extender or longer focal length lens?
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: extender or longer focal length lens?

  1. #1
    stacde Guest

    Defaultextender or longer focal length lens?


    I have a Canon XTi with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens and a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.
    I don't need a longer focal length immediately, but when we take our next trip I'll likely get one - my question is should I get a whole different lens, or would it be comparable to get an extender for the one I have? It would definitely be nice to just snap an extender on and off instead of lugging around and having to change the whole lens. Thoughts?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Buddysmom's Avatar
    Buddysmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    7,052

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    This is going to depend on just how long a focal length you want. On your 50mm, the extender would just make it a 104mm. Your other lens is longer than that. On the 28-135mm, your longest focal length would be 302mm lens. Remember you already have to multiply the focal length times 1.6. So the 28-123mm is really a 44-216mm lens. Then you multiply that # by 1.4 to get the focal length with the teleconverter. The other thing you have to address is if the teleconverter will work with your zoom lens. It will work with the 50mm. Teleconverters don't work with all lens above f/4. The autofocus won't work. You can use the manual focus with the the TC.


    Eiderdowns That's My Buddy
    CDX, RE, WC, CGC, TDInc.
    Monnie

  4. #3
    shelbyct is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    On teleconverters you also have to remember you will lose light. With a 1.4x converter a f4.0 lens will become a f5.6 lens and with the 2x converter the f4.0 will be a f8.0. So this is also something to consider when using a teleconverter.

    Carol

  5. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Marley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    62

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    Yet another thing is the loss of sharpness when using an extender. It may be slight, but more than likely you will get a bit "softer" image with the converter. I would consider renting one if possible to try it out before you buy.
    check out www.rentglass.com as I know they rent them(or at least you to) and are great to deal with!

  7. #5
    stacde Guest

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    I think I'm over the teleconverter idea... I'll either make due with what I have or wait until I feel like buying the 70-300 IS USM. Thanks guys!

  8. #6
    Marley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    62

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by stacde
    I think I'm over the teleconverter idea... I'll either make due with what I have or wait until I feel like buying the 70-300 IS USM. Thanks guys!
    Consider the 70-200 L instead of the 70-300 IS USM. Its a bit shorter and just a hair more expensive but well worth it. I had the 70-300 IS and absolutely hated it. It gave very soft images with poor contrast and was incredibly slow to focus on anything (especially if the subject was something that was moving).
    I was a bit concerned with it only being a 200mm but after putting it on the camera (20d) and shooting for 5 minutes I was happy as could be. The images it produces are simply amazing in comparison to the 70-300.

    Just my .02 from someone who has owned both.

  9. #7
    stacde Guest

    DefaultRe: extender or longer focal length lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marley
    Quote Originally Posted by stacde
    I think I'm over the teleconverter idea... I'll either make due with what I have or wait until I feel like buying the 70-300 IS USM. Thanks guys!
    Consider the 70-200 L instead of the 70-300 IS USM. Its a bit shorter and just a hair more expensive but well worth it. I had the 70-300 IS and absolutely hated it. It gave very soft images with poor contrast and was incredibly slow to focus on anything (especially if the subject was something that was moving).
    I was a bit concerned with it only being a 200mm but after putting it on the camera (20d) and shooting for 5 minutes I was happy as could be. The images it produces are simply amazing in comparison to the 70-300.

    Just my .02 from someone who has owned both.
    Thanks for the advice!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25