Yeah...that's it. Purple annoying sh*t. I knew there was a better way to put it. :)
Good call, Larr. Now ya gotta come up with a PWAL position ...I was gonna recommend one, but figgered that "missionary" while very possibly appropriate, was tackier than usual.
RtR Left Offensive Line Man Utah Spazz, PWAL At 02:55 PM 11/18/2009, you wrote:
It's just a pleasure to even considered for the PWAL with you Ray!! Of course I am totally aware of the purple edge fringe, I just never knew it had a name, other than that purple annoying Shi%. On a more serious note, I have not had good luck with extenders on my old film Pentax. Adds a lot of grain and fuzz.LarrFrom: ratpack-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ratpack-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ray BuckSent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:51 PM To: ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ratpack] Re: Looking for some inputWell, on the other lists I run (and one I don't) there's a thing I came up with years ago known as the PWAL. John and Jim are very familiar with it. It stands for Professional Wise Ass League. I've been known to insinuate myself as the Left Offensive Line Man (cuz I can come up with an offensive line whenever an opportunity is left open) playing for the Utah Spazz.On these lists we sometimes award a PWAL Play o' the Day to appropriate wise-assed comments. I think I'll bend the rules and give the award to both Larry and myself...just cuz I can. :)Don't you use chromatic fringe aberration in your daily conversations? It's that purple stuff at the edges of objects in photos made with cheap glass. I say it at least....ohhh....once or twice a year. :)RtR At 01:13 PM 11/18/2009, you wrote:I knew there was a reason we are called the Rat Pack. Anyone who can use the words" chromatic fringe aberration" deservers some kind of honor!!From: ratpack-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:ratpack-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ray BuckSent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:05 PM To: ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ratpack] Re: Looking for some inputI have a Tamron 1.4 extender. I almost never use it unless I'm going to have a fixed focus. There are a couple of things at issue: first, it won't work with EF-S only lenses like my 18-200. You can't even connect them. Second, in order to make autofocus work, you have to tape off 4 pins inside the extender. That's not real bad, but the autofocus becomes so slow that it's next to unusable with any kind of action shots and frustrating for general purpose photography. Maybe you're more patient than I am. Third, this isn't just a factor with the Tamron extender. Same holds true for the Canon version. Finally, the 2.0 extender has had some negative reports of chromatic fringe aberration. I've seen that happen in other extenders I've used with different cameras.My advice? Bite the bullet and buy the good glass. As a friend sez, "buy the best and only cry once." Doesn't mean that ya have to go buy a 600mm f2.8 (but if ya do, I wanna borrow it <G>) but the 100-400 will provide infinitely better shots than a 2x extender on the 70-200.Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. RtR(who can almost see out of 1.25 eyes now...use your imagination to set the ratio)At 11:46 AM 11/18/2009, you wrote:I'm considering a tele extender for my 70-200mm Canon lens. Has anybody had any experience? Canon makes their own but Sigma also makes one and it's about $100 less than the Canon. Any experience?Michael -- Michael Wells MCWells Photography <mailto:mcwellsphoto@xxxxxxxxx>mcwellsphoto@xxxxxxxxx 801-850-7279
