Telephoto Extender Preference?

shatch

I have a 70-200L f/2.8 is um lens that I want to get an extender for. What would you get...the 1.4x II, or the 2x II?

Anson

may help?
Shatch,

The following may apply, although not the same lens...I am sure the Dgrin pros will spell it out for you..

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/canon400.htm

"The combination with extenders is somewhat trcky.
Once you got used to the quality of this lens the deterioration is clearly visible:
-bright image areas degenerate towards white.
This effect is more obvious with the Canon EF 2x than with the EF 1.4x"

gluwater

I have used both on my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and you can really see a decline in image quality using the 2x TC. I would suggest you stay with the 1.4x TC.

pathfinder

Lots of folks use the Canon 1.4x on the 70-200 zooms, but there is a loss of quality, using a TC on a complex zoom.

More degration than when using a TC on a good prime lens. More flare and less contrast.

Osprey Whisperer

Just got the Canon 1.4x II and use it with a sleek black Canon 200mm USM II XLR 450cc. Mark IV XXX DO IS quadrophonic turbo boosted polymorphicplasmaticdung tele f/2.8 "L" with custom paint...... and don't notice any loss of AF speed or image quality. I suppose with large prints and a loop...you might pixel peep and find issues. Can't say for use with a zoom....as I avoid them things like sick kids.

I've heard the Kenko "pro" versions are pretty decent for the money also. Figured if you have the "L" glass...why skimp on a converter? I wish the 2x had the same performance as the 1.4x. It would have been nice to have a decent 400mm f/5.6 to tide me over until I rob a bank for one of the f/2.8 white beasts (300/400/500mm). :uhoh

wxwax

The 2x looks worse and autofocuses more slowly, in my experience.

I think the 1.4x is the way to go. Others have disagreed with me about this in the past, though.

ginger_55

I have both, bought them when I had a 300mm lens. I used the 1.4 on it all the time, and rarely, but did, add the 2Xs.............rarely.

I would go 1.4 as necessary and the 2Xs as well, if you really want it someday.

I only used them on my 70-200 for one sad week. It was not all that great, but then my birds are far away as it is, I did not have my long lens as I was in the process of an exchange. So loss of image quality was explained by a lot of things.

Now I have had a 400mm for almost a yr, but I still have those Canon extenders. I understand that tamron, I think it is, works with the 400 f5.6 AF where I know that I have to tape the pins on the Canon.

I no longer use an extender if I can help it. That may change, who knows.

But I would not buy the 2Xs.

ginger

Steve Cavigliano

1.4x
I agree that the 1.4X is the way to go. You lose too much image quality with a 2X. You lose some contrast using a 1.4X TC, but you lose way more with a 2X. Maybe on a prime, but I wouldn't make a habit out of using a 2X with a zoom. Any TC you use will slow the AF down and cause more "hunting".

I agree with Ginger about the cheap Tamron (no taping, works with any lens, does not report aperture and inexpensive).

The Canons give you the best corner to corner sharpness and the Kenkos are a close 2nd. The Sigma and Canon TCs can only be used with certain lenses. The Kenkos have to be taped to be used with F5.6 lenses (in order to maintain AF capability) As mentioned, the Tamron will work with any lens :-)


Steve

shatch

Thanks for the feedback!
Thanks to all of you for your insights into this. Much appreciated!!!

Steven

Bob&Glennie

May I humbly suggest that you do not buy a converter at all? I faced the same question a while back concerning my Olympus E500. I wanted something that would get me into the 400 mm (equiv.) range. The kit tele zoom only went to 300mm and anything larger from Olympus in the 4/3 system cost tree times the price of the camera. But I discovered a Sigma 110-400 (equiv.) that filled the bill perfectly and it cost only marginally more than a 1.4 converter. Really good, sharp lens. I've been using it a lot and I think it's at least as good as the Olympus Zuiko's. We've just change internet providers and I had to give up my web site but as soon as I can get signed up with Smugmug for some server space I'll post some pictures shot with this lens.

I'm sure that you can find one for your camera and it will be much better than a tele converter.

Anson

re: 2x teleconverter
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=239651&postcount=7

gluwater

Anson, there is a huge difference between using a 2xTC on the 300 2.8 Pathfinder used to take that picture and a 2xTC being used on a 70-200 f/2.8. You will not get that quality from the TC on the 70-200.

Anson

Hi Nick
I am certainly no expert in photography field
...my only point was that I thought that if the 2*extender was good enough for a 300 2.8, then it must offer pretty darn quality on most other lenses.

Perhaps my logic is incorrect?

gluwater

Anson wrote:

I am certainly no expert in photography field
...my only point was that I thought that if the 2*extender was good enough for a 300 2.8, then it must offer pretty darn quality on most other lenses.

Perhaps my logic is incorrect?

