Can't decide between Canon 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter

charlesoutcalt

I will be taking a safari in South Africa and Botswana in a couple weeks. I plan to bring these lenses, as well as a 1D Mk III and a 30D as backup:

28 - 70 f/2.8L

70 - 200 f/2.8L IS

300 f/2.8L IS

I have been advised that I should get a teleconverter for the 300 to get better reach for wildlife. I can't decide between the 1.4 and the 2.0. What's more important, the extra reach of the 2.0 or the extra f stop of the 1.4?

If it makes a difference, I will be with a large group of people, and likely won't have time to do much set up for each shot. I will have a Gitzo monopod, but no tripod. In other words, I won't be able to take my time preparing for a shot, and might need to hand-hold more often than not.

Any advice would be appreciated! This is probably a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me, and I want to pack correctly.

Thanks.

ChatKat

Rent the 100.400
The 70-200 or 300 maybe just fine. You have a severe weight limit by the small planes that get you there - I think you only get about 25 lbs - not much at all. The perfect lens for safari is the 100-400. The problem with the extenders is the apeture also doubles so that 2.8 =5.6 is the widest.

ziggy53

If it were me, for a "once-in-a-lifetime trip", I would purchase and take both. You could always sell something later if you no longer need it.

Rental is also an option.

There may be opportunities in bright light where the 2x is viable and needed, and other times when you just can't afford the loss in f-stop or loss in quality. Unless you know for sure what you will shoot, how large and how far away, it's difficult to make any more specific recommendation. (If you could know beforehand exactly what you will shoot, how large and how far away, you wouldn't need to ask here. )

I do suggest contacting the organizers of the safari for their recommendation and contact information for other photographers who might have taken the same safari so that you can learn from their direct experience.

Then again, maybe you won't need that much range:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/1832315354_e253ad7d4d.jpg

Good luck,

charlesoutcalt

Thanks
Hah-hah! I loved that photo. Who knew you might need a macro for a lion?

Even if the cost is relatively low, I don't think I can spend any more $ for this trip, other than one tc. The piggy bank is almost empty. Also, I have really started to try to not switch equipment once I'm shooting, even to the level of lens changes. I'd rather hang two cameras around my neck with different lenses. I'm slow on lens changes, and I always seem to miss the shot with a lens in one hand body in the other. Ditto with memory cards, although at least I am faster at swapping those out.

I am leaning toward the 1.4. Cropping might be a lesser evil than losing an f stop.

Thanks again for the advice.

ziggy53 wrote:

If it were me, for a "once-in-a-lifetime trip", I would purchase and take both. You could always sell something later if you no longer need it.

Rental is also an option.

There may be opportunities in bright light where the 2x is viable and needed, and other times when you just can't afford the loss in f-stop or loss in quality. Unless you know for sure what you will shoot, how large and how far away, it's difficult to make any more specific recommendation. (If you could know beforehand exactly what you will shoot, how large and how far away, you wouldn't need to ask here. )

I do suggest contacting the organizers of the safari for their recommendation and contact information for other photographers who might have taken the same safari so that you can learn from their direct experience.

Then again, maybe you won't need that much range:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/1832315354_e253ad7d4d.jpg

Good luck,

KED

charlesoutcalt wrote:

Hah-hah! I loved that photo. Who knew you might need a macro for a lion?

Even if the cost is relatively low, I don't think I can spend any more $ for this trip, other than one tc. The piggy bank is almost empty. Also, I have really started to try to not switch equipment once I'm shooting, even to the level of lens changes. I'd rather hang two cameras around my neck with different lenses. I'm slow on lens changes, and I always seem to miss the shot with a lens in one hand body in the other. Ditto with memory cards, although at least I am faster at swapping those out.

I am leaning toward the 1.4. Cropping might be a lesser evil than losing an f stop.

Thanks again for the advice.

