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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2005, 4:22 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11
Default

what I have:

Rebel XT

50/1.8 II

Kit lens

Tamron 200-400/5.6-6.3

I've been trying to figure out how I can get some better shots at a hockey rink without breaking the bank. I've looked into fast zooms in the 70-200mm range but they seem to be a minimum of $500.

What would be the effective performance of the 50mm /1.8 with a 2x TC? I am assuming I would have an effective100mm/F3.6 but what else would I get in the deal?

Autofocus at all? If so it would probably be slower. I'm assuming I'd lose some image qualify. What else would be the downside?
russperry is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 10, 2005, 5:39 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

the big problem here is I don't believe the canon 2x teleconverter is compatible with any lens under 135mm. I'm not sure what will fit your budget, but you could probably pick up a EF 100mm f2.0 or 85mm f1.8 for around $400, and that would get you a little better, but if you want the really good shots, your going to have pay the price for the 70-200mm and the $500 price range is going to only get you the f4, which is a pretty darn good lens. but it you have the need for speed like I do the only the f2.8 will do. I picked up a new sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for $700. and love it.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2005, 8:53 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12
Default

You can use the Tamron or Kenko "cheap" TC, not their more expensive TCs designed to compete with the Canon TC. You will have autofocus but you will have to stop down at least 2 stops on top of losing the 2 stops due to the TC to get decent pics. Since you are looking at f8, you won't have the shutter speed necessary. You could try it at f3.6 but just expect some color fringing and a fair amount of drop in sharpness as the 50 f1.8 isn't the sharpest lens wide open to begin with. You would spend between 130 to 160 for the TC. To get the 85 f1.8 or 100 f2, you would spend around $340 to $390. If you want the zoom, then you really need to go to the 70-200 f2.8 as other zooms with f2.8 either aren't long enough or don't get good reviews.
ttmatsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 12:06 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11
Default

ttmatsu,

thanks for the response. I think I'm going to look into the 100/2 instead of the zooms. I've seen lots of discussions on the 2.8 zooms and though several users seem quite pleased, several others state that the Sigma performance below F4.0 is not that good. I'd really like to try the Canon 70-200/2.8 but even the non-IS versionlooks to be over $1100.

Do you know of any comparisons on line between the Canon and the Sigma at F2.8? Best yet would be performance in low light since that's where I anticipate using it, but I know that may be asking for too much.



thanks again for the input
russperry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 12:43 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

russperry wrote:
Quote:
Do you know of any comparisons on line between the Canon and the Sigma at F2.8?
FYI - http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70200s
... and here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=22421



Quote:
several others state that the Sigma performance below F4.0 is not that good.
They probably don't own one (check out its DOF and 'Bokeh' too): :idea:



NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 9:34 PM.