darlodge

I was all about to buy the 28-135 IS when I am in the states but just found out that it is not compatible with the 1.4 and 2.0 x converters I stupidly thought all IS lenses were compatible. Doh

Anyway, I wanted the 2.x converter as a method of doubling my reach. I did realise that at 270mm my lens would be shocking but I was hoping that the IS would compensate somewhat, however it’s pointless now.

I am now considering the 70-200mm f/4L which I know the 1.4 and 2.0 x work with. So at 400 I'd have F8 which is far from ideal as I'd also have no IS. To buy a new 400mm 5.6 is about £899 which is slightly better.

The question I have is:
Is it worth evening considering adding convertors on the realistically priced L series lenses like 300mm f4.0 L IS, 400mm f5.6 L, 70-200mm f4.0 L, 35-350 and 100-400.

I'm not sure what to do now, I'll most likely to grab a 28-135 as I always planned and will have to buy a larger lens later when funds permit

Darren

Mr.Cookie

Scarey, i've been looking at a 2 x convertor for my dimage 7 but am wondering about any side effects, this would change my camera's built in lens to a 56-400, sorry doesn't help you darren

Si

darlodge

Si, have a read here and here

Darren

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

It's only Canon's 2X converter that doesn't work with the 28-135IS. Take a look at the Kenko Pro converter, which is reasonably well reviewed (7 element version) and which works with all EF lenses.

The Canon converters only work with the white 'L' lenses, so you're OK with the 70-200 f/4L. The 2X will yield slightly soft images with any lens, though - you're magnifying the defects in the lens and IS won't help at all.

Another thing to watch out for is that most cameras require a maximum aperture of at least f/5.6 for AF to work. That means that f/5.6 lenses (eg. 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400L IS) will be limited to manual focus with any teleconverter. With the 70-200 f/4L and 300 f/4 you'll keep auto focus with the 1.4X but not the 2X. The rather expensive 70-200 f/2.8L will AF with a 2X as well.

It's generally recognised that the 1.4X degrades the image much less than the 2X. I use one with my 100-400L and am very happy with it.

darlodge

Thanks Andy, Would you say it is worth considering adding any convertor to the 28-135, given that it would beome manual focus, have useless IS and a shocking apature. That's not what I was buying the lens for.

The reason I want the 23-135 is because of the IS, the fast USM and that it has a decent range (28-135mm). Also its quite compact and light.

Does your 1D maintain AF when using the 1.4X on your 100-400?

I don't really need a telephoto lens just yet but I am just thinking ahead.

Darren

Mr.Cookie

Darren

Cheers for the links

Si

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I wouldn't add a TC to the 28-135, no. As you say, you'd end up with manual focus and a max aperture of f/8. The IS would still work and be useful, but it wouldn't overcome the (slight) fuzziness inherent with the 2X converter.

The 1D can AF with an f/8 lens (like the 100-400 + 1.4X), but only with the centre AF point.

My advice would be to go with the 28-135 for now and then wait and see what you find the need of next. I bought the (sadly discontinued) 100-300 f/5.6 L as my second lens - they crop up on eBay occasionally and are both cheap and exceptionally sharp. I later sold that lens and bought the 70-200 f/4L (which in fact I hardly ever use) and the 100-400L IS which I use all the time.

darlodge

Thanks Andy, I think thats the best approach. I don't really have a need for a longer lens just yet anyway, that and the funds are limited

Si, no worries, I'm a master at searching Google for valid entries

Darren

IWatkins

Darren,

I would agree with Andy. Go with the 28-135IS (it is a good lens) but leave out any converters. If your requirement for a long lens arises later and funds permit would then recommend the 100-400IS.

Only time I use a converter is a 1.4 on the Sigma 50-500 when I need the extra range at the 500 end. Even so, I loose stops and the quality is reduced.

Cheers

Ian

darlodge

Ian, I was looking at the Simga lenses as well as the Canon ones. Namily the 80-400 and the 100-300mm f4, currently it comes with a free 2x convertor

Darren

IWatkins

Free, someone say free ?

Seriously, the 80-400 is a very nice lens. Their version of IS is very very good. I "borrowed" that lens for a couple of weeks and was very close to buying it. The only thing that let it down was the lack of a HSM motor, i.e. the focusing was fairly slow. As I was going to buy the lens for motorsport use it really didn't cut it. The Canon 100-400IS is a so much better lens, but there again it should be, it costs more

I've no experience of the Sigma 100-300 so cannot help there.

Cheers

Ian

darlodge

Have a look on http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/ for the offer, its half way down the page for Sigma lenses.

Comments noted on the 80-400

Darren

Hoppy

I hate converters, even the dedicated ones are disappointing, and the universal ones are absolute horrors.

There are some fabulous and expensive lenses being talked about here. Don't spoil them with tele-converters, please!

Richard.

Daryl

I agree with Andy that it is worth having a 1.4x convertor for any long telephoto L lens that you might buy in the future, so if I were you I would buy one while you are in the US, as they are so cheap. The Canon is about £140, while Tamron do one for less than £50, which has been well reviewed.

If you can push the boat out, it might be worth getting the larger lens now, as who knows when the £/$ rate will be this good again (unless you go to the US regularly)?

BTW the 28-135IS is a great lens, especially when it costs just over £200!

alistair

The canon convertor doesn't work with the 35-350 either

I've got the 35-350, but have just bought a 100-400 so I can use a convertor. I've also got 24-70 & 70-200IS 2.8's so I should really sell something, I just can't work out what, it was going to be the 35-350, but it's sooo handy as a general purpose lens if I don't want to carry anything extra.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Flog the 35-350 and get the new 70-300 DO IS instead. It's only money

Mr.Cookie

Are convertors really that poor, my dimage can't change lenses and i can't afford to change yet as imho i'd need a 300D, 10D, D70 or D100 then lenses.

Si

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Best thing is probably to buy one from somewhere with a 'no quibble' return policy. That way you'll be able to try it out and see what you think of the image quality. I don't think they're too bad at all - people can get hung up on sharpness and resolution and lose sight of the fact that some photos just wouldn't be possible at all without the right lens. Photos don't have to be tack sharp to be worthwhile (although it helps!).

alistair

If the 70-300 had been available I might have bought one of those too ! My credit card is glad that the 1DII isn't available yet.

I was in B&H in NY a couple of weeks ago - it was about to close - I couldn't decide between the 70-200 & the 100-400 so I bought both - well you don't get 1.90 to the pound very often