I started out with the 2.0 but came to feel like I was giving up too much aperture (aperture that I paid a LOT for), so I switched to the 1.4. That's a decent compromise, but I have come to believe that either of them plays a role in slowing AF in AI Servo mode. I can't prove that, it's just a feeling (perhaps as the owner of a Mk III, you can understand my paranoia!). So, even though I am shooting mostly sports in bright sunlight right now, I'm leaving the extenders off my 70 - 200 and trying to develop the discipline of not bothering to shoot all the way across or down the field from where I am situated.

PS Now I understand why you have become such a master of geotagging!!

charlesoutcalt

thanks, this helped
Thanks, buddy. Your post confirmed my thoughts, and so I've decided to go with the 1.4.

Hah--yes, now you see why I am loving geotagging! I just wish I had had it over my last couple years of travel to Africa, Australia, South America, Scandinavia. . . But better late than never.

Have a great day, and thanks again.

KED

charlesoutcalt wrote:

Thanks, buddy. Your post confirmed my thoughts, and so I've decided to go with the 1.4.

Hah--yes, now you see why I am loving geotagging! I just wish I had had it over my last couple years of travel to Africa, Australia, South America, Scandinavia. . . But better late than never.

Have a great day, and thanks again.

Well if you ever decide that you want to experiment, I have a seldom-used 2.0x on my shelf, available to you at a great price. Have a safe and wonderful trip.

silverstangs

charlesoutcalt wrote:

I will be taking a safari in South Africa and Botswana in a couple weeks. I plan to bring these lenses, as well as a 1D Mk III and a 30D as backup:

28 - 70 f/2.8L

70 - 200 f/2.8L IS

300 f/2.8L IS

I have been advised that I should get a teleconverter for the 300 to get better reach for wildlife. I can't decide between the 1.4 and the 2.0. What's more important, the extra reach of the 2.0 or the extra f stop of the 1.4?

If it makes a difference, I will be with a large group of people, and likely won't have time to do much set up for each shot. I will have a Gitzo monopod, but no tripod. In other words, I won't be able to take my time preparing for a shot, and might need to hand-hold more often than not.

Any advice would be appreciated! This is probably a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me, and I want to pack correctly.

Thanks.

Since you have the 300mm lens, I would say take the 1.4x TC which will give you 420mm on a full frame camera, and about 672mm(effectively) with your 30D camera and about 546mm with your 1D Mark III. If anything, take a Tripod. If it gets too dark, push the ISO up on that 1DMarkIII. Keep the 30D for daylight use.

KED

silverstangs wrote:

Since you have the 300mm lens, I would say take the 1.4x TC which will give you 420mm on a full frame camera, and about 672mm(effectively) with your 30D camera and about 546mm with your 1D Mark III. If anything, take a Tripod. If it gets too dark, push the ISO up on that 1DMarkIII. Keep the 30D for daylight use.

I've never been on safari, but I wonder if tripod is an option . . .

silverstangs

KED wrote:

I've never been on safari, but I wonder if tripod is an option . . .

Or atleast a monopod.

KED

silverstangs wrote:

Or atleast a monopod.

There you go. Easier to transport, much more mobile in the field, and worst case, combined with a quick release plate, maybe a last resort defense against charging animals!

ChatKat

Severe weight limits
On most safari's weight is limited to about 25 lbs per passenger including clothing so you must travel very light. You can't use a tripod or monopod in a jeep, where you will see the game.

charlesoutcalt

stabilization
Here's where those infernal weight restrictions (26 lbs/person, including carry-on) kick in. I haven't weighed my photo gear yet, but I am guessing it's pushing 20 lbs, leaving me 6 for toothbrush, shoes, books, and other necessaries. Unless I want to wear the camera strap in some creative way I'd better save a few pounds so I can look presentable.

I'll be trying to get by with a monopod, which I am thinking might be more useful for shooting from a moving vehicle anyway.

