Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens

In article <enf9jm$rag$10@reader2.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans DeleteThis @panix.com> writes:
$Anybody ever try to put a tele-extender on this
$lens?

Probably. But the Canon ones won't fit; neither will at least
some of the higher-end models from other manufacturers. That likely
leaves you with a low-grade teleconverter which was not really designed
to be used with a wide zoom, on a wide zoom which was never designed
to be used with any teleconverter (even a good one).

With a 1.4x, this becomes a 34-147, which you'd only use in the
106-147 range (as the 34-105 range is covered by the bare lens with
better optics and speed). Chances are that the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM
will do just as good a job, if not better, than a low-grade TC on the
24-105.

With a 2x, it becomes a 48-210, with at best poor AF on anything
but a pro body (and if you have the dough for a 1D or 1Ds,
you ought to be able to spring for a second lens). Again, you'd
only be using the 106-210 range. Again, even the cheapie 55-200 is
probably better; it's definitely faster and will have more reliable
AF. And any of the 70/75-300s would easily beat this combination
(in optics, in speed, and in AF), plus will give you more reach
on the long end.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <stephen DeleteThis @stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens 

"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen DeleteThis @stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
news:JBA216.3o0@stevedunn.ca...
> In article <enf9jm$rag$10@reader2.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans DeleteThis @panix.com>
> writes:
> $Anybody ever try to put a tele-extender on this
> $lens?
>
> Probably. But the Canon ones won't fit; neither will at least
> some of the higher-end models from other manufacturers. That likely
> leaves you with a low-grade teleconverter which was not really designed
> to be used with a wide zoom, on a wide zoom which was never designed
> to be used with any teleconverter (even a good one).
>

The Tamron/Kenko 1.4 converter (same product, different branding) will fit I
think, and is quite a nice piece of glass. It fits on a 17-40 f/4L at least,
so I take that as a pretty good indication that it will fit on anything
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens 

Bill Hilton <bhilton665.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>> Anybody ever try to put a tele-extender on this
>> lens?

>The Canon converters won't mount to it.

>Dunno about the off brands but I wouldn't expect very high image
>quality ... but I could be wrong.

Thanks.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens 

"St?le Sannerud" <staale.sannerud.TakeThisOut@bibits.no> wrote:

>"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen.TakeThisOut@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
>news:JBA216.3o0@stevedunn.ca...
>> In article <enf9jm$rag$10@reader2.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans.TakeThisOut@panix.com>
>> writes:
>> $Anybody ever try to put a tele-extender on this
>> $lens?
>>
>> Probably. But the Canon ones won't fit; neither will at least
>> some of the higher-end models from other manufacturers. That likely
>> leaves you with a low-grade teleconverter which was not really designed
>> to be used with a wide zoom, on a wide zoom which was never designed
>> to be used with any teleconverter (even a good one).
>>

>The Tamron/Kenko 1.4 converter (same product, different branding) will fit I
>think, and is quite a nice piece of glass. It fits on a 17-40 f/4L at least,
>so I take that as a pretty good indication that it will fit on anything

Thanks.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens 

Yes, I did with Kenko 1.5X(not 1.4X) and get good result.
My second hand one from ebay at US$60. I'm sure Kenko 1.4X does the same as
well.

"Paul J Gans" <gans DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote in message
news:enkdt9$ib0$11@reader2.panix.com...
> "St?le Sannerud" <staale.sannerud DeleteThis @bibits.no> wrote:
>
>>"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen DeleteThis @stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
>>news:JBA216.3o0@stevedunn.ca...
>>> In article <enf9jm$rag$10@reader2.panix.com> Paul J Gans
>>> <gans DeleteThis @panix.com>
>>> writes:
>>> $Anybody ever try to put a tele-extender on this
>>> $lens?
>>>
>>> Probably. But the Canon ones won't fit; neither will at least
>>> some of the higher-end models from other manufacturers. That likely
>>> leaves you with a low-grade teleconverter which was not really designed
>>> to be used with a wide zoom, on a wide zoom which was never designed
>>> to be used with any teleconverter (even a good one).
>>>
>
>>The Tamron/Kenko 1.4 converter (same product, different branding) will fit
>>I
>>think, and is quite a nice piece of glass. It fits on a 17-40 f/4L at
>>least,
>>so I take that as a pretty good indication that it will fit on anything
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens