|
Best slim camera in the WORLD? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zewad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Time for a brief hijack.
I think I'm going to buy a f/4 Canon L 300mm prime lens, and use it with a Canon L 1.4X tele-converter. This will effectively give me a 420mm prime lens (apparently, with no loss of image quality due to the tele-converter as well).
I was looking at the Canon L 100-400mm, but I know that it gets a bit soft at full focal length, which is how I would be using it 90% of the time.
Thoughts? Comments? |
does not sound very pocket friendly... i dont approve |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
afaik, using a converter actually softens your photos a bit and you lose a couple f/stops. |
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Just edited my post to include the point that it's got Image Stabilization, which will help things out with the tele-comverter. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zewad
does not sound very pocket friendly... i dont approve |
:stongue: |
|
|
| shapes |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Just edited my post to include the point that it's got Image Stabilization, which will help things out with the tele-comverter. |
Wont improve image quality with a teleconverter. Might keep you from shaking a bit. You'd need like 1/500 to get an effective hand held picture. IS will give you about 3 stops "relief".
A 1.4x isn't going to give you that bad image quality, but a 2x will do some significance.
Also, better have a good body otherwise it's going to feel like crap. And get a grip for the body unless you have a 1D. |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Time for a brief hijack.
I think I'm going to buy a f/4 Canon L 300mm prime lens, and use it with a Canon L 1.4X tele-converter. This will effectively give me a 420mm prime lens (apparently, with no loss of image quality due to the tele-converter as well).
I was looking at the Canon L 100-400mm, but I know that it gets a bit soft at full focal length, which is how I would be using it 90% of the time.
Thoughts? Comments? |
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...#ModelDetailAct |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zewad
does not sound very pocket friendly... i dont approve |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by shapes
Wont improve image quality with a teleconverter. Might keep you from shaking a bit. You'd need like 1/500 to get an effective hand held picture. IS will give you about 3 stops "relief".
A 1.4x isn't going to give you that bad image quality, but a 2x will do some significance.
Also, better have a good body otherwise it's going to feel like crap. And get a grip for the body unless you have a 1D. |
I know the tele won't improve the quality, but I need the focal length - I'll mostly be doing bird photography. Definitely need at least 1/500 too, as those little bastards move damn fast.
Apparently, the 1.4x works exceptionally well with this lens, and I only lose 1 f-stop.
And I'm using a Canon 20D body. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
Can't afford it :( |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Can't afford it :( |
perhaps an easyshare would be more to your liking, then, sir. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by inconspicuous
perhaps an easyshare would be more to your liking, then, sir. |
Nevar! :mad:
Unless you wanna give me a loan? :tongue3 |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Nevar! :mad:
Unless you wanna give me a loan? :tongue3 |
for an easyshare?
I suppose I could spare a ha'penny or two. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by inconspicuous
for an easyshare?
I suppose I could spare a ha'penny or two. |
And for the 400mm prime? :clown: |
|
|
|
|
