Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter

Simply GREAT!
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

> Tony Polson wrote:
> > I will also use the 1.4, but sometimes you just need a bit more and
> > I don't fancy splashing out on a 400 prime lens if I can get away
> > with it.
>
> The Kenko Pro 300 2X is an excellent converter. Optical quality is
> comparable to the Canon 2X.

I seem to recall the Kenko also not interfering with some of the Canon
lens optics, and that the Canon converter does, for some strange
reason. On some Canon lenses, not all, IIRC.

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

"The Dave©" wrote:

>> Tony Polson wrote:
>> > I will also use the 1.4, but sometimes you just need a bit more and
>> > I don't fancy splashing out on a 400 prime lens if I can get away
>> > with it.
>>
>> The Kenko Pro 300 2X is an excellent converter. Optical quality is
>> comparable to the Canon 2X.
>
>I seem to recall the Kenko also not interfering with some of the Canon
>lens optics, and that the Canon converter does, for some strange
>reason. On some Canon lenses, not all, IIRC.


Thanks for that, Dave. I didn't know that, probably because I have
used Kenko Pro 300 converters only with Nikon equipment.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

So informative. Thank you.


wrote in message

> Simply GREAT!
>
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

Paul Furman wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Also the 100-400 IS looks like a $1,400 lens & the 2X TC is
>>> probably 3 or 4 hundred.
>>
>> ??
>> The 2x isn't usable without a lens, so not sure what you're
>> referring to. ?
>
> This assumes you already have a 70-200.

Yes...as the OP does.
He was asking specifically about the 70-200 2.8 IS/2x combo.

>> Personally, I haven't been all too impressed with the 2x on my
>> 70-200 2.8 IS.
>> I used to shoot with the 100-400 IS, but sold it a while back. Since
>> selling it (and missing 400mm), I picked up the 2x
>
> You went the wrong direction, you're already spoiled <g>.

Not really (regarding the wrong direction). As for being spoiled...I work
very hard so that I can purchase these things. I'm not wealthy...just
picky.
I had the 100-400 for a long time, then added the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Once I got used to the absolutely superior image/speed/aperture/handling of
the 70-200, I found that I was rarely carrying the 100-400 any more. Since
I already had the 1.4x...which works extrordinarily well on the 70-200 (not
to mention that this STILL gets you twice the light of the 100-400 at f4 vs.
5.6), I just decided to sell it. I used the money to mostly purchase my
large Epson 4000 printer.

The only reason I recently decided to give the 2x a try was for those
circumstances where teh 1.4x wasn't quite enough. It is a compromise, but a
reasonable one rather than carrying both large lenses.

>> to supplement my 1.4x.
>> While the 1.4x looks GREAT on the 70-200, the 2x is noticeably
>> poorer. If memory serves, the 100-400 was indeed better than the
>> 70-200+2x.
>
>
> I've got the equivalent Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (stabilized) with a 2X
> converter. I wasn't willing to spend another couple grand or whatever
> on a 400 stabilized zoom so it was a reasonable compromise for me.

I had it, and STILL decided similarly. -Of course it helped me decide when
I knew I could then easily spring for the 4000 printer. -A fantastic
device!! -So glad I bought it, as FINALLY I have complete control, with a
stable ink system (unlike my 1270).

> With the 2x it's definitely not as sharp but it's still very useful
> and better than a cheap 400 probably. I'm thinking about a Stabilized
> 300 prime maybe that would work with the 2X.

If I buy another long tele, it won't be until I can muster enough $$ for a
400 2.8 IS L.
That won't be for a good long while, I'm afraid.
In the mean time, my 70-200 with 1.4/2x will have to do (which it does
rather nicely!).
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:22:57 +0100, spirit wrote:

>I've the 1DMKII and the 70~200ƒ2.8 L and the 2XII converter. Well
>image quality is great on some subjects; it likes bright lightly
>overcast conditions but does not do well in full sun or heavy
>overcast.
>
>In full sun one may get too much purple fringing and image distorting
>artefacts. Whereas the contrast is muck in dull overcast conditions
>and I've started to use contrast +3 here.

