Page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
|
|
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 33669
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive
|
|
|
It works fantastic together with my EF 135 f/2 and EF 300 f/4 IS.
|
|
 Nov 21, 2003
|
|
Dave Hughes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 240
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The Optical quality is very good, it's small and fits in any bag.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight loss of sharpness as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2003
|
|
Henk Bos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2002
Location: Jordan
Posts: 4153
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Never notice it except for the increase in focal lenght. In other words: superb!
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2003
|
|
cmdoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 310
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb color
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight loss of sharpness
|
|
|
I bought mine from a local Canon dealer in Houston -- paid a higher price because I needed it immediately. When used with my 70-200mm f2.8 (non-IS) lens, it loses just a little bit of sharpness. Is it enough to bother me? NO! I use it all the time for baseball, football, lacrosse -- in other words, all of the outdoor sports I don't hesitate to put this thing on.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2003
|
|
Mudflap
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 328
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super optics. Easy to carry in your camera bag. Gives you the little extra tele-kick when needed.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought this used on eBay and use it with my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Mine is the older version, however the optics are supurb. This is one f stop I don't mind trading for some tele power when needed.
|
|
|
May 26, 2003
|
|
Richard N
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 146
|
|
Review Date: May 22, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality, very good build.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
Extremely happy with it. I use it often with my 70-200/4L on a Canon 10D body without affecting picture quality in any way. Good weather sealing.
|
|
|
May 22, 2003
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $220.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, incredible optical quality, weather sealing gaskets
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is a superb quality converter, giving barely any notable loss of image quality when attached to any of my "L" lenses other than the 300/2.8 where the image degraded notably.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
dbarthel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 788
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Almost no loss of quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is a jewel. On a 300 f2.8 wide open (f4 effective) it's hard to tell any loss of quality.
On the 100-400f5.6, you have to manually focus, but quality is good.
On the 300 f2.8 with the 2x and the 1.4x results are still quite usable. I think this is 840mm at f8. Lots of length for very little weight.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