Thanks for your advice, everyone. I'll post photos on my Sm site if any seem worth sharing.

ziggy53

Good luck Charles and I look forward to seeing the images.

Photoskipper

I got two 2X converter. Started with Kendo 2X due to promotion price and cheap years ago for my old 70-300 on XT for the feel only. I was very disappointed with that 2X.
After getting the 70-200 F2.8 IS and ordered the Canon 2X and hope it would be better.
Finally, I found it is a bit soft but yet ok. the 5.6 400mm on 5D is no complaint.
I am planning to get the 1.4X in order to have better image quality with the 70-200 or my future 500 mmF4.

Akash

Calculate your required Focal Length
It's fairly easy to work out the Focal Length you need for a subject to fill the frame when shooting from any particular distance.
The full relationship is: (S/I+1)xF=D where 'S' & 'I' are Subject & Image sizes respectively, and 'D' is Distance. A rough approximation for the 35mm format simplifies this to: F=36D/S. E.g. for a panther approximately 2 Meters long to fill the frame lengthwise:

At a distance (D) of 20 Meters (20,000mm), the 2-Meter (2,000mm) subject (S) will require a lens of Focal Length (F) = 360mm.

Note: For the ID MkIII, multiply the Focal Length of the lens you intend to use by 1.3 to match the calculation to the FOV-Crop of the camera's APS-H size sensor. For the 30D, multiply by 1.6 (it uses an APS-C size sensor).

I would suggest that you use the 2X Converter when required and maintain a safe distance from unpredictable wildlife. The results may be a touch soft if using the lenses wide open, but they'll be quite acceptable if you stop down a notch. As for the loss of stops - well, just crank up the ISO's a bit!

Yes, before anyone yells at me, I do indeed know that some Wildlife photographers actually shoot dangerous game with a relatively wide lens, but that's after years of practice at very risky encounters.

charlesoutcalt wrote:

I will be taking a safari in South Africa and Botswana in a couple weeks. I plan to bring these lenses, as well as a 1D Mk III and a 30D as backup:

28 - 70 f/2.8L

70 - 200 f/2.8L IS

300 f/2.8L IS

I have been advised that I should get a teleconverter for the 300 to get better reach for wildlife. I can't decide between the 1.4 and the 2.0. What's more important, the extra reach of the 2.0 or the extra f stop of the 1.4?

If it makes a difference, I will be with a large group of people, and likely won't have time to do much set up for each shot. I will have a Gitzo monopod, but no tripod. In other words, I won't be able to take my time preparing for a shot, and might need to hand-hold more often than not.

Any advice would be appreciated! This is probably a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me, and I want to pack correctly.

Thanks.

CookieS

Bottom line is the 1.4 is much better IQ than the 2X

ziggy53

Akash wrote:

It's fairly easy to work out the Focal Length you need for a subject to fill the frame when shooting from any particular distance.
The full relationship is: (S/I+1)xF=D where 'S' & 'I' are Subject & Image sizes respectively, and 'D' is Distance. A rough approximation for the 35mm format simplifies this to: F=36D/S. E.g. for a panther approximately 2 Meters long to fill the frame lengthwise:

At a distance (D) of 20 Meters (20,000mm), the 2-Meter (2,000mm) subject (S) will require a lens of Focal Length (F) = 360mm.

Note: For the ID MkIII, multiply the Focal Length of the lens you intend to use by 1.3 to match the calculation to the FOV-Crop of the camera's APS-H size sensor. For the 30D, multiply by 1.6 (it uses an APS-C size sensor).

I would suggest that you use the 2X Converter when required and maintain a safe distance from unpredictable wildlife. The results may be a touch soft if using the lenses wide open, but they'll be quite acceptable if you stop down a notch. As for the loss of stops - well, just crank up the ISO's a bit!

Yes, before anyone yells at me, I do indeed know that some Wildlife photographers actually shoot dangerous game with a relatively wide lens, but that's after years of practice at very risky encounters.

