(1D Series Owners) How Many of You...

Have you thought of going with a Sigma lens? The 300mm f2.8 you should be able to get for under $1500 and possibly the 500mm f4.5 which would be higher of course. I have used Sigma before and they are not bad, not as good as Canon IMO but nice lenses for a budget.

Haven't really read all the replies, but i'll show some of my own examples from a weekends football game.
Both shot with a canon 1D mk3 & a 300/2.8 non-is with a canon 1.4x (mk1) extender attached.
My combo was had for under $3500.

100% crop of a ball. As you can see, the loss of IQ/sharpness is negligible.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

effstop wrote in post #14427512
I have a 1D MKII and when I had the 100-400mm it paired very well with the Kenko 1.4 telecon. I since sold the the 100-400mm and use a 400mm 5.6 w/the same body/telecon and like it very much. Sunny days are necessary starting at f8 and the AF works well for what I'm shooting.

That's kinda reassuring, so thank you for that.
It's not my goal to have to shoot at f/8, I shoot low-light a lot, so the sunny day thing isn't what I need, it 'may be' what I need to settle for in the end. I guess we'll see what happens on that.

Thank you very much for your contribution, I appreciate that.

Randy

Talaska wrote in post #14427541
Have you thought of going with a Sigma lens? The 300mm f2.8 you should be able to get for under $1500 and possibly the 500mm f4.5 which would be higher of course. I have used Sigma before and they are not bad, not as good as Canon IMO but nice lenses for a budget.

Yeah, I have thought of it, but I don't want to lose any quality, I'd rather gain it if at all possible. I have seen some VERY good shots from Sigma's though, but the possibility of me losing any, I don't know, I want to go up, not any other way.

Thanks for the help, I will still consider what you said though, you never know what lies ahead.

Randy

bboowwyy wrote in post #14427843
Haven't really read all the replies, but i'll show some of my own examples from a weekends football game.
Both shot with a canon 1D mk3 & a 300/2.8 non-is with a canon 1.4x (mk1) extender attached.
My combo was had for under $3500.

100% crop of a ball. As you can see, the loss of IQ/sharpness is negligible.

Those are very nice examples of what one could expect!
To be honest, I have never, EVER shot my 100-400mm without the IS, I guess I'm kind'a afraid I'll lose THAT shot! heheh I really should have taken the time to do that though, because you show that it is possible with a similar set-up. (That doesn't mean I'll ever be as good as y'all that do that, but it doesn't hurt to try)
That is real food for thought, I really do appreciate your pictures, and your reply on this, it'll help me, no doubt.

I really hate this, I have some money, but not enough to get what I really want, but wanting is always a good thing, it keeps us looking ahead, and it makes one appreciate what we have, and don't have.

Thank you!

Randy

1d3 + Kenko 2x + 100-400

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40483547@N07/6​917559299/

oh you want to shoot in low light, never mind. you need a lens without teleconverter.

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14428612
oh you want to shoot in low light, never mind. you need a lens without teleconverter.

This guy I knew that was a professional photographer had a Canon 500mm L IS and a Canon 1.4 extender on his 1DmkIII and he could shoot in really low light, and get sharp shots too. Of course, I know, he had the bucks to do it, all I want to do is to get as close to that set-up as I can, and I know it's not going to happen for free. heheh (It sucks to be poor)
We'd go to a local lake and shoot ducks, I had my XSi and he had the above gear, and I had to wait until the sun actually came over the trees before I could shoot. I missed all kinds of good shots, he didn't though. That is kind'a what makes me want what I want, as close to something like that as I can.

Thanks for the picture and the input too, that's not a bad shot at all, but it's pretty large, and I shoot little-bitty stuff, sometimes anyway, but yeah, the low light is what I am after too.
Of course, I want it ALL!

I'm gettin' closer though, I got some money to put in the bank in the morning that'll go towards all of this.

Randy

did you see his photos full size or only on his viewfinder?

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14431493
did you see his photos full size or only on his viewfinder?

I saw them both.
The only thing I don't know is how much Post-Processing he does, I know he does, I just am not sure how much. Whatever the case, I was impressed, and I was a Photoshop retoucher for years, so I know what impresses.
Also, I know another professional photographer that is sometimes there, he shoots Nikon, and he can also do the same, with an extender, I don't know his gear at all though, I'm really unfamiliar with that brand.
All I know is the (first) guy gets results, and you can't make up detail as he has in his shots, well, you could, but it'd take years. heheh

I never take what I see in a viewfinder as what a shot looks like, I only hope it is going to look as good as it 'may' look on it.
(In the beginning days of my digital life I did, I learned not to pretty quick!)

Randy

For fast sports action, I use the appropriate prime and avoid using TCs if at all possible because I want the fastest, most accurate, focus possible. In situations where focus speed is not vital (Ex. shooting a batter at home plate from center field) I will use a TC.

Zivnuska wrote in post #14441101
For fast sports action, I use the appropriate prime and avoid using TCs if at all possible because I want the fastest, most accurate, focus possible. In situations where focus speed is not vital (Ex. shooting a batter at home plate from center field) I will use a TC.

I would too, if I could afford them.

Thanks,

Randy

So what are your combo considerations, now, Randy?

airbutchie wrote in post #14441401
So what are your combo considerations, now, Randy?

Now I'm using the T2i and a 100-400mm L IS, I'm looking for a 1DmkIV (used) and so far, haven't found one. So that would be my plan it to try that pair out when I can get the camera. (A couple of weeks ago, when I didn't have any money, I saw them everywhere!)
Also, as stated earlier somewhere in here, (I think) I've mentioned that I'll want to use a 1.4 converter for reach, and preferably BiF, that may or may not happen though.
First, I'll get the camera, try out my 100-400mm, then try out my 1.4, if that works fairly well, I'll try it in BiF, if that works, then I have a new 2X converter, (Both are Kenko brand) I definitely don't have high hopes for the latter... heheh, I do have to try though.

My combo considerations now would be that above, but, if I can find a lens that will fit the budget, I may be able to get something that does work with either the Kenko brands, or the Canon's 1.4 or 2x. I really don't know, I've read so much about all of this, I feel as though I have started our from the beginning again. That's kind of a joke, but no so much when it comes down to it, I'm still confused as to what to do, except be patient and see how things go as they come in.

Thanks to the input, I appreciate that, and I hope that I answered the question.

Randy

Don't have a 100-400 but hears a few with 1d mk2 300mm f2.8 and a 2xII handheld

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​196071708/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​196072136/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370580793/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66400523@N08/6​370581573/