Canon Telephoto extenders

Maestro

I have been considering an extender for my 70-200mm L series lens to give me just a bit more reach for a decent price. While shopping around I have noticed that the 1.4 and the 2X extenders are about the same price. Why is that? Is there something wrong with the 2X that makes it not so popular so as to directly compete with the 1.4X? I know that I would lose my autofocus with the 2x and some have said that the loss of sharpness makes it unattractive but from the sample photos I have seen it looks like it does a good job.

Any thoughts on the uses of extenders and specifically the 2X extender from Canon? Thanks in advance. :thumb

ziggy53

Maestro wrote:

I have been considering an extender for my 70-200mm L series lens to give me just a bit more reach for a decent price. While shopping around I have noticed that the 1.4 and the 2X extenders are about the same price. Why is that? Is there something wrong with the 2X that makes it not so popular so as to directly compete with the 1.4X? I know that I would lose my autofocus with the 2x and some have said that the loss of sharpness makes it unattractive but from the sample photos I have seen it looks like it does a good job.

Any thoughts on the uses of extenders and specifically the 2X extender from Canon? Thanks in advance.

The combination of 2 stops of light loss plus a slightly softer image is enough of a whammy that most folks just purchase a longer lens instead of using the 2x. In particular, in combination with the 70-200mm zoom, I don't think you will like the image corners much at all at 70-100mm.

The 1.4x is more of a useful compromise, and can be used at all focal lengths on the 70-200mm, with only a moderate softening of the corners at mostly the short end.

There are those people why defy all convention and even stack the 1.4x and the 2x, and claim good results, so it's really about what level of quality you can accept, and just how large a print you need.

ziggy53

Maestro

ziggy53 wrote:

The combination of 2 stops of light loss plus a slightly softer image is enough of a whammy that most folks just purchase a longer lens instead of using the 2x. In particular, in combination with the 70-200mm zoom, I don't think you will like the image corners much at all at 70-100mm.

The 1.4x is more of a useful compromise, and can be used at all focal lengths on the 70-200mm, with only a moderate softening of the corners at mostly the short end.

There are those people why defy all convention and even stack the 1.4x and the 2x, and claim good results, so it's really about what level of quality you can accept, and just how large a print you need.

ziggy53

Thanks Ziggy. I guess it is all about loss of sharpness and clarity. I definitely do not want that as I tend to process my pictures at 8x10 sometimes. At that size, I bet the softness would be apparent. Thanks for the input.

pathfinder

Generally speaking, telextenders fair much better when used on good prime lenses rather than zooms.

The 70-200mm zooms from Canon and Nikon are quite good, and some folks feel they get good results with TCs with the 70-200 zooms. But if using a TC, why not just use a 200mm f2.8 L in the first place. If you really need the reach of a TC, the lower focal length of the zoom is rarely used, and zooms are much more complicated optically with more refelcting and refracting surfaces than primes, and this usually means less sharpness and less contrast to start with. Adding a TC just makes any defect in the lens more apparent.

Do not take this as a slap at TCs. I own the Canon 1.4 and the 2X TCs and use them both frequently. But not on zooms. On first class prime telephotos, where they work very nicely.

Art Morris at www.birdsasart.com uses TCs and stacked TCs frequently.

claudermilk

I had the opportunity to use a 70-200/2.8IS + 2x TC recently. The second day of the shoot I elected to not use the converter; the loss of 2 stops and image quality made it not worth it. I'd think about a 1.4x in the right lighting, but won't bother with a 2x again.

Dante

I have used the 2.x and the 1.4x TCs with my 70-200 IS 2.8L (and 30D) and I ended up only keeping the 1.4x. For my eye and usage the 1.4x produces very usable images and still maintains an f4 stop. I just couldn't live with what I was getting from the 2X.

But, like Ziggy posted above, I've talked to people that were ok with the quality they are getting from the 2x.

ballentphoto

Dante wrote:

I have used the 2.x and the 1.4x TCs with my 70-200 IS 2.8L (and 30D) and I ended up only keeping the 1.4x. For my eye and usage the 1.4x produces very usable images and still maintains an f4 stop. I just couldn't live with what I was getting from the 2X.

But, like Ziggy posted above, I've talked to people that were ok with the quality they are getting from the 2x.

Does Canon offer a 1.7x TC? That seems to be a happy medium for us Nikon folks (don't have one but plan on getting it)

pathfinder

Dante wrote:

I have used the 2.x and the 1.4x TCs with my 70-200 IS 2.8L (and 30D) and I ended up only keeping the 1.4x. For my eye and usage the 1.4x produces very usable images and still maintains an f4 stop. I just couldn't live with what I was getting from the 2X.

But, like Ziggy posted above, I've talked to people that were ok with the quality they are getting from the 2x.

The problem is not with the 2X TC, it works quite well on primes. The problem is with using a 2X TC with a zoom lens.