I thought the same thing and bought a 2xTC for my 70-200 f/2.8IS and was very disappointed with the results. Even though the 70-200 f/2.8 is a very high quality lens it does not compare to the 300 f/2.8. The 300 is a $3800+ super sharp Prime L glass. As far as I know the 2xTC only gives good results on the "best of the best" lenses as Path showed in your link.

Andy

1.4x

Anson

Hey Nick
well there is your answer
...I would say you are correct ,given that one of our resident guru's says to the 1.4TC

thanks Andy

Steve Cavigliano

Anson wrote:

well there is your answer
...I would say you are correct ,given that one of our resident guru's says to the 1.4TC

thanks Andy

Good point Anson.....lol

I think the point Nick was making is that primes are sharper than zooms to begin with. Even when comparing an F2.8 zoom to an F2.8 prime. I have seen some awesome shots using 2X TCs and even stacked TCs But, they were all used on prime L lenses (like the 400F2.8, 500F4 or 600F4). I have used a 1.4X on my 70-200mm and it works pretty good. The AF slows quite a bit and it even hunts occassionally, which it seldom does w/o using a TC. I think a 2X would slow the AF down too much, not to mention the image degradation issues already brought up.

So while this doesn't mean that a 70-200 will not work with a 2X TC. I just haven't seen any evidence that people who use this combo are getting great results

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 with the Tamron 1.4X TC



Steve

pathfinder

Tack sharp Steve!! Looks good!

I think the reason complex zooms like the 70-200 f2.8 IS L don't take as well to TCs as primes do, is that zooms inherently TEND to have less contrast and more flare than primes, because they are more compex lenses with more lens refracting/reflecting surfaces and moving parts. Any defect in an optic will be twice as bad at least with a 2x TC. So it is best to start with the very best optic before adding the TC.

I have used the 1.4x on my 70-200 zoom - it loks pretty good, unless you compare it to a 300 L prime without the TC. Steve's shot is excellent. I would be interested what the aperature that was shot at.

I am having trouble finding information on the web to compare the number of lens element and groups of elements in the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L and the Canon 70-200f2.8 IS L.

I just found the information for the EOS 70-200 f2.8 I S L - 23 elements in 18 groups. WOW - just think how much more reflecting surfaces there are here than in a simple prime lens. The 100-400 IS L has 17 elements in 14 groups. The EOS 300 f2.8 L IS has 17 elements in 13 groups, as does the 400 f2.8 L IS and the 500 f4 L IS, and the 400mm f4 DO IS. Seems to be a pattern here.
The highly acclaimed EOS 400mm f5.6 without IS has only 7 elements in 6 groups - Think how many fewer reflecting surfaces to correct for here - that is why this lens is so sharp and tolerates the 1.4x TC so well.

The lens elements and groups are listed in the specifications tab on the B&H website for each individual lens.

rutt

Steve, that looks great! Shows that it's possible.

I've only had the worst possible experiences with TCs on zooms. I eventually decied I got better quality by cropping than by using the TCs.

On the other hand I had great experiences with both Canon TCs on the 200 F/2.8L.

wxwax

Sweet shot, Steve.

kdog

pathfinder wrote:

...
The EOS 300 f2.8 L IS has 17 elements in 13 groups, as does the 400 f2.8 L ...
The highly acclaimed EOS 400mm f5.6 without IS has only 7 elements in 6 groups - Think how many fewer reflecting surfaces to correct for here - that is why this lens is so sharp and tolerates the 1.4x TC so well.
...

I believe the 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 lenses are generally considered to be Canon's sharpest lenses. So this does not appear to support your hypothesis.

gluwater

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Good point Anson.....lol

I think the point Nick was making is that primes are sharper than zooms to begin with. Even when comparing an F2.8 zoom to an F2.8 prime. I have seen some awesome shots using 2X TCs and even stacked TCs But, they were all used on prime L lenses (like the 400F2.8, 500F4 or 600F4). I have used a 1.4X on my 70-200mm and it works pretty good. The AF slows quite a bit and it even hunts occassionally, which it seldom does w/o using a TC. I think a 2X would slow the AF down too much, not to mention the image degradation issues already brought up.

So while this doesn't mean that a 70-200 will not work with a 2X TC. I just haven't seen any evidence that people who use this combo are getting great results
Steve

That is exactly what I was getting at. I'll try to be more specific in the future.
That really is an awsome shot Steve, the detail in the eye is just about the best I've seen here.

pathfinder

kdog wrote:

I believe the 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 lenses are generally considered to be Canon's sharpest lenses. So this does not appear to support your hypothesis.

I saw that and wondered who would jump at the bait:): Canon super teles are excellent despite the complexity of the optics

If you look at the EOS 70-200f2.8 IS L. It has 23 elements in 18 groups as opposed to the current EOS super telephotos like the 300 f2.8 IS, the 400 f2.8 IS, the 500 f4 IS or the 400 f4 DO IS are ALL 17 elements in 13 groups.

