works pretty well.
Most of the time I shoot at f8 to get some depth of field.

on a 7D




on a 5DMKII, massive crop.


it came from this shot.


An example of where it shows it's limits.
There are times, depending on what aperture, iso and distance the background is to the subject,
the shot's background just doesn't look right.