Hugo Lopes wrote:
>
> >If the quality using the old 2x is "acceptable", then with the new
> >2x-II, the quality should be "good", a notch above "acceptable". This
> >is based on Canon claims, misc. reviews and my personal observations.
> >Ray Amos
>
> Which reviews? I've never tested the new converters but according to
> French magazine "Chasseur d'Images", in practical terms, the quality is
> about the same. The only major difference, according to them, is that
> they are "sealed" with that rubber o-ring (or whatever they call it).
> I'd like to see some other reviews.
>
> Hugo Lopes
Hugo, I never thought I would need to remember where I read the
reviews. I think a couple were in magazines and one on the internet. I
probably take more than 20 photography magazines. Some I save and some
I don't. I'll try to find them and if I see any more, I'll let you
know. I've saved your e-mail address.
Canon admits the 1.4x is optically the same but the 2x has changed. As
stated above, I'm only talking about the 2x, not the 1.4x. My good
friend has both of the new ones and he thinks the 2x is "much" sharper
and the 1.4x is a "little" sharper. I still own both 2x's and use the
2x a great deal as my main interest is wildlife photography. Even with
my 58 year old eyes, the difference is obvious. I promise you that you
will not be able to tell you're using a 2x, while viewing the slide with
a 10x Schneider loupe, at least with the new Super Teles with IS. I
have the 500 IS and my good friend has the new 300 f/2.8 IS and the new
600 f/4 IS.
The only bad point about the new extenders, other than a higher price,
is their size. They are slightly larger in diameter so I won't be able
to use the Kirk tripod collar attached to the 2x with my 90 T/S for
macro photography.
Ray Amos
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
