Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 09 Dec 2005 (Friday) 12:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Petkal or Doc Klepper or anyone

 
jjonsalt
Goldmember
1,502 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
Dec 09, 2005 12:47 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

Y'all have the 135L and 1.4x TC as I do. However, y'all also have the 200L which I don't. Have you ever compared these two set-ups as far as IQ goes? What results?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PetKal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,141 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Nizza, Italia
     
Dec 09, 2005 13:22 |  #2

jjonsalt wrote:
Y'all have the 135L and 1.4x TC as I do. However, y'all also have the 200L which I don't. Have you ever compared these two set-ups as far as IQ goes? What results?

Sorry,it would be an interesting comparison, but I have not done it.
Both 135 and 200 mm primes I use "naked".
The only reason I have 1.4x TC is to extend my reach to 420 mm with my 300 f4 IS prime. Again, do not like doing that either, but for me that combo is a better option than 400 f5.6 prime.


Potenza-Walore-Prestigio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rklepper
Dignity-Esteem-Compassion
Avatar
9,019 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Dec 2003
Location: No longer living at the center of the known universe, moved just slightly to the right. Iowa, USA.
     
Dec 09, 2005 20:25 |  #3

I have not done this comparison either. I guess the 1.4 on a 135 would get me so close to the 200 I see no reason to use this setup. I have, however, used the 1.4 on the 200 with excellent results.


Doc Klepper in the USA
I
am a photorealist, I like my photos with a touch of what was actually there.
Polite C&C always welcome, Thanks. Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjonsalt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,502 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
Dec 09, 2005 21:38 as a reply to  @ rklepper's post |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

Thanks guys. I have used the 135L and 1.4x TC to my satifaction. Just wondering if it would pay to get the 200L as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genewch
Senior Member
360 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Hong Kong
     
Dec 10, 2005 01:57 as a reply to  @ jjonsalt's post |  #5

Does the 1.4x TC slow down the focusing speed of 135mm and 200mm considerably? I'm keen to use them in (indoor) sports pics.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjonsalt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,502 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
Dec 10, 2005 06:07 as a reply to  @ genewch's post |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

genewch wrote:
Does the 1.4x TC slow down the focusing speed of 135mm... considerably?

no




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genewch
Senior Member
360 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Hong Kong
     
Dec 11, 2005 03:45 |  #7

So if the 1.4x extender doesn't slow down focusing speed much, I should be happy with the extender with half price of the 200mm. It sounds a good bargain! But, the bare 200mm is really cool! It operates like the 135mm, and saves the weight of the extender.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rklepper
Dignity-Esteem-Compassion
Avatar
9,019 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Dec 2003
Location: No longer living at the center of the known universe, moved just slightly to the right. Iowa, USA.
     
Dec 11, 2005 10:11 |  #8

It does not slow down the focus speed on the 200, but like I said with the 200 in the bag I have never used the TC on the 135. Maybe I should just out of curiosity.


Doc Klepper in the USA
I
am a photorealist, I like my photos with a touch of what was actually there.
Polite C&C always welcome, Thanks. Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjonsalt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,502 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
     
Dec 11, 2005 10:59 as a reply to  @ rklepper's post |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

rklepper wrote:
...I have never used the TC on the 135. Maybe I should just out of curiosity.

If you do, Doc, could you let us know what you think?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

1,269 views & 0 likes for this thread, 4 members have posted to it.
Petkal or Doc Klepper or anyone
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2251 guests, 136 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.