Quote Originally Posted by micdon


I too just got the 70-200 2.8 IS, have not gotten a chance to strech my "legs" so to speak with it, however intially it is superb. I was just asking the same question about the 1.4x and found and heard from a sports photographer who shoots 300mm prime that you lose some with the 1.4x and too much with the 2.0x


The 1.4x's are going for around $250 new on eBay and I think it would be well worth it for me espcially getting shots of wild life as well as sports. Lucky me... I'm the manager of a bunch of 7 year old baseball stars, so it will mean an additional trip to the park for pics of other kids [img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img]


Now I'm in the hunt to figure out do I get the 24-105L or get the 24-70 2.8L, I currently have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 which is a nice lens, but I'm sure as I start shooting L, I'll be spoiled quickly



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Yeah, like I was thinking, I'll get the 1.4x because it's not going to kill the pictures, but it will give me the extra I might need.


I'm also thinking about the 24-70mm 2.8 L.....It would be an awesome lens for weddings, and if you had to do an indoor sport like basketball, you could be close enough, and the aperture is big enough to at least let it happen. I know it's not as good as a 50mm 1.4, but...it would still get you by better than a stock lens with an aperture over 4.


All I have to figure out is how to get all the money for the 4-5k worth of lenses I want.