Small favour to ask - 200mm vs 400mm comparison photos

Hi all,

I am thinking about getting a 2x converter to go on a 70-200 and was curious to know how much closer the extra 200mm gets you.
I was playing with a 75-300 at the weekend, and the difference between the 200mm and 300mm shots really was not that great, in effect, I could save my money and just crop the image to get the same framing.

Are there any sites which show the different focal lengths, both on subjects close to the lens and further away? Or has anybody here already taken the shots as a test?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Andy

Just take a shot of something at 100mm and 200mm with your current gear, then compare.

It is a very significant difference IMO.

Andy_Cam wrote in post #10074631
Are there any sites which show the different focal lengths, both on subjects close to the lens and further away?

http://www.tamron.com …cal-length-comparison.php

No close subjects, but you'll get the general idea.

Another thing to consider is full frame versus crop body. If you have the luxury of working with a full frame camera like the 5d or 5dmk2 a cheap solution would be to buy a crop factor body to multiply your reach by 1.6
For instance, I cheaply acquired an ancient pro Nikkor 300/f2.8 AI-S (which works fine with a locking EOS adapter ($35, chipped for focus confirmation) on my 5dMark2, even with the 1.4x extender).
I just bought a Nikon D5000 just to work with the Nikkor, and it gets me a 500mm 2.8. The D5000 has a superb quiet mode so here's my ticket to sensitive event photography.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

phreeky wrote in post #10074640
Just take a shot of something at 100mm and 200mm with your current gear, then compare.

It is a very significant difference IMO.

100-200 is a significant difference, as is 25-50. The longer the focal length, the smaller the difference the mm's make though. It was only when I saw the difference between 200-300 that I realised how much.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10075019
http://www.tamron.com …cal-length-comparison.php

No close subjects, but you'll get the general idea.

Perfect! Just what I was after. Thank you.

moreover wrote in post #10075126
Another thing to consider is full frame versus crop body. If you have the luxury of working with a full frame camera like the 5d or 5dmk2 a cheap solution would be to buy a crop factor body to multiply your reach by 1.6
For instance, I cheaply acquired an ancient pro Nikkor 300/f2.8 AI-S (which works fine with a locking EOS adapter ($35, chipped for focus confirmation) on my 5dMark2, even with the 1.4x extender).
I just bought a Nikon D5000 just to work with the Nikkor, and it gets me a 500mm 2.8. The D5000 has a superb quiet mode so here's my ticket to sensitive event photography.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have a 5DII but my budget only stretches to an extender, not a new body sadly.

Andy_Cam wrote in post #10075193
100-200 is a significant difference, as is 25-50. The longer the focal length, the smaller the difference the mm's make though. It was only when I saw the difference between 200-300 that I realised how much.

Each mm makes less of a difference, but doubling the mm always doubles the "Reach". The difference between 200-400 is the same as doubling any other focal length, so same as 12-24, 50-100, 100-200, 500-1000.

I have a 5DII but my budget only stretches to an extender, not a new body sadly.

A used 20d or 30D is about the same price as a Canon brand extender, so you might consider it an option. You won't have to sacrifice AF performance or deal with light loss and CA, either.