Your precious Canon has convinced the ignorant that they can
simply adopt any old film lens to digital. Olympus at least
made an effort to convince people that this is a mistake.
Canon should be ashamed, selling multi-thousand dollar cameras
and telling people they can achieve good results with lenses
that simply cannot do justice to sensors, especially huge,
FF sensors.
The net result of having lenses with old optical designs?
Blurred edges, CA, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism,
excessive blooming.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:17:05 -0400, Bill wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:22:57 +0100, spirit wrote:
>>
>>>I've the 1DMKII and the 70~200ƒ2.8 L and the 2XII converter. Well
>>>image quality is great on some subjects; it likes bright lightly
>>>overcast conditions but does not do well in full sun or heavy
>>>overcast.
>>>
>>>In full sun one may get too much purple fringing and image distorting
>>>artefacts. Whereas the contrast is muck in dull overcast conditions
>>>and I've started to use contrast +3 here.
>>
>>Your precious Canon has convinced the ignorant that they can
>>simply adopt any old film lens to digital. Olympus at least
>>made an effort to convince people that this is a mistake.
>>Canon should be ashamed, selling multi-thousand dollar cameras
>>and telling people they can achieve good results with lenses
>>that simply cannot do justice to sensors, especially huge,
>>FF sensors.
>>The net result of having lenses with old optical designs?
>>Blurred edges, CA, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism,
>>excessive blooming.
>>-Rich
>
>WOW...
>
>Until this post, I thought you were the devils advocate, trying to help
>people with an alternative view and perhaps another choice. That's
>something I like to see from the usenet community.
>
>But with this wonderfully insightful post, I see you're simply a
>candidate for my twit filter.
>
>I'll give it a few days, just incase you were drinking or high at the
>time, and see if you will actually offer something more than insults and
>the classic buyers remorse state of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
>But I gotta say, it's not looking good...

So which part of the post are you pretending isn't true?
Example images taken with various Canon SLR lenses and their
FF cameras have proven everything I've said. Even CANON had
some sample images that exhibited problems with using old film
lenses on digital SLRs. You can also read up on why those lenses
don't work well with the sensors, if you care.
Or, you can just be another Canon-supporting fanatic, concerned only
with brand boosterism.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:59:18 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

>"Rich" wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:22:57 +0100, spirit wrote:
>>
>>>I've the 1DMKII and the 70~200f2.8 L and the 2XII converter. Well
>>>image quality is great on some subjects; it likes bright lightly
>>>overcast conditions but does not do well in full sun or heavy
>>>overcast.
>>>
>>>In full sun one may get too much purple fringing and image distorting
>>>artefacts. Whereas the contrast is muck in dull overcast conditions
>>>and I've started to use contrast +3 here.
>>
>> Your precious Canon has convinced the ignorant that they can
>> simply adopt any old film lens to digital. Olympus at least
>> made an effort to convince people that this is a mistake.
>> Canon should be ashamed, selling multi-thousand dollar cameras
>> and telling people they can achieve good results with lenses
>> that simply cannot do justice to sensors, especially huge,
>> FF sensors.
>> The net result of having lenses with old optical designs?
>> Blurred edges, CA, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism,
>> excessive blooming.
>> -Rich
>
>Y'know, Rich, you were barely tolerable up to this point, but, for someone
>with no experience in DSLRS, you have pretty much shown your absolute
>ignorance of the subject with this post. I'd say that I'm going to have
>some images posted before too long that would show just how little you know,
>but it won't really matter, because a) you're too prejudiced to admit you
>were wrong, and b) I won't be able to see your reply.

What's going to be hilarious is when Canon DOES decide to produce
lenses specific to digital sensors, with the types of parameters
already established by companies like Olympus. Then, the "old glass"
crowd will suddenly change it's tune and URGE everyone to adopt the
new glass. That's a guarantee.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter 

Skip M wrote:

>
> Y'know, Rich, you were barely tolerable up to this point, but, for someone
> with no experience in DSLRS, you have pretty much shown your absolute
> ignorance of the subject with this post. I'd say that I'm going to have
> some images posted before too long that would show just how little you know,
> but it won't really matter, because a) you're too prejudiced to admit you
> were wrong, and b) I won't be able to see your reply.
>

Will that be before your new 5D goes back with the warranty problem or
after it's fixed, Skip?

Sadly, Rich is right here. I predicted that soon after the release of
these FF cameras, Canon would introduce some "designed for digital"
lenses. It is true too, that Olympus has the most complete range of
Digital specific lenses on the market.

It is true too, that the 70-200 f2.8 will (under some circumstances)
produce CA. I tried for a week to make my Olympus lenses produce some -
any - chromatic aberrations without success. I couldn't make them
produce any purple fringing (a sensor type of CA) but I sure as hell
used to get it from my Canon stuff and even my new Nikon will sometimes
produce purple fringing.

You got it wrong Skip. (again)

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter