RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
- Thread starter koenkooi
- Start date
Here's a 100% crop of the lens + 2x extender at MFD. I wasn't paying attention to the zoom, so it's not at 400mm :/
Upvote
0
It's crazy how sharp and clear this lens is even with a 2X extender.
I just got one last night, will have to take it out this weekend to have some fun!
I just got one last night, will have to take it out this weekend to have some fun!
Upvote
0
It is a mouth watering lens, according to all its happy owners.
My dilemma is named 100-500. Should I replace it, along with the 70-200 f/4, with the 70-200 Z + 2X?
It would be a huge weight and space advantage for mountain hikes, my standard lens being the 70-200 f/4, the 100-500 for longer distances being kept in the backpack.
On the other hand, the Z is almost as long and heavy as the 100-500, while the f/4 70-200 is sooo compact and light...
Buying the 70-200 Z and keeping the rest is no option, one lens will become fully superfluous and collect dust.
I am really at a loss what to do.
Upvote
0
Ah, I see you suffer from G.A.S.
Since I am ok with my 100-400 II and 70-200 f/4 II, my G.A.S. is limited to 20-50 only
Upvote
0
I'm pretty much in the same boat, although I'm in a post-purchase dilemma.
The 70-200 Z is surprisingly light, 302 grams or 11 oz lighter than the 100-500. However, when you add the 2X extender, it's a little more than an ounce or 33 grams heavier. My 100-500 has also started gathering dust in it. Not a huge deal, but the internal zoom of the 70-200 is really nice.
Upvote
0
Not only from GAS, but also from no longer being 20 (far from it) as well as from knee damage.Ah, I see you suffer from G.A.S.
Since I am ok with my 100-400 II and 70-200 f/4 II, my G.A.S. is limited to 20-50 only
And looking for lighter gear, yet not at all ready to sacrifice optical quality!
Upvote
0
I think more of us. I understand completely. It is an increasingly important argument for me too. I now use my 100-400II more often on a gimbal head in a photo hide. And less often in my hand all day in nature.
Upvote
0
The EF 100-400 L II is one of the lenses I still regret
, great at every focal and aperture. Sure, the 100-500 is optically as good, maybe even better, but I prefered the EF's "tactile" quality. It was a tank!
Upvote
0
Gathering dust on it is more of a problem, as alluded to by @Del Paso.I'm pretty much in the same boat, although I'm in a post-purchase dilemma.
The 70-200 Z is surprisingly light, 302 grams or 11 oz lighter than the 100-500. However, when you add the 2X extender, it's a little more than an ounce or 33 grams heavier. My 100-500 has also started gathering dust in it. Not a huge deal, but the internal zoom of the 70-200 is really nice.
Upvote
0
By coincidence, yesterday I took a very similar shot of a Green-eyed (Norfolk) Hawker with the RF 100-400mm on the R7 at close to its mfd on the R7 (f/8, iso 800). The mfd of the 70-200 Z is close to half of that of the 100-400 and you are getting about 50% more resolution with the 2xTC. The eyes in my image are not as good but the sharpness of the face is better, presumably from the about 3x greater dof, you stopped down to f/11.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
