biglouis
Well-known member
Any thoughts from people who own both lenses? The main use would be wildlife portraits. Especially my local foxes. I do use my 45-100 at present but the 100 end is not long enough - although cropping in I still get fantastic detail.
I would inevitably use either lens for some landscape and or architectural detail photography. I do portraits rarely and in fact my recent acquisition of the 45-100 is probably enough for that.
I know I should hire both but I rarely do this and it can actually be quite expensive/difficult at the moment.
I appreciate the zoom is a benefit as is the very keen pricing of the 100-200 but I am worried the 200 end will again not be long enough and the 250 will make a tangible difference. Will it, really?
The fact that both take the TC1.4x is also, of course, useful but not sure about the actual image degradation, For example, when I use the XF TC1.4 with my XF100-400 or XC50-140 I always have to stop down at least half/one stop to achieve best IQ.
Any thoughts from forum members would be appreciated.
LouisB
I would inevitably use either lens for some landscape and or architectural detail photography. I do portraits rarely and in fact my recent acquisition of the 45-100 is probably enough for that.
I know I should hire both but I rarely do this and it can actually be quite expensive/difficult at the moment.
I appreciate the zoom is a benefit as is the very keen pricing of the 100-200 but I am worried the 200 end will again not be long enough and the 250 will make a tangible difference. Will it, really?
The fact that both take the TC1.4x is also, of course, useful but not sure about the actual image degradation, For example, when I use the XF TC1.4 with my XF100-400 or XC50-140 I always have to stop down at least half/one stop to achieve best IQ.
Any thoughts from forum members would be appreciated.
LouisB