I don't know if I'm 2nding or 3rding or what...ing..


but I way agree...


best off getting the naked lens. If you want a teleconverter, that's fine, but a 70-200 with even a 1.4x teleconverter, let alone 2.0x teleconverter, is a highly compromised animal. The first time I tried a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I said "Wow, this is nice." The first time I popped in a 1.4x teleconverter, I said, "Wow, autofocus sucks" When I looked at the images wth the 1.4x, I said, "Well, it's still a lot cheaper than getting the 100-400 zoom." I tried a 2x converter with the 70-200, at a concert and a couple pool parties. The viewfinder was dim, and the autofocus excruciating, but the reach was great. Saw the pictures, and never putthe teleconverters on the 70-200 again got a 400mm f/5.6L. I keep the teleconverters around for the 400mm prime in situations where I don't need autofocus, and I simply have no other option for longer focal lengths, and sometimes for Macro stuff, but for all but a few days out of the year, they sit on the shelf.


I'm not saying that they're not a cost effective way to change focal length, but between a teleconverter and a simple crop, unless the teleconverter/lens combination is exceptiionally acceptable, I think we're often better served by just cropping. If you were to assign a lens a resolution value in the same way that we consider sensor resolution in megapixels, in that analogy, a 2x teleconverter will give you 1/4 of the real optical information, and then add it's own distortion on top of that. Now, if you've got phenomenally more detail than the camera body can capture to begin with, then maybe that works out, but my experience with the 70-200 confirms that Bryan has a sometimesirritating habit about being right.... I know somebody will be happy with the combination, and to be fair, it does what it's supposed to do. You can still get a great picture with a teleconverter, but it's because you got a great picture.


I really love my 70-200. It's the second to last lens i'd give up, right before the 24-105, but only because I'm willing to sacrifice reach for speed and lower light performance, if required, for what I like. The 100-400 isn't quite the same performer as the 400 f/5.6 prime at 400mm, but then again, if you have a 24-105 combined with a 100-400, you've got pretty darn good performance over a really wide range in only a couple of lenses. Compliment that with a 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm Macro for a bit more, and you're really well rounded.


I'm bleeding into a different thread, arent' I []