1.4x for 100 too?

Included in my camera bag are the 100 1.4 USM and 200 2.8 L USM. I am strongly considering the 1.4X MK II for a sharp 280 f4. Has anyone used this TC on the 100? Will it give me a usable 140, or would I be better off saving up $8XX for the 135 L? I assume there would be a difference in quality, but would it be significant enough to spend the extra $$?

<p>

Derrick

I assume you have the 100 2.0 (don't know of a 100/1.4).

<p>

The Canon 1.4 TCs don't work with the 100 or any other Canon lenses

that have a flush rear element, because the EF teleconverters have a

protruding front element. If you want to use a 1.4x with the 100/2.0

you have to look to Tamron, Sigma, etc.

<p>

The 135/2.0 is an exceptional lens; note, though, that it weighs

almost exactly as much as the 200/2.8 and is almost as big. There's a

significant jump in size from the 100/2.0 to the 135/2.0.

<p>

.......

John,

<p>

You are correct, the 100 is the 2.0. I got it confused with my 50.

<p>

Thanks for the info. It will be worth just having a good 280. I

guess I'll start saving for the 135. I know it's big and heavy, but

it is a terrific portrait lens. Thanks again.

<p>

Derrick

Note that the 135 F2 and 200 F2.8 are the only non-white lenses which

are Canon teleconverter compatible (actually, I think that the TSE

lenses are also, but not many people use them). The 135 F2L is

reputed to be an absolutely excellent lens, and will easily surpass

the 100 F2, let alone a 100 F2 with a teleconverter.

Just an addendum to my previous post. I mentioned the only non-white

lenses to be able to take the TCs...but I didn't mention that not all

white lenses can take them. I believe the only one which can't is the

35-350L USM. There's one other lens which you'd expect to be able to

take them, which can't, and that's the original 80-200 F2.8L (ie the

predecessor to the white 70-200 F2.8L we all know). Although not a

white lens, a lot of people assume it is TC compatible because all of

the 3 L series 70-200s are, but it is not.

Indeed, you are a font of knowledge (or is that fount?) -- thanks for

the additional info!