Quandry ?

[Marshy]

Next purchase was going to be a 1.4 c,tor for my 70-200f4 and a Tamron 28-75 , but now a more flexible option might be the 17-40L instead of the Tamron . Would the converter make the 17-40 approx 25-60mm or would the loss of quality negate the extra money the items would cost , views please ?

[Cadwell]

Next purchase was going to be a 1.4 c,tor for my 70-200f4 and a Tamron 28-75 , but now a more flexible option might be the 17-40L instead of the Tamron . Would the converter make the 17-40 approx 25-60mm or would the loss of quality negate the extra money the items would cost , views please ?

The Canon and Sigma TCs will not work with a 17-40L. They physicaly will not fit together.

Some other third party TCs might work... but to be honest, TCs and ultra-wide angle lenses don't really go together. They're designed for use with telephoto lenses.

[Marshy]

The Canon and Sigma TCs will not work with a 17-40L. They physicaly will not fit together.

Some other third party TCs might work... but to be honest, TCs and ultra-wide angle lenses don't really go together. They're designed for use with telephoto lenses.
Thanks for that , ah well back to the drawing board . Possible daft question but is 40mm to 70mm a gap that i would notice in normal photography use ?

[Cadwell]

Thanks for that , ah well back to the drawing board . Possible daft question but is 40mm to 70mm a gap that i would notice in normal photography use ?

I can't really answer that, it depends on what you photograph. Personally I don't use that range much, most of what I shoot is either wide angle or telephoto.

One possible answer for you would be to fill the gap with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 prime. It's very cheap, has very good optics and will give you good low light performance.

[ed2day]

I can't really answer that, it depends on what you photograph. Personally I don't use that range much, most of what I shoot is either wide angle or telephoto.

One possible answer for you would be to fill the gap with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 prime. It's very cheap, has very good optics and will give you good low light performance.

I think that's a great suggestion, and many do just that. The 50mm is effectively about halfway between 40 and 70 plus you get low light capability that the zooms are lacking. Those three make a great lightweight kit. And personally I find I don't need a zoom in the normal range as much as I do in wide and tele.

[Marshy]

I think that's a great suggestion, and many do just that. The 50mm is effectively about halfway between 40 and 70 plus you get low light capability that the zooms are lacking. Those three make a great lightweight kit. And personally I find I don't need a zoom in the normal range as much as I do in wide and tele.
Thanks guys , luckily i allready have the nifty fifty so i should be covered . The Tamron appealed to me coz of what i think off as a usefull range and low light capabilities but down side not very wide for landscapes and stuff .