Has anyone tried this with the new 70-200mm 2.8 VC?
823095
I was somewhat disappointed in this lens converter. It's good for still shots, but for wildlife pics -- which is mostly what I wanted it for -- it makes my lens much harder to focus and much more prone to vibration, causing some blurring.
823096
I have used this 2x teleconverter just briefly using my Tamron 70-300mm lens and was amazed with the distance it covered and the clarity of the shots. I was even able to shoot the top of a tree in front of a neighbors house thru a window while sitting in a living room chair. It attaches easily and just doubles the focus that you are using. I'm going to use for mainly catching birds and wildlife. I did not use a tripod for the shots I made but probably will when the light dictates. It is a useful, economical and fun way to increase you range of shooting.
1509566
The lens focus is not as fast as the 70-200 VR but it works well outdoors. Indoors it hunts for a focus in AF-S but is reasonable. You may want to consider a mono pod to keep motion blur out of the image in a dark church. Higher shutter speeds will be required to match the lens focal length. Also, a higher ISO may be required to keep up with the shutter and F-stop. I use it for weddings and love the images and I always shoot in manual mode. Hope this helps.
1252944
I use it on a d810 with 17-35f2.8 and indeed get some vig at 17, not sure about 24 but the filter is pretty thin. If it's really a concern use a step up ring and a larger filter. I just shoot wide.
1850427
I have tried the lens a few time with video using my Nikon D7000. I have found I like the results the best when using it at a minimum aperture of f5.6. I paid about $60 with shipping for this lens and it has worked well for me.
1445790
How does this lens compare to the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 (Mark I) with an adapter to E mount?
469115
absolutely, I use it on a 60d and love it. I actually sold a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 and went with this instead and I do not regret the choice.
842336
I haven't but I can tell you this lens is very wide and appears to be coming from a very far distance. it might be a bit too wide & distant to really capture what you want but try it out and let us know how it comes out!
1728578
No. this one only for Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR, and we also have the one for Canon 70-200 f4 IS or Non IS, just search in Amazon, you will find it.
1837117
It is not a "fixed" F/2.8. It is a "constant" F/2.8 which does not change when zoom from 24 to 70. It still has the smallest aperture of F/22 that you can use to gain all the DOF you want.
2180991
1) Do you shoot low lights and without flash? 2) Do you shoot action or sports? If you answer yes to any of those questions, then the VC version is much better suited to your needs. Now, the question is whether or not $700 extra is worth it. Only you can answer that. The only 2 downsides to the new version is its higher price and non-macro ability. But the lens itself becomes much more versatile in low light and action shooting. And it is sharp wide open... This lens is the highest rated 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ever by DxOMark.
1898465
I don't own that lense but can tel you that from my experience with another canon EF lense 70 - 200mm f/4l it works including AF.This dubler will not work with any EFS lense from Canon due to protruding internal dust ring which comes past the connector ring in all EFS Lenses. I own Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 HSM lense which does connect to this doubler but doubler is missing profile for that lense so it can only be used in manual focus mode. Overall it is a very nice doubler especially for the price and size (canon doubler is almost twice the length of this one). Andy
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
357731
I have never used a 24-70, but have seen good images made by it. For me, 70mm is too short a tele. I have a 24-85 which is not bad, also a 24-120 VR f/3.5-5.6 which is much better then the 24-120 f/4 I purchased.
1871180
Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to... » Read More Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. « Show Less
1741341
I have. It works fine but due to the senor size, the field of view is less. Unlike Canon lens, there is no red dot on the Rokinon so you need to be careful. I have used several different Rokinon lens and they all work on the Metabones speed booster.
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
1936776
I've had absolutely no issues. This is my second most go to lens when shooting portraits. I prefer the 70-200 more, but that's just my style.