RoamingScott wrote: Garbage palekid wrote:
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.
Hi Scott,
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Dec 27, 2019 at 01:51 PM
Previous versions of naturephoto1's message #15089813 « Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread »
