Recent content by sharpcroft

New to the compact stuff and new to Sony, just splashed out on the Rx100 IV as i've got some interesting trips coming up and i dont want to lug my DSLR's around with me. Its a complicated bugger made even more so by the lack of a decent manual. What are your opinions on either of these...

Problem is, first use in anger will be this Saturday and i cannot afford to b*lls it up as its our last game of the season, anybody actually tried this?

Just got myself a Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS MKII (im selling my old Sigma non-IS version if you are interested by the way) and the question is, is there any point in using the IS when im doing my normal thing which is shooting football on a Saturday afternoon or Tuesday evening? At above what...

For those interested, i emailed Sigma and have received the following reply "Morning Darren, The 70-200 MK II should be fully functional with both converters. It will autofocus on both. Kind Regards" Exactly the answer i was looking for, Sharpcroft

Cannot find a definitive answer regarding the converters, I cannot think why they wouldnt, Sigma lenses fit canon bodies, sigma converters fit canon bodies, the lens end of a converter is a copy of the fitting on the body so i would have thought that if the sigma converter works with the sigma...

Now for my next post in equipment "Anybody tried a Sigma extender on a Canon lens? :)

Im looking at the MKII 70-200, i have sigma 1.4 and 2.0x extenders so as long as they work with the Canon (autofocus?) i think that will be a good combo, extra length and IS when needed, fast, 2.8 for football

I've seen results from a Canon compared to the Sigma and i was blown away at the difference, 70-200 suits me as its more a hobby than a proper job (though it does pay sometimes), i just wanted the best 70-200 i could afford

Cheers Steve thanks for your input, and your thinking is the same as mine, if i've got it i can turn it off.

Ok thanks, now any body used both of these lenses can give me an opinion as to whether the upgrade (Sigma - Canon) is worth it?

Should mention, i can just stretch to the IS version with the Canon cash back offer so should i just plump for that, any body used the IS version for sports with the IS on? Any advantage (panning with players as they run past etc?) or is it better to have it turned off for football?

Seen various arguments for and against. Saving for a Canon 70-200 f2.8 to replace my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 primarily to shoot football but also for wildlife etc when on holiday, so, am i better getting the IS version or NON IS version?

Lowepro classified fits my 7d with 70-200 attached, lens down with room to spare plus 2-3 other lens's, speedlight etc etc, i got it for the knocked down price of £50 from digital depot about 4 months ago, wouldnt be without it, oh and its the AW version so has a rain jacket.

All of the above plus a hip-flask full of Jamesons for me last Saturday, worked a treat and i made the NLP :)

I think i need to pop to Jessops and blag a try of the Canon glass!