Picking a 1.4x TC for 135L and other lenses

divamum

I've read a bunch both here and at POTN and I'm still confused :rofl

I have now (sob) sold the 200L 2.8. I don't need that length THAT often, but it's nice to know I would have it if I needed. Therfore, I would love to be able to use a TC on the 135L AND (if possible) the 50 1.4.

I know that I want to maintain both AF and metering.

I gather that my choices are Canon, Tamron and Kenko?

Other than that, i feel clueless. I'm still not entirely clear if the 50 1.4 can even be used with a TC (I'm pretty sure the 135 can), and which setups keep the automatic features of the lens/camera combination.

Could somebody enlighten me? Thanks ever so much. I'm drowning in archived threads over at potn that erupt into endless debates over whether or not it's equal image quality at pixel-peeping levels and how offbrands are the devil's spawn and why not just buy a 70-200 2.8is (that I don't want), and can't find this basic info!

cmason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF


ok to be of a bit more help, compare these images, one with the 135L and one with the 135L and the 1.4TC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

divamum

cmason wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF


ok to be of a bit more help, compare these images, one with the 135L and one with the 135L and the 1.4TC:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

It never occurred to me to check wikipedia for something like this, and that chart is very helpful in regard to the Canon tc, although doesn't address the off-brands at all.

I'm aware that the images will change with a TC in the chain, so I'm not too worried about pixel-peeping - t's mainly accurate metering/af functions I'm trying to ensure, and exactly what kinds of differences I can expect between the brands which, if I understand it correctly, isn't always in Canon's favour, at least as far as compatibility.

Keep those answers coming, folks

divamum

ANybody else? The 135L is pretty easy since it seems that most TCs play nice with it (both Canon and 3rd party), but I'm still trying to figure out if any of them can be used effectively with the 50 1.4. I see somewhere a claim that the Kenko Pro has been used on a Tam 17-50, .... really?! I'm skeptical on that and it'd be f4 anyway.

In any case, all further information, experiences or links to chase welcomed! Thanks.

ivar

Diva, I'm pretty sure the 50 doesn't take an extender. Also, the canon pages for the 135 and 50 respectively show and don't show the extenders as an accessory.

EDIT: Just found the list for the extender:
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF 200 F/1.8 L USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 300 F/2.8 L USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

divamum

Ivar, I believe that's for the Canon extender. The Kenko, Tamron and Sigmas have different (and wider) compatability. I'm hoping to find somebody who's maybe used them and/or tried them on other lenses - I've seen a few reports but, to be frank, I find POTN so impossibly difficult to read (I appreciaite dgrin even MORE after reading the archive in that place! ) that I struggle to get through the pages and pages of "you're an idiot and my L is bigger than yours" posts that seem to emerge in response to the most innocuous questions! (I"ve been reading the archive there at length, include the TC FAQ so I'm sort of up to speed but was hoping to get as much info as possible....)

Thanks!

ETA: I'm also interested in which TC's will work with the EF100 f2 - I think the Kenko is ok with that one, too?

ivar

divamum wrote:

Ivar, I believe that's for the Canon extender. The Kenko, Tamron and Sigmas have different (and wider) compatability.

I've always thought it depended on the rear element of the lens whether or not an extender could be used, but I could be wrong..... *goes and calls Ziggy*

divamum

ivar wrote:

I've always thought it depended on the rear element of the lens whether or not an extender could be used, but I could be wrong..... *goes and calls Ziggy*

It does... but I think it's also how the TC's themselves are constructed - the 3rd-party ones have room for the rear of the element even in some of the other lenses. But that is, of course, why I'm asking the question - I want to make sure I've understood it right!

ziggy53

I have the Canon 1.4x, 2.0x and Tamron "F" 1.4x teleconverters.

The Canon 1.4x works great on the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM and Canon 70-200mm series zooms.

The Tamron "F" series converter (I believe) is for "flat field" lenses, and does not work well with many lenses. I have had good luck with it on the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM, especially at close focus distances, and even using a close focus diopter (so high magnification, around 1:1).

I have tried other third part teleconverters and wound up returning them as the edge definition suffered too much and CAs became troublesome.

The Canon 2.0x also works pretty well on the 135mm, f2L, but with more loss in both IQ and effective aperture. Marginally useful on a FF body But I don't recommend it for a crop body unless for very simple subjects.

divamum

Thanks Ziggy.

Seems like TC's are a bit of a black art unless you use the Canon with the specific lenses for which it built them. Thankfully, the 135 appears to fall into that category so I know I have at least one good solution. That said, I'm still hopeful somebody has tried the Kenko pro with the other lenses I'm curious about trying and can give me a firsthand report.

Thanks!

ziggy53

divamum wrote:

ANybody else? The 135L is pretty easy since it seems that most TCs play nice with it (both Canon and 3rd party), but I'm still trying to figure out if any of them can be used effectively with the 50 1.4. I see somewhere a claim that the Kenko Pro has been used on a Tam 17-50, .... really?! I'm skeptical on that and it'd be f4 anyway.

In any case, all further information, experiences or links to chase welcomed! Thanks.

Teleconverters are not much use with wide-angle or even "standard" zooms because the convergence angle from the lens is more than teleconverters are designed for. This will amount to rather severe color fringing and field curvature.

In other words, even if you get a physical mating, the optical interface will be very poor and not worth the effort IMO. (Poor image quality even at web sizes generally.)

That said, if you are going for an "effect", a sharp center with poor quality edges, then the combination can work to that advantage. (It's much easier to do that effect in software and with much greater control.)

divamum

ziggy

We need to publish The Collected Wisdom of Ziggy - you always have the information! Thanks so very much... I'm finally getting closer to understanding the other information I'm finding, so I really appreciate the responses

ivar

Did you ever figure out which one to get? If so, how do you like it?

aktse

I'm so sorry that I missed this thread.

I'm always using the 135mm with the 1.4x because I have a lens length limit when I go to the HP Pavilion to watch the San Jose Sharks when they play hockey.

How does the 135mm with the 1.4x perform?
1. From the last row in the area near the ceiling:


2. Tracking a player:


3. From better seats:


Conclusion -- I like my 70-200 more, but that's beyond the six inch lens limit at the arena and the 135mm is probably the sharpest lens in the canon lineup.

135mm with the 1.4x is perfectly usable, but the AF is slower and is not as sharp.

If you want to try it, you can always rent it at borrow lenses... It might be a good way to try it.

divamum

Thanks April and Ivar. I haven't actually bought anything yet - I've been swamped (never mind not having the $ in hand) and I don't actually need it just now.... I simply wanted to get my ducks in a row so that when I do eventually need one (which I'm sure I will) I know what I'm doing. Or at least a little bit of what I'm doing

I'm guessing I'll probably get a Kenko pro 1.4x, especially if I can find one used or at a good price. I'll let y'all know when I get around to taking the plunge!

ivar

divamum wrote:

I'm guessing I'll probably get a Kenko pro 1.4x, especially if I can find one used or at a good price. I'll let y'all know when I get around to taking the plunge!

I'll be interested to know how you like it, once you have it

divamum wrote:

I simply wanted to get my ducks in a row so that when I do eventually need one

Hope this helps:

Manfr3d

I just bought a 2nd hand Sigma 1.4x EX Extender. It works like a charm on my 70-200mm f4 and a 5DII.

Lotsa ppl say the Kenko is the sharpest, the Canon the best build (it has sealing) and sharpest in the corners while the Sigma almost always never considered (like the tammy).. no idea why, the optics are 1st rate.

Happy shopping!