| sent on November 21, 2017
Pros: Quality, value for money, compactness, discretion
Cons: Accentuates the difference in yield between the various aperture diaphragms multiplied (but perhaps it is normal)
Opinion: I took it almost for gaming, in a well-known but trusted site, much less than the amazon price shown on the card. Otherwise I do not understand why it's relegated to out-of-production: it's still on the Kenko product page, as "premium 2.0x", while the HD DGX is referred to as "standard 2.0x" and is on the net new and available a little everywhere. Open and tested in the evening at home, on my 200 2.8 L old, for which I mainly took it: so terrible conditions for a first try, a 400 f5.6 equivalent in poor artificial light .. instead, already here and for this reason I immediately gained my favors. The AF is kept fine, certainly with little light and close distances, the AF can lose the bandwidth and make a couple of end of stroke. If the subject is not completely out of focus, focusing is quick and accurate as without the 2x . This is confirmed by the evidence then made in optimum light,Coupled 200 2.8 and 2x telescopes always get well and quickly the distance even close to the minimum, 1.5m, where the resulting 400mm becomes almost a macro. The machine (5d2 in my case) recognizes the lens, as if 2x was not there, but also automatically doubled the diaphragms, 2.8 to 5.6 and so on. RnThis is very advantageous because it means that functions are maintained they assume target recognition (vignetting correction, digital objective optimization, distortion, etc.) but at the same time there is no risk of error in the opening. rn I still could not verify if it actually loses less than 2 stops in true brightness, just I can eventually update it. The rendering seems great! To honestly, by comparing successful shots (correct focus and no microrose) at f5.6, f8 and f11, you can see that the 2x telescope slightly accentuates the difference between f2.8 and two stops following in the non multiplied objective. Result: While the 200 2.8 smooth af 2.8 & egravis; already very good, and gets great at f4 and excellent at f5.6, once doubled with this Kenko the goal becomes good at TA (= f5.6), certainly acceptable in the middle but a little less incisive than the self itself , and a soft thread at the edges, while at f8 and f11 the yield returns really great and excellent as the lens does not multiply, over the entire frame. Already in f6.3 - f 7.1, there is an improvement. In fact, I expect that I will use it mainly at f8, where the bottom off is still nicely, and the blur remains very nice. In contrast to the smooth optics, they dance at 3 speeds: 2 for the relative opening halved, and one for double focus. Inevitable then have to resort to 640-800 iso even in daylight. I imagine that with a stabilized canvas is another life. The Kenko 2x adds just over 40mm of boss and about 200g of weight, so, to say, my "400" f5.6L does not reach 18cm from the junction ( without haze), and is of a pelor under 1000gr without plugs: we are well below the 26cm and 1250gr of the compact yet 400 f5.6 "true". Okay, the current Sigma and Tamron 100-400 stabilized are just a little bigger and more heavy than my 400-kit, and they offer the versatility of zoom and stabilizer. However for me the advantage is in the bag, in addition to the excellent 200 f2.8 L (which renders the above zoom if they dream), if necessary a 400mm f5.6 of quality. All for just over 100 euros (with the 350 spent for the 200 f2.8 used yet I do not arrive at 500 in all ...) and with just 2 more on the bag.rn Chromosome then, and recommended! Ciaorn |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
