Originally posted by Felipe Garcia
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Yes, but they were not really to be designed for that, and they're a bit useless for what we use them. And for a super zoom, the Sigma 50-500 is way better than a 100-400 with a 1.4x, and cheaper for that matter. Now, the 200-400 f4 prototype is a whole different story
I'm days away from buying a manual focus SLR, to be used with static objects. There's no way I'd use that for shooting the Thunderbirds (yeah, try using manual or slow focus with a plane that is on your viewfinder for 1/2 second).
Seriously, every single post of you in this thread has mentioned a 1.4x TC in some way or another, even after other people have repeatedly mentioned that it's nearly useless. I think the AF won't suffer from any limitations with a 1D body, but that's a $5000 camera.
And the 50-500 does not compare to the quality? I'm pretty sure that a 100-400 with a TC wouldn't be any better.[SIGNATURE GOES HERE]
Felipe Garcia
Comment
-
Originally posted by ecapdeville View PostI normally use my 1D Mark II with the 70-200 2.8 + 1.4X and its great... I tried this same combination with my new 7D and was great too, so I wont rule out the use of it...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostYes, but they were not really to be designed for that, and they're a bit useless for what we use them. And for a super zoom, the Sigma 50-500 is way better than a 100-400 with a 1.4x, and cheaper for that matter. Now, the 200-400 f4 prototype is a whole different story
I'm days away from buying a manual focus SLR, to be used with static objects. There's no way I'd use that for shooting the Thunderbirds (yeah, try using manual or slow focus with a plane that is on your viewfinder for 1/2 second).
Seriously, every single post of you in this thread has mentioned a 1.4x TC in some way or another, even after other people have repeatedly mentioned that it's nearly useless. I think the AF won't suffer from any limitations with a 1D body, but that's a $5000 camera.
And the 50-500 does not compare to the quality? I'm pretty sure that a 100-400 with a TC wouldn't be any better.
Comment
-
Originally posted by B7772ADL View PostOh don't get me wrong, if the 1.4x is used correctly it's superb, as I too use a 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x. It's when it's used with other lenses that things start to fall apart in terms of IQ and AF. The way I'm seeing it here is that Jan's busy telling us how great the 1.4x is with a 100-400 when in actual fact the 100-400 becomes a beast to use and you really have to slow down alot and think hard to get decent results from it, largely using manual AF or if you have AF, it's very hit and miss and slow. It's really not ideal, but then again 13 yr old photographers seem to know best these days!
Also, I definitely knew more of theoretical phtoography when I got my Nikon Coolpix when I was 13 or 14 than I do now.[SIGNATURE GOES HERE]
Felipe Garcia
Comment
-
Originally posted by Simpleboy View PostI love how much you are preparing to spend on camera gear to take photos of contrails when you are only 13.
I could be takling nonsense and think I know everything (I do not).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostAlso, I definitely knew more of theoretical phtoography when I got my Nikon Coolpix when I was 13 or 14 than I do now.
Regarding TC, I decided to get a TC (Kenko 1.4 most probably) for travellng around. My main lenses are Canon 10-22, 24-105 IS, 100-400 IS and 70-200, f/2.8 IS. On a spotting trip, I always have my complete lens set. So I can have the 24-105 on my 20D and either the 70-200 or the 100-400 on the 40D, depending on the needed zoom range.
On holidays I try to reduce the baggage to a minimum. As I simply adore the 70-200, I decided to travel around with my 24-105, 70-200 and to get a 1.4 TC for the extra reach on teh 70-200. Perhaps I also carry around the 10-22 for the extra effects.
Comment
-
Pushing a film - shooting at a different ISO speed than that on the film and correcting in developing, (and no i did not google that)
Despite getting into photography well into the digital age, i went from a digital point n shoot to a film SLR and did a couple of courses. It helped me immeasurably and also kickstarted shooting well beyond planes.
And Jan, yes its your life and your money, but of the things you listed, a 70-200 fits the non aviation side of what you shoot much better than a 100-400, plus you'd get to buy your 1.4x TC and still get decent results.Sam Rudge
A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash
Comment
-
Originally posted by LX-A343 View Postdoes anybody remember what "pushing a film" means? My goodness ...
Sink darkroom by KE7WOX, on Flickr[SIGNATURE GOES HERE]
Felipe Garcia
Comment
Comment