This was shot with a 2X + a 300mm prime

raptorcaptor

Also the 1.4X will still handle autofocus on some lenses that the 2X will not.

claudermilk

ballentphoto wrote:

Does Canon offer a 1.7x TC? That seems to be a happy medium for us Nikon folks (don't have one but plan on getting it)

No, but IIRC Sigma or Tamron does.

Jekyll & Hyde

pathfinder wrote:

This was shot with a 2X + a 300mm prime

J: Love your Great Blue, Pathfinder. I spent a couple of shoots recently chasing them around, but never got close enough to one for a good shot (only got the "bird in environment" type of shots).

H: An additional question for anyone...

I have seen folks recommend the Canons, the Kenkos (Cheap and Pro), and the Tamrons. Any preferences?

Thanks,
J&H

gluwater

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Love your Great Blue, Pathfinder. I spent a couple of shoots recently chasing them around, but never got close enough to one for a good shot (only got the "bird in environment" type of shots).

H: An additional question for anyone...

I have seen folks recommend the Canons, the Kenkos (Cheap and Pro), and the Tamrons. Any preferences?

Thanks,
J&H

I have the Canon 1.4 and Tamron 1.4 (Cheap) and can't really notice that much of a difference. There is more glass in the Canon over the Tamron but I have not noticed much of a difference in light loss between the two. I use them interchangably. But mainly the tamron on the 400 f/5.6 to retain AF without having to tape the extra contacts.

Nice to see you still checking out this board .

Maestro

pathfinder wrote:

Generally speaking, telextenders fair much better when used on good prime lenses rather than zooms.

The 70-200mm zooms from Canon and Nikon are quite good, and some folks feel they get good results with TCs with the 70-200 zooms. But if using a TC, why not just use a 200mm f2.8 L in the first place. If you really need the reach of a TC, the lower focal length of the zoom is rarely used, and zooms are much more complicated optically with more refelcting and refracting surfaces than primes, and this usually means less sharpness and less contrast to start with. Adding a TC just makes any defect in the lens more apparent.

Do not take this as a slap at TCs. I own the Canon 1.4 and the 2X TCs and use them both frequently. But not on zooms. On first class prime telephotos, where they work very nicely.

Art Morris at www.birdsasart.com uses TCs and stacked TCs frequently.

Thanks for the advice and link. I have been looking into a 300mm prime as well so I could forgo even using an extender. There are just so many choices and combinations sometimes it works against the extreme amateur that I am. Plus money is always a factor so if there is a cheaper way to get some reach without sacrificing too much in sharpness and clarity, I'll do it. The only problem is that I bought an L series lens and, well, it's hard to not buy and L series again. I am almost certain though that my next telephoto purchase will be a prime lens as I do find myself at the far end of the zoom more often than not.

Maestro

pathfinder wrote:

The problem is not with the 2X TC, it works quite well on primes. The problem is with using a 2X TC with a zoom lens.

This was shot with a 2X + a 300mm prime

Impressive!

pathfinder

These are the kind of images you can get if you hang around in Florida with Harry. The birds are on vacation down there and are more approachable.

And 600mm on a 20D ( 1.6 x Mag factor ) is 960 mm in the palm of your hands.

jev

In my view it depends how you are shooting and what are you using your pictures for. Here is one of my pictures shot handheld with 70-200 IS with Canon Extender EF2x II, at f 5.6 and 400mm



Works perfectly fine for my purposes

Jekyll & Hyde

gluwater wrote:

I have the Canon 1.4 and Tamron 1.4 (Cheap) and can't really notice that much of a difference. There is more glass in the Canon over the Tamron but I have not noticed much of a difference in light loss between the two. I use them interchangably. But mainly the tamron on the 400 f/5.6 to retain AF without having to tape the extra contacts.

Nice to see you still checking out this board .

J: Hey there . Thanks for the info G'w.

H: How do you like the 400/5.6? I wish Canon would come out with an IS version (since I hardly ever use a tripod). For now, I'll be picking up the 100-400 (I just have to get out to 400).

J: I wonder if a 1.4 would even be usable on the 100-400 (focus-wise, and IQ-wise). I love to do BIF.

H: I think I'll be hangin' around more now that I have a DSLR (more in common with most of the folks here now). There's a lot to learn.
J&H

pathfinder

Hi J&H - Glad to see you hanging around our digs again

I bought a Sigma APO 1.4x DG for Nightingale ( my spouse ) to use with her Sigma 120-300f2.8 and she seems pleased with it.

As for the 100-400 Canon - some folks love it and others swear at it.

I find myself reaching for my Tamron 200-500 over the Canon 100-400 frequently as they both sit on the shelf in my closet. They are approx the same size and weight. I do prefer black lenses ( Maybe I'm a closet Nikonian )

I strongly prefer a rotating zoom to the trombone zoom of the 100-400 and this obviously influences my choice. The Tammy lens hood is better. The extra 500mm also is a significant help. And the fact that the near focus point for the Tammy 200-500 is only 8.2 feet.

