|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
August 26th 04, 07:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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... 
|
|
#12
August 26th 04, 07:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark M" wrote in message news:HnfXc.105654$Lj.39719@fed1read03... "David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Mark M" wrote: I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your decision/thinking. FWIW, http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/tc2/index.html My take on that page was that 2x converters pretty much aren't worth the bother, but that 1.4x are. That is what has prevented me from owning one. I've happily used my 1.4x for years, but am considering the 2x as I consider selling my 100-400 in favor of my 70-200 2.8 IS with my 1.4 and perhaps giving the 2x a go. I understand that the 2x 70-200 combo has come up short when compared against teh 100-400 alone, but I'm finding that I leave the 100-400 home when space weight is a factor (and it is with 3+ pound lenses...). Right now my standard carrying bag includes 4 optics: Oops! That should really read "5 optics" (4 lenses and telecon.)...  70-200 2.8 IS 16-35 2.8 L 28-135 IS 50 1.4 USM Canon 1.4x I would squeeze a 2x in there if it would acceptably perform close to the 100-400 when on the 70-200.
|
|
#13
August 26th 04, 07:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark M" wrote in message news:HnfXc.105654$Lj.39719@fed1read03... "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: Oops! That should really read "5 optics" (4 lenses and telecon.)... 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.
|
|
#14
August 26th 04, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... SNIP Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? Maybe you can do a comparison shot between Kenko and Canon before you buy (unless money is no issue)? From the user reviews I've read, I assume both are good* when used with the type of lenses they were designed for (Canon's being more restricted to particular lenses). As often the case, there are few side by side comparisons available, but even when assuming both brands are good, it really depends on the lens in front of the extender/converter. * As with all these TCs, they "magnify" whatever quality and aberrations the lens in front of them provides. If the lens isn't *very* good, cropping (or a 1.4x plus cropping) may even produce better results than with a 2x, except for sensor/film noise/graininess which get's enlarged with cropping and magnification to compensate for equal output size. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...ens-sharpness/ does some of these comparisons. Bart
|
|
#15
August 26th 04, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canon TCs are for certain "L" lenses only. THey will not work on
standard EF lenses or third party lenses. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... If you are going to get one go with the Kenko Pro 300 series. More expensive but the best on the market for general purpose. Don't expect very good results though the Sigma lens is not going to produce sharp pictures. Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your decision/thinking. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "PeterH" reply to wrote in message news  Do you recommend a Tamron 2x converter for a Canon 300D with Sigma 70-300 APO macro super zoom lens? Any other recommendations? regards PeterH
|
|
#16
August 26th 04, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Canon TCs are for certain "L" lenses only. THey will not work on
standard EF lenses or third party lenses. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... If you are going to get one go with the Kenko Pro 300 series. More expensive but the best on the market for general purpose. Don't expect very good results though the Sigma lens is not going to produce sharp pictures. Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your decision/thinking. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "PeterH" reply to wrote in message news Do you recommend a Tamron 2x converter for a Canon 300D with Sigma 70-300 APO macro super zoom lens? Any other recommendations? regards PeterH
|
|
#17
August 26th 04, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... The Canon TCs are for certain "L" lenses only. THey will not work on standard EF lenses or third party lenses. I was aware of that, but I wondered if that was your primary reason. I guess it is. I don't feel a need for using it on anything other than the 70-200 2.8 IS, so I'll go with the Canon if I decide to add the 2x to my 1.4x. Thanks. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... If you are going to get one go with the Kenko Pro 300 series. More expensive but the best on the market for general purpose. Don't expect very good results though the Sigma lens is not going to produce sharp pictures. Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your decision/thinking. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "PeterH" reply to wrote in message news
Do you recommend a Tamron 2x converter for a Canon 300D with Sigma70-300 APO macro super zoom lens? Any other recommendations? regards PeterH
|
|
#18
August 26th 04, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... The Canon TCs are for certain "L" lenses only. THey will not work on standard EF lenses or third party lenses. I was aware of that, but I wondered if that was your primary reason. I guess it is. I don't feel a need for using it on anything other than the 70-200 2.8 IS, so I'll go with the Canon if I decide to add the 2x to my 1.4x. Thanks. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message m... If you are going to get one go with the Kenko Pro 300 series. More expensive but the best on the market for general purpose. Don't expect very good results though the Sigma lens is not going to produce sharp pictures. Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? I'm about to order a 2x Canon, but am curious as to your decision/thinking. http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "PeterH" reply to wrote in message news
Do you recommend a Tamron 2x converter for a Canon 300D with Sigma70-300 APO macro super zoom lens? Any other recommendations? regards PeterH
|
|
#19
August 26th 04, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... SNIP Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? Maybe you can do a comparison shot between Kenko and Canon before you buy (unless money is no issue)? Ah... If only that were the case... I would only go with Kenko if it could be shown to somehow miraculously be better optically than the Canon. It looks like Tony's primary reason for going to Kenko is greater lens compatilibity, which won't matter for me in this case. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...ens-sharpness/ I'll check his site out of curiosity. Thanks.
|
|
#20
August 26th 04, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... "Mark M" wrote in message news:4DeXc.105189$Lj.60214@fed1read03... SNIP Have you selected this over Canon's 2x due to the lack of extension into the lenses? Price? -Or do you simply prefer the Kenko. If so, why? Maybe you can do a comparison shot between Kenko and Canon before you buy (unless money is no issue)? Ah... If only that were the case... I would only go with Kenko if it could be shown to somehow miraculously be better optically than the Canon. It looks like Tony's primary reason for going to Kenko is greater lens compatilibity, which won't matter for me in this case. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...ens-sharpness/ I'll check his site out of curiosity. Thanks.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Kenko 0.16x Fish-eye Converter | Nostrobino | Digital Photography | 10 | August 13th 04 05:34 PM |
| Kenko 0.16x Fish-eye Converter | Apteryx | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | August 13th 04 05:34 PM |
| Kenko 0.16x Fish-eye Converter | Nostrobino | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | August 11th 04 04:38 PM |
Linear Mode