So yes, the supe teles are not simple lenses ( altho fewer and less complex than the 70-200f2.8 IS L zoom).

But the lens elements are very sophisticated and very highly precision made. Ultra dispersion glass with antireflection coatings and Flourite lens elements that are only made by a few optical firms in the world. Modern optical lens fabrication and antireflection coating allows more complex lenses to perform superbly. But look back at the 400 f5.6 without IS - only 7 elements with 6 groups, and an excellent performer also that has a good reputation with the 1.4 TC

IS is responsible for at least two more reflecting surfaces in leses with IS

Look at it this way - the 20-200 f2.8 IS L sells for ~$1699. The 300f2.8 IS L is ~$3900. Where does the increase in cost come from? The Canon 400 f2.8 IS L is $6600 clams.

You could purchase over 4 70-200 f2.8 IS L lenses for that much moula. The primes better be a lot better, or maybe the pros who use those primes lenses are all being sold a bill of goods.

Anson

as a package deal
this teleconverter thread fits nicely with

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26662
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27084

Steve Cavigliano

pathfinder wrote:

Tack sharp Steve!! Looks good!

I think the reason complex zooms like the 70-200 f2.8 IS L don't take as well to TCs as primes do, is that zooms inherently TEND to have less contrast and more flare than primes, because they are more compex lenses with more lens refracting/reflecting surfaces and moving parts. Any defect in an optic will be twice as bad at least with a 2x TC. So it is best to start with the very best optic before adding the TC.

I have used the 1.4x on my 70-200 zoom - it loks pretty good, unless you compare it to a 300 L prime without the TC. Steve's shot is excellent. I would be interested what the aperature that was shot at.

I am having trouble finding information on the web to compare the number of lens element and groups of elements in the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L and the Canon 70-200f2.8 IS L.

I just found the information for the EOS 70-200 f2.8 I S L - 23 elements in 18 groups. WOW - just think how much more reflecting surfaces there are here than in a simple prime lens. The 100-400 IS L has 17 elements in 14 groups. The EOS 300 f2.8 L IS has 17 elements in 13 groups, as does the 400 f2.8 L IS and the 500 f4 L IS, and the 400mm f4 DO IS. Seems to be a pattern here.
The highly acclaimed EOS 400mm f5.6 without IS has only 7 elements in 6 groups - Think how many fewer reflecting surfaces to correct for here - that is why this lens is so sharp and tolerates the 1.4x TC so well.

The lens elements and groups are listed in the specifications tab on the B&H website for each individual lens.

Thanks PF

I think you are on to something with the "number of reflecting surfaces theory" I do see a pattern and I can't fault your logic or your observation of sharpness (even wide open) regarding all those fine primes.

Here's the EXIF on the shot. F5.6, so that means F8 with the TC. I was already at 1/4000 and didn't dare open it up any wider....

Steve

Steve Cavigliano

rutt wrote:

Steve, that looks great! Shows that it's possible.

I've only had the worst possible experiences with TCs on zooms. I eventually decied I got better quality by cropping than by using the TCs.

On the other hand I had great experiences with both Canon TCs on the 200 F/2.8L.

Thanks Rutt,

I sure didn't have good experiences trying to use that TC with the Bigma. I believe it has something to do with it's real max aperture @ full tele being F6.3. Cropping is an alternative. My biggest beef about using TCs, besides the slower AF, is they usually cause me to have to bump up the ISO. I am so spoiled now days, that the added image noise doesn't bother me much any more. It's the loss of "pop" I see when using higher ISOs. There's not much difference between ISO100 and 200. A bigger difference @ 400 and a large difference between 400 and 800. At least that's what I see. Especially in the RAWs.

Steve

pathfinder

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Thanks PF

I think you are on to something with the "number of reflecting surfaces theory" I do see a pattern and I can't fault your logic or your observation of sharpness (even wide open) regarding all those fine primes.

Here's the EXIF on the shot. F5.6, so that means F8 with the TC. I was already at 1/4000 and didn't dare open it up any wider....

Steve

Optics is what I do, so I am comfortable with my statement that the more reflecting/refracting surfaces there are in one lens compared to another, generally the less well it will flare assuming build quality and other criteria are similar.

You shot at f5.6 - two stops down from wide open on your 70-200, at the optical sweet spot so to speak. Lovely demonstration that a TC can be used with a zoom effectively if done well. Nice soft sidelighting helped too. No strong backlighting or rimlighting.

howard

shatch wrote:

I have a 70-200L f/2.8 is um lens that I want to get an extender for. What would you get...the 1.4x II, or the 2x II?

I have the 70-200/4 and I'm reasonably happy using myKenko 1.4x on it. The 2x however is really not good enough.

Here's a link to a sample with the 1.4x. You need to view the original size as the re-sizing by Pbase isn't so good A note of caution it's at 400ISO and is about a 2meg file.

http://www.pbase.com/howards/image/55613558