I have posted about this lens earlier in several threads you may or may not have seen

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=40471&highlight=200-500

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41819&highlight=200-500

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=42942&highlight=200-500

There are numerous posters on the web who complain of CA and flare with the Tamron, but that has not been my limited experience. I am positively biased to Tamron because of my experience with their 180f3.5 macro and the 28-75 f2.8 Di - both of which I find to be excellent lenses. I do not say they are as fine as Canon's finest L lenses, just that they are darned good performers, that used carefully can create very satisfactory images, and priced competitively.

The Tammy 200-500 is about $500 cheaper than the Canon 100-400......$850 versus $1400

On the other hand, the 100-400 has IS which will definitely give more freedom from a tripod which the 200-500 deserves to be used with.

I am sure the Canon L has a better resale value.

Osprey Whisperer

Hey Jim (PF). I know you have the 300mm f/2.8 and the 1.4x TC...but do you own the Canon 400mm f/5.6 ? I'm wondering how the 300mm w/ TC compares to the 400mm in IQ ? I'm going to get one or the other soon (I Hope). I really want the 300mm f/2.8..but it's 3X the price of the 400mm and doesn't have the reach. I own the 1.4TC and would get the 420mm reach ..but am a stickler for IQ and wonder if the combo stands up to the prime alone. I'd be printing 11" x 14" or larger..so IQ matters.

Regarding the TCs. I own the Canon 1.4x TC and slap it on my Canon 200mm f/2.8 often. Not my cup of tea..but it works for the time being. I'd much rather have a prime in the appropriate focal length rather than relying on a TC. If I stop down to f/8 the results are great. If I shoot wide open at f/4 in poor lighting..I often get soft images. These don't fly wiht me. I hate it when that happens. In great bright Florida light I can get a decent shot wide open (f/4)..but usually that's not the case. I often drop the TC to use the 200mm alone for it's image quality and speed. If you can afford the primes in the FL needed..get them. TCs are IMO a pretty poor solution if you're concerned about IQ and printing large prints.

Cheers

pathfinder

PM sent to BirdMan

gluwater

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Hey there . Thanks for the info G'w.

H: How do you like the 400/5.6? I wish Canon would come out with an IS version (since I hardly ever use a tripod). For now, I'll be picking up the 100-400 (I just have to get out to 400).

J: I wonder if a 1.4 would even be usable on the 100-400 (focus-wise, and IQ-wise). I love to do BIF.

H: I think I'll be hangin' around more now that I have a DSLR (more in common with most of the folks here now). There's a lot to learn.
J&H

I love the 400 5.6. I often use it hand held but that is hard to do in low light. I get usable shots with the TC on it, but I prefer it on a tripod when using the TC. BIF are kind of tough with the TC but it focuses very quickly without the TC. I've seen a lot of wildlife photogs with 500+ lenses on the tripod and the 400 f/5.6 on another body for HH BIF shots.

Jekyll & Hyde

pathfinder wrote:

Hi J&H - Glad to see you hanging around our digs again

J: HI PF. Thanks for the big reply.

H: I really want to get out to 400mm (one way or another). And I just gotta have IS (tripods just don't fit my shooting style).

J: So the big question is whether to go for the 100-400 with its various small compromises, or get a shorter very good BIF lens (such as the 300/4 IS), and slap on a 1.4x when I need more reach, which seems to be most of the time actually. Canon could solve my dilemma if they'd just come out with a 400/5.6 IS!

pathfinder wrote:

As for the 100-400 Canon - some folks love it and others swear at it.

I find myself reaching for my Tamron 200-500 over the Canon 100-400 frequently as they both sit on the shelf in my closet. They are approx the same size and weight. I do prefer black lenses ( Maybe I'm a closet Nikonian )

I strongly prefer a rotating zoom to the trombone zoom of the 100-400 and this obviously influences my choice. The Tammy lens hood is better. The extra 500mm also is a significant help. And the fact that the near focus point for the Tammy 200-500 is only 8.2 feet..

J: I've been fortunate enough to have been shooting with a friend's 100-400 a bit this summer and I fall into that first category. I come from the old school of shooting where the old manual focus "one touch" Nikon 80-200/f4 was king (I actually am a former Nikonian!), so I don't mind the push/pull zoom action at all. In fact, I find it very fast going from one extreme to the other.

H: That Tamron does sound like a very useful lens though. Perfect for those cross country bike/hikes. Thanks for those links PF. If it had IS, then I'd be all set!

J: For now I've been getting by with my Sony H5. I'm saving my pennies for the long lens purchase in the spring (I'll probably drive myself bonkers by then though :eek1 ).

H: In the meantime I've even been desperate enough to take the 30D with 50/1.8 down to the park to shoot gulls (a lens not known for its birding prowess! :haha ).

J: Fortunately they come down pretty close.










H: Thanks again for the info PF. Much appreciated

And thanks GW' for the info on your 400/5.6. Guess I'll have to wait for the IS version. :cry

J&H