Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 9, 2004, 2:34 PM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

Both Sigma and Kenko make good teleconverters. So if you have trouble with the Tamron, you might want to look into one of these to companies offerings.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2004, 3:46 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585

The canon teleconverts are designed to work only with L lens. I went with the cheap model of Tamron (i believe it is the same as the Kenko but relabled) because with the Pro version you did not gain any performance. It has worked well for me.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2004, 5:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,331


Contrary to some suggestion, the Sigma's TCs are NO-GO as well, I have both the 1.4x and 2x and like the Canon's L their internal elements overhang and would not fit the flush back of my EF 28-135 IS USM at the wide position.

Theses higher cost TCs have more correction glasses in them and always end up thicker than their converter's barrel. They are designed to match up with long lenses only...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 12:52 AM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577

gibsonpd3620 wrote:
The canon teleconverts are designed to work only with L lens.
And then only with the longer teles or zooms. They don't work with the 17-40L or 24-70L, for example!

barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 12:55 AM   #15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577

UniSonBBS wrote:
I myself would consider the following. I find it to be a great combo in my book.

Canon 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM (Has internal focus unlike the 75-300) $400
Canon 70-200mm L4.0 (Has internal focus and zoom) $650
Canon 1.4x Teleconverter. Only makes your lens one stop slower. ($100ish)

That there would cover almost everything you could think of. As someone else said about the 28-135 IS with a 1.4x, the IS is a great feature to have, and with the 1.4x you will still have auto focus.
I second the 70-200 F4 L lens. Its a great zoom!

The Canon 1.4x TC is around $250, not around $100. It also doesn't fit with the 28-135 IS lens.

On a 10D or 300D you lose autofocus after F5.6 (I think). Thus a 1.4x TC on a 28-135 will result in manual focus at the long end (or did I get this wrong)?

barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 5:08 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 132

I'll keep it simple.

1.) Stick with Canon USM

2.) If you can afford it, go for the L glass. Soon enough you will develop "L-glass envy" if you don't, and then you'll wind up buying two lenses for the same thing.

3.) If budgetary constraints are a problem, I would haunt Fred Miranda's Buy/Sell forum. Get to know the sellers - most are extremely reputable individuals. Those who aren't get drummed out of the process quickly.

4.) I agree with the 17-40L recommendation. Awesome lens. Mint condition versions of this one are frequently available on Miranda for good prices. I don't know why - mine is an awesome lens, and it is sharper at the edges than the really expensive 16-35L.

5.) I agree with the 70-200L f4.0 recommendation. Awesome lens. You should be able to buy a non-IS Excellent condition used model for around $500.

6.) I agree with the cheap gap-filler Mark II 50mm f1.8, which can be purchased for around $70 - 75. As long as you shoot this at around f8, you will be amazed.

7.) Dust magnet? I liked my 28-135 IS a lot. Not quite wide enough, and not quite "L" enough, but it produced some magnificent photos before I sold it so I could buy some of the stuff recommended above. A great all-purpose lens, but if you get serious about your photography, this one will wind up in the for-sale list.

8.) Lastly - if you buy the 17-40L and the 70-200L used, you'll have enough money left over in your budget to buy the 1.4x which you will be able to use with your 70-200L. This, is a fantastic combination, by the way. You will have to shoot in bright light, or with a tripod with that combination however, as that translates to nearly 450mm by the time you factor in the 1.6 10D, and the 1.4x time the 200mm.

Just my humble opinion. Good luck

Ward Larson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2004, 4:40 PM   #17
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 18

I second and third those who suggested the 17-40f/4L, 70-200f/4L, and 50f/1.8. That happenedto be my first lens combo with my 10D.All purchased for under $1200 used. I since upgraded to the faster 50f/1.4 for those low-light situations with no flash allowed. All told you could purchase the 50/f1.4 with the 17-40 and 70-200 for around $1350 (used).
jag147 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2004, 11:52 PM   #18
Junior Member
PhotoNuB's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22

Here is a link to the article where some 28-134 IS owners complained about dust. You can read the whole thing, or just search for "dust". Perhaps they are shooting in the desert..

PhotoNuB is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:47 PM.