k-hawinkler
Well-known member
2x TC on Sony is the better choice. :thumbup:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I can't even begin to work out what the minimum aperture is with 2x - is it f11???2x TC on Sony is the better choice. :thumbup:
That depends on the lens.I can't even begin to work out what the minimum aperture is with 2x - is it f11???
LouisB
Also please remember when using long glass there are many other factors associated with wide open apertures, and setting your camera to HIGH GAIN that corrupts the IQ. This is especially true sending on light direction given any lenses ability to achieve micro contrast and sharpness which will eliminate 99% of lens choice. I don’t shoots birds in flight or static anymore but when I did it was a real challenge so I congratulate you on the images and your patience.I can add my two penneth to this thread. I tried a pre production XF 200mm on my X-H1 last year and after a very brief test outside the shop I was impressed with the AF accuracy and the sharpness of the resulting couple of images I took (unfortunately I've deleted them as I decided I wasn't going to buy the lens). This came on the back of me selling the XF100-400mm which is, without a doubt, the worst Fuji lens I've tried to date. On the up side, at around the same time I bought the GF250mm and 1.4xTC for my Fuji GFX50S. That lens is simply stunning. No use for wildlife I hear you shout? Not for birds in flight, I'd agree, but for static wildlife, I've used it quite a bit. Here's a couple of examples, the 2nd shot is taken with the TC attached. I can't see any loss of IQ when using it:
Common Starling by Mark, on Flickr
Chaffinch by Mark, on Flickr
I may have had a bad copy but quite a few people I've spoken to or read reports from who've either owned or used the 100-400mm haven't been too impressed. I found that with static subjects which were fairly close it would just about get acceptable results from, anything at a distance or moving at more than walking pace, no chance. This defeated the object for which I bought it so I sold it.I am surprised you state the 100-400 is the worst fuji lens you've tried...LouisB
Sorry Marc,I can add my two penneth to this thread. I tried a pre production XF 200mm on my X-H1 last year and after a very brief test outside the shop I was impressed with the AF accuracy and the sharpness of the resulting couple of images I took (unfortunately I've deleted them as I decided I wasn't going to buy the lens). This came on the back of me selling the XF100-400mm which is, without a doubt, the worst Fuji lens I've tried to date. On the up side, at around the same time I bought the GF250mm and 1.4xTC for my Fuji GFX50S. That lens is simply stunning. No use for wildlife I hear you shout? Not for birds in flight, I'd agree, but for static wildlife, I've used it quite a bit. Here's a couple of examples, the 2nd shot is taken with the TC attached. I can't see any loss of IQ when using it:
Common Starling by Mark, on Flickr
Chaffinch by Mark, on Flickr
Thanks Marc. Could your camera have been lacking with that lens?I may have had a bad copy but quite a few people I've spoken to or read reports from who've either owned or used the 100-400mm haven't been too impressed. I found that with static subjects which were fairly close it would just about get acceptable results from, anything at a distance or moving at more than walking pace, no chance. This defeated the object for which I bought it so I sold it.