Akash, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the insightful calculations.

20DNoob

I have both of the TCs' and I'd definitely take the 2x for the 300.

CookieS wrote:

Bottom line is the 1.4 is much better IQ than the 2X

With the 300 it isn't that much of an issue. Here's a heavily cropped shot using it with the 2xTC for a reference(not trying to TJ). Can't wait for the pics from the trip, my closest experience to a safari is the one they have at Disney.



Prior to crop to show how heavy.

gtc

bean bag rice bag
a beanbag is a light and useful tool for steadying long lenses on vehicle windows etc.A bag of rice is a useful substitute .

LiquidAir

I spent several days in the Kalahari a few years back shooting 35mm film. Some thoughts:

If you are bringing a 300/2.8, then bring both a 1.4 and a 2xTC; you want to get as much out of that lens as you can. The 300 is going to be nearly permenantly affixed to your MIII and likely you'll want the longest TC you can afford for the light most of the time.

To save weight, personally I'd bring a 70-200/4 IS or a 70-300/3.5-5.6 IS instead of a 70-200/2.8. The 70-200 range is for antelope, not for cats and birds. It would be unusual to need a fast lens in that range.

The 24-70 is going to be a landscape and people lens. If you are just considering shots of the park, a slower lens with IS would probably serve you better and also save weight.

I was mostly shooting animals out of car windows. I don't think I would have used a monopod if I had had one. However, a small tripod and an ND grad would be nice for sunsets. The skies there can be stunning.

Bring a video camera. Often I found the video I shot of the animals to be more satisfying than the stills.

Personally, if/when I go back, I'll bring the 17-40/4, the 24-105/4 IS, the 100-400 IS and a lightweight tripod.

gembobs

I have been to Botswana twice, both times before I upgraded to digital. I took with me my EOS 300v, kit lens (think 28 - 90mm?) and 75-300mm F4-5.6 USM Mk II. I found I had on the 75-300mm 90% of the time. There were times I needed a longer reach, however there were more times when I had to swap for my kit lens, and found it to be not quite wide enough! Personally I would say get the 1.4x TC over the 2x - from what I have read IQ will be better, and if you are in the shade the extra stop may be nice.

The first time I went, I got a very cheap, small and lightweight tripod - used once in a village. The second time I went, I took a monopod with tilt head - during the game drives, it was ideal, as the sides of the truck were too low to lean on comfortably.

For the next time I go, I will be getting a 70-200 F4 L (with or without IS - not yet decided) and a 300mm F4 L IS with a 1.4x TC to go with my 40D and 17-85mm kit lens.

Here are the links to my two trips to Botswana to give you an idea of conditions, I am fairly new to smugmug, so haven't yet put all my photos up.

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165429_mjhBh#312891304_w7b6f

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165415_xf5rV#312940963_YPBF4

Hope that helps and hope you have a fab trip!

Gem

LiquidAir

gembobs wrote:

I have been to Botswana twice, both times before I upgraded to digital. I took with me my EOS 300v, kit lens (think 28 - 90mm?) and 75-300mm F4-5.6 USM Mk II. I found I had on the 75-300mm 90% of the time. There were times I needed a longer reach, however there were more times when I had to swap for my kit lens, and found it to be not quite wide enough! Personally I would say get the 1.4x TC over the 2x - from what I have read IQ will be better, and if you are in the shade the extra stop may be nice.

The first time I went, I got a very cheap, small and lightweight tripod - used once in a village. The second time I went, I took a monopod with tilt head - during the game drives, it was ideal, as the sides of the truck were too low to lean on comfortably.

For the next time I go, I will be getting a 70-200 F4 L (with or without IS - not yet decided) and a 300mm F4 L IS with a 1.4x TC to go with my 40D and 17-85mm kit lens.

Here are the links to my two trips to Botswana to give you an idea of conditions, I am fairly new to smugmug, so haven't yet put all my photos up.

