On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:14:07 +0100, you wrote: >One opinion that is often stated in CI tests is that prime lenses perform >better with converters than zooms. Having never used a converter, I'd like >to know other people's opinions.
Hugo - This doesn't address the question of why CI would claim that the 100-400 performs equally with and without a TC, but I believe the common wisdom on why primes (not under discussion in this thread anyway!) perform better with TCs than zooms is that zooms, due to the optical compromises inherent in their design, have more "flaws" - and TCs magnify flaws right alongside the image. Certainly Canon and other leading makers have minimized the amount of distortion, aberration, etc in their top of the line zooms, and they are by all accounts very usable with TCs. My own experience with TCs definitely shows a difference between primes and zooms, albeit most of my experience is with FD primes. (The FD 1.4xTC is a wonderful piece of glass, and the 2x is pretty damn good too) I used to own the consumer-level EF 75-300 III, and while a decent lens within certain conditions, it fell off sharply with a TC attached, producing barely acceptable images, certainly nowhere near professional quality. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
