Maybe the AF will work. I can put a 1.4TC on my Sigma 135-400 5.6 and the AF still works on the D200/300. Not fast and not good under bad light, but it works. (Although the resulting image quality is not worth the effort any way and the TC 1.4 usually goes with my 80-200 2.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
lens converters, how good are they?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LX-A343 View PostI bought a Kenko 1.4TC exactly for these reasons: I can attach it to far more lenses, than the Canon TC. I can even use it on my 24-105, which is not possible with the Canon TC.
Kenko 1.4TC is much cheaper than original Canon 1.4TC, here in holland Kenko costs € 164, original Canon costs € 459. What is the difference in quality compared to difference in price (almost € 300)
Comment
-
Originally posted by seahawk View PostMaybe the AF will work. I can put a 1.4TC on my Sigma 135-400 5.6 and the AF still works on the D200/300. Not fast and not good under bad light, but it works. (Although the resulting image quality is not worth the effort any way and the TC 1.4 usually goes with my 80-200 2.
The Canon TC is definitely expensive. I was able to get the version II (I believe the III was already out by then) for a much lower price than the current III. I believe Kenko is owned by the same company as Tokina and Hoya, and they say their TC's use glass supplied by Hoya. That said, I use both Tokina and Hoya products and have no complaints about the optical quality of them.[SIGNATURE GOES HERE]
Felipe Garcia
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bjorn1979 View PostSorry Hinkelbein (fellow dutch spotter ) for using your topic, got one question left :
Kenko 1.4TC is much cheaper than original Canon 1.4TC, here in holland Kenko costs € 164, original Canon costs € 459. What is the difference in quality compared to difference in price (almost € 300)
Comment
-
I use the Canon L f/4 70-200 with a Kenko 1,4 TC for years and I am very,very happy with that combination.
Many,many times I have thought about changing to a L 100-400, but for me it's not wort the extra money so far.
When I have to change, than it will be the 70-200 f 2,8 for sure.
Freek
Comment
-
What's the difference between a teleconverter and an extension tube?
Yes, this does sound newbish, but Wikipedia is blacked out at the moment.
And I've never used anything but a lens.
And another question:
On eBay there's a lot of affordable converters that all fit Canon-FD. What's FD and does it fit with the EOS 400D that I have and/or the EF70-300mm lens that I have?
Comment
-
Something that i found on this link :
A teleconverter is designed to increase the apparent focal length of a lens. For example, in the Canon system, a 135mm lens can become 189mm or 270mm lens with the addition of the proper teleconverter. This increased focal length comes at the cost of speed of the lens, in the previous example, the f2 135mm becomes an f2.8 or an f4 when the teleconverter is attached. An extension tube is designed to increase image size on the film or sensor so that macro / extreme close up photos can be taken
Hopefully i'm correct but most Canon EOS camera's have EF mount, FD is a different mount so doesn't fit on your Canon EOS 400D.
Like Gerardo said on the first page a converter on a 70-300mm doesn't gonna work because of the lack of autofocus.
I remember reading something about taping of 3 contactpoints on your camera to get the autofocus working when you have a 70-300 with converter but thats probably not ideal.
I think you could better save some extra money and buy a 100-400. The Canon 100-400 is still quit expensive, maybe you could look for Sigma but don't witch brands you like.
Bjorn
Comment
-
Comment
-
This site also has some good reviews: www.photozone.de
If you want a "cheap" solution, I would try to find one of those used: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/30...review?start=2
Comment
Comment