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165429_mjhBh#312891304_w7b6f

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165415_xf5rV#312940963_YPBF4

Hope that helps and hope you have a fab trip!

Gem

Wow. Nice pictures. Looks like you qot quite a bit closer to the animals than we did. I was shooting with a 75-300 on an EOS3 and 300mm was never long enough. The Kalahari is pretty wide open and the areas we were allowed to go were relatively confined so, while we saw quite a bit, it was mostly from a distance.

charlesoutcalt

Amazing photos!
Thanks for sharing the photos. They were terrific! Very inspirational. I hope I can bring home at least a few shots of that quality.

gembobs wrote:

I have been to Botswana twice, both times before I upgraded to digital. I took with me my EOS 300v, kit lens (think 28 - 90mm?) and 75-300mm F4-5.6 USM Mk II. I found I had on the 75-300mm 90% of the time. There were times I needed a longer reach, however there were more times when I had to swap for my kit lens, and found it to be not quite wide enough! Personally I would say get the 1.4x TC over the 2x - from what I have read IQ will be better, and if you are in the shade the extra stop may be nice.

The first time I went, I got a very cheap, small and lightweight tripod - used once in a village. The second time I went, I took a monopod with tilt head - during the game drives, it was ideal, as the sides of the truck were too low to lean on comfortably.

For the next time I go, I will be getting a 70-200 F4 L (with or without IS - not yet decided) and a 300mm F4 L IS with a 1.4x TC to go with my 40D and 17-85mm kit lens.

Here are the links to my two trips to Botswana to give you an idea of conditions, I am fairly new to smugmug, so haven't yet put all my photos up.

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165429_mjhBh#312891304_w7b6f

http://gembobs.smugmug.com/gallery/5165415_xf5rV#312940963_YPBF4

Hope that helps and hope you have a fab trip!

Gem

gembobs

LiquidAir, I haven't been to the Kalahari yet - hopefully next time. I can imagine that it is really wide open, I bet it has a great feeling about the area.

I have only been to Chobe and Moremi, and have to admit have been very lucky. In Chobe, I was there for a 3hr game drive and a 3 hr boat drive only, but lucked out by seeing around 100 elephants between the two drives. As for Moremi, we were only there for a day (about 6 hrs), we didn't see much for the first 3 hours, zebra, impala and warthogs, then we spotted a cheetah, and heard about a pride of lions, then spotted the leopard in the tree about 100 yards from the lions, all within about 2 hours! I think it is just the luck of the draw really as to what you will see; I did get told once not to expect to see everything - that way you will not be disapointed!

Thanks for the kind comments about my photos, they were all taken in full auto mode, and with no thought put into them - I put it down to being in a great location with great subjects!!

darkdragon

RE: 1.4x vs 2x TC - I use a 2x on my 70-200 2.8L and love it. I feel that my images are as sharp as others that use the 100-400 5.6 and I don't have to deal with the pump action (I hate that kind). Of course, sharpness depends on having the focus correct and the shutter speed, etc.

RE: Africa - someone said that you don't get to use a monopod in the vans, but that isn't true. I think it all depends on your tour/package. A friend of mine (some of her shots are here, she took 3000 pictures!) went to africa a couple months ago and she used a monopod in the van. Also, she was carrying about 50lbs of gear (clothes for 8 days, camera gear, etc) so the weight limit definitely depends on the rules of your trip. I think you said yours is 26lb, wow.

RE: Tripod/monopod - You should be safe using a monopod. I recommend the Manfrotto tilt/swivel head attachment with quick release plate. I love that thing and it can make a huge difference as far as being able to compose how you want/need to when in tight quarters.

All that said, i've never been to africa but I do shoot sports with my monopod + 70-200 + 2xTC setup.

20DNoob

Heck, you've got a 1 series so bring both and stack'em. Works out pretty well in some attempts I made and that was with MF before I got my ol' school 1D.