Lenses

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Years, and years ago I tried to use a 1.4x, a 2x and a 3x tel con stacked together on a FD 300mm f4 lens.  I found out quickly it was a horrible idea.  I suspect you will come to the same conclusion..................soon, I hope.

Quite so.

IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.

I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think.

---

[LarryS1]

I tried it again, it worked.  I believe your comment about light had something to do with it.

Quality wasn't as good as I'm sure a 500mm or 600 mm with a 2x tc, but detail wasn't as bad as I expected.

Thanks again Peter, I appreciate your input.

[ebiggs1]

"Quality wasn't as good ..."

It all has to do with what you call "quality".  That elusive word has different meanings to everybody.

[ebiggs1]

"Quite so.

IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.

I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think."

Perhaps acceptable, I freely admit.  One of the very few lens combos I agree do work well with the 1.4x tel-con is the ef 70-200mm f2.8L.

Two things, though, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L has a lot of IQ it can afford to loose.  Second did you take the same shot with, say, the ef 300mm f4L prime lens to compare?  No, I didn't think so!

A tel-con may be the answer but it is never the best answer, IMHO, of course, as always. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Quite so.

IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.

I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think."

Perhaps acceptable, I freely admit.  One of the very few lens combos I agree do work well with the 1.4x tel-con is the ef 70-200mm f2.8L.

Two things, though, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L has a lot of IQ it can afford to loose.  Second did you take the same shot with, say, the ef 300mm f4L prime lens to compare?  No, I didn't think so!

A tel-con may be the answer but it is never the best answer, IMHO, of course, as always. 

---

Well, you knew the answer to that question, Ernie, because you know that I agree with your oft-stated opinion that modern zooms have relegated the prime lens to niche product status.  

Our household contains, IIRC, two prime lenses: my wife's EF-S 60mm macro (which she likes a lot) and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I bought as a low-light lens for my XTi thirteen years ago and have almost never used.

[ebiggs1]

"... modern zooms have relegated the prime lens to niche product status."

Absolutely!  There are very good zooms out there now.  However, there are great zooms out there, too.  Canon's 70-200mm f2.8L series has proven that over and over. 

I have the 1.4x tel-con. I have used it perhaps a dozen times.  Maybe because I have two wonderful alternatives. One being the excellent, in its own right, ef 300mm f4L IS.

[ebiggs1]

"Some raw files to play around with. x1.4II+x2III vs x2III."

Your files are too large. Nobody is going to d/l such large files.  Not me anyway!

[Peter]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Some raw files to play around with. x1.4II+x2III vs x2III."

Your files are too large. Nobody is going to d/l such large files.  Not me anyway!

---

You still pay for each MB you use or don't have 406 MB of free space?

[ebiggs1]

Yeah they are too big to glance at. A simple jpg would suffice for your claims.