"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Mark M" wrote:

I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your
decision/thinking.

FWIW, http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/tc2/index.html

My take on that page was that 2x converters pretty much aren't worth the
bother, but that 1.4x are.

That is what has prevented me from owning one.
I've happily used my 1.4x for years, but am considering the 2x as I consider
selling my 100-400 in favor of my 70-200 2.8 IS with my 1.4 and perhaps
giving the 2x a go.
I understand that the 2x 70-200 combo has come up short when compared
against teh 100-400 alone, but I'm finding that I leave the 100-400 home
when space weight is a factor (and it is with 3+ pound lenses...).

Right now my standard carrying bag includes 4 optics:
70-200 2.8 IS
16-35 2.8 L
28-135 IS
50 1.4 USM
Canon 1.4x
I would squeeze a 2x in there if it would acceptably perform close to the
100-400 when on the 70-200.

I dunno...

Hey! I wonder if you can use a 300D-friendly teleconverter on a 10D as an
EF-S - EF converter, analagous to the FD-EF converterg. (Not that
there's any EF-S lens one would be interested in using a TC with...)

I think you're joking, but my understanding is that the EF-S lenses extend
INTO the camera body a bit. I'm not aware of a tele-converter that would
allow that, but maybe you weren't even a little bit serious.

I have a theory about why Canon isn't releasing any L-level EF-S
enses... -Simply because they intend all of their DSLR cameras to
eventually become full-frame-based at some point, and realize they would
really tick people off if people spent L-class $$ on a lens that will later
be unusable. But then... Who knows what they're really thinking...