robert_parker Posted August 7, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 7, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Given the choice, would you rather use the modern 180mm 2.8 ROM with a 2x or 1.4 x APO Extender for wildlife shots, or would you prefer a 280mm 2.8 APO non-Rom lens, if image quality was the question, rather than f-stop ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 Hi robert_parker, Take a look here 180mm APO with converter ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
telyt Posted August 7, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 7, 2006 If image quality is paramount the 280 f/4 APO is what you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted August 7, 2006 Doug Unfortunately I can only afford the 280 2.8 APO, (which retails in England for about half the cost of the 280 f4), or put a converter on my 180 2.8 APO - I'm probably going to use it for smaller domestic birds at a range of about 20 feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted August 7, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 7, 2006 I suspect that for smaller birds, domestic or otherwise, you'll be a lot closer than 20' in which case you'd also want to use extension tubes with the 280. The 180's closer minimum focus would be handy. In my controlled tests of the 280 f/4 and 280 f/2.8 (non-Modular) the f/4 lens showed significant image quality advantages over the f/2.8, particularly ouside the central area of the picture. If I'm not mistaken, the 180 APO-Elmarit's image quality is very similar to the 280 f/4, and my tests also show that the 1.4x APO Extender degrades image quality only slightly, so my guess is that the 180+1.4x will do better than the 280 f/2.8, particularly outside the central region. The 180's additional advantage is a closer minimum focus distance, while the 280 has the advantage of a built-in rotating tripod collar. Either the STA-1 tripod collar or an aftermarket tripod collar like the Burzynski can be fitted to the 180. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted August 7, 2006 Doug Just the sort of insight I needed - have you tried any tests with the 2x converter ? Thanks for your help, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted August 7, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 7, 2006 have you tried any tests with the 2x converter ? The 2x APO extender generally reduces the lens's resolution and contrast slightly but noticably. I'd say it's effect on image quality is more than the 1.4x's effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted August 7, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Doug Thanks for letting me draw on your experience - that was just what I needed to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando_b Posted August 8, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 8, 2006 Doug, my lenses don't fit with the 1.4X due to its protrusion. Consider that I'm not a professional photographer. Usually I show slides at 30X enlargements and print maximum at 30 x 45 (cm, not inches), according to your experience do you think the loss of quality with the 2X APO can be noticed? I was considering to buy in the near future. Fernando. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 8, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 8, 2006 I had the 280/2.8 without rom, now I have the 280/4. I also have the 180/2.8 which I've used with the 1.4 and 2x Apo extenders. As Doug said, the optical quality of the 280/4 is at the top. But the 280/2.8 is quite good too, especially if you use it at f/4. In my opinion, it is then better than the 180/2.8 with the 1.4 extender. I sold back the x2 extender because I found it hard to focus a long lens at f/5.6 (2.8 - 2 f/stops) and because of the contrast fall out. So in your case, I would go for the 280/2.8 even if it is really bulky and heavy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 8, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 8, 2006 I think the 280 F4 is the sharpest lens in this range against anyone. i have this and also the 180 f2 which is also a outstanding lens and when i did have the 180 2.8 APO they are very close in perfermance. These are some of the best around PERIOD. Now I did buy the 280 2.8 and sold it in a week but that does not mean it is a bad lens it was actually quite good even wide open but i jumped at the chance to get the F4 version so i sold the 2.8 . Now as converters i think the 1.4 is better than the 2x at least on the 280 f4 and 180 F2 they are just killer in quality and really if there is any lose in detail it is extremely small not that the 2x is bad or anything like that it is very good just for me losing 2 stops is something i just don't like and with the DMR and the crop i can really get out there with the 280 F4 and the 1.4 converter when the need arises and get outstanding images from it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 8, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 8, 2006 I think the 280 F4 is the sharpest lens in this range against anyone. i have this and also the 180 f2 which is also a outstanding lens and when i did have the 180 2.8 APO they are very close in perfermance. These are some of the best around PERIOD. I concur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted August 9, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 9, 2006 Doug,my lenses don't fit with the 1.4X due to its protrusion. the older version of the 180mm f/2.8 APO can be factory-modified to fit the 1.4x APO-Extender. Consider that I'm not a professional photographer. Usually I show slides at 30X enlargements and print maximum at 30 x 45 (cm, not inches), according to your experience do you think the loss of quality with the 2X APO can be noticed? I was considering to buy in the near future.Fernando. Unless your technique is perfect I doubt you'd notice much if anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando_b Posted August 9, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 9, 2006 Thanks, my tecnique is far from perfect. I think I'll go with the 2X. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share #14 Posted August 9, 2006 ..and I'll go with the 1.4x !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.