| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
1
|
2
| |
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
| |
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
| |
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
| |
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
| » Stats |
Members: 50,186
Threads: 82,433
Posts: 853,796
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069) | | Welcome to our newest member, newy | |  | | 
04-07-2007, 11:42 AM
|  | Knight Grand Cross of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: i'm right here
Posts: 11,154
| | | Re: Bang for your buck... Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon It is a while since a I read up on this but I think this is still true:
The canon TC are designed for use with canon L series lenses only, the photographic element in the converter protrudes so it would foul against a non L series lens. | I quite agree - they only fit the L series , which are principally long lenses - however if you want to use a tc on shorter eos lenses you can get third party TCs from a variety of other manufactuers ( I have a kenko , a jessops own , and a tamron - all of which fit on the shorter lenses)
__________________ Some people are like slinkies, good for nowt, but they make you smile when pushed down stairs | 
17-07-2007, 06:19 PM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 314
| | | Re: Bang for your buck... Oh dear, you are amateurs. Haven't you got wives or girlfriends? Take them with you and stand them in front of you when taking your photographs and you can rest the lens on their shoulder. They can also be usefull in carrying most of your equipment so that your hands are not too tired when you need to take a snap. 
Seriously though, if you want sharp photographs, you should use a tripod when ever possible. IS helps a lot, but not as much as a good tripod. | 
20-07-2007, 03:36 PM
| | New Member | | Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London
Posts: 16
| | | Re: Bang for your buck... many thanks for your help and advice guys, in the end I decided to buy the canon 70-300 is usm as its weight/price benefits outweighed the other competitors. It's arriving in a bit and i'm sure i'll be back on here requesting further pointers before long. Out of interest a couple of people on other forums mention that they used 1.4 tc's fairly successfully with this lens.
Corso | 
20-07-2007, 06:20 PM
| | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 314
| | | Re: Bang for your buck... Quote:
Originally Posted by Corso I went and had a chat to a chap in a camera shop who suggested getting the cheaper combination of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM and a teleconverter, how might that compare to the pump? my limited knowledge tells me this would be a bad idea seeing as i want to use autofocus... | The 100-400L IS is a fine piece of glass. It also develops your muscles. Think long and hard about what lens is best for you. I find that my 16-35 gets more use that the 100-400.
Really you can lump Canon lenses in quality as follows:-
1. Prime lenses. They are the very best.
2. Zoom lenses. Good. Flexible. Not as good as primes. Zooms save shoe leather.
3. Zooms with TCs fitted. Not as good as primes and not as good as zooms. They lose 1 or 2 stops of light gathering ability. |  | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | | | 16 members and 289 guests | | AfternoonLemon, Anders152, gobbiner, Hedera, leon_heller, NickCantle, nursiebernard, nutmeg, Omi, Pepsis, shenk1, tigertom, UB4 gardener, Ukwildlifeo, waxcap | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | Spammers! Yesterday 01:53 PM 8 Replies, 199 Views | | | | | |