Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 634383" data-attributes="member: 43924">I understand and respect where you're coming from, Blacktop.&nbsp; Admittedly, the weight makes lenses like the 200-500 no-go's for me since I do a lot of travel hiking and am not exactly in my twenties any more.&nbsp; As far as the TCs go, I tested my 300 F4 PF with different ones and eventually bought the 2x rather than the 1.4x - with the latter, I was getting the same image quality with TC as I was by simply zooming up in Photoshop, while the 2x clearly beat that alternative.&nbsp; Sure, the TC-20E III leaves me with an effective F8 minimum aperture, but given how good the VC on the 300mm lens is, that does not worry me all that much.&nbsp; I can shoot fairly reliably at 1/60s without a tripod and even got a few pin-sharp pics at 1/30s (with an effective length of 900mm!).You got me curious, though, so to test your theory, I just ordered a 200-500 and will compare the two lenses side-by-side.&nbsp; Should be interesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lokatz, post: 634383, member: 43924"] I understand and respect where you're coming from, Blacktop. Admittedly, the weight makes lenses like the 200-500 no-go's for me since I do a lot of travel hiking and am not exactly in my twenties any more. As far as the TCs go, I tested my 300 F4 PF with different ones and eventually bought the 2x rather than the 1.4x - with the latter, I was getting the same image quality with TC as I was by simply zooming up in Photoshop, while the 2x clearly beat that alternative. Sure, the TC-20E III leaves me with an effective F8 minimum aperture, but given how good the VC on the 300mm lens is, that does not worry me all that much. I can shoot fairly reliably at 1/60s without a tripod and even got a few pin-sharp pics at 1/30s (with an effective length of 900mm!). You got me curious, though, so to test your theory, I just ordered a 200-500 and will compare the two lenses side-by-side. Should be interesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification