Extender EF 1.4x II?

RustingInPeace

What's the scoop on teleconverters? I hear mixed reviews. I have been using my older 70-210 with my new Rebel xti, and it gives me the equivalent of 336mm. I would like just a little more reach when shooting at the soccer games. Would this work or am I going to have to "nut up" and drop a big chunk of change?

If I need to drop some money on a bigger lens, what would be the best fit?

Richard

RustingInPeace wrote:

What's the scoop on teleconverters? I hear mixed reviews. I have been using my older 70-210 with my new Rebel xti, and it gives me the equivalent of 336mm. I would like just a little more reach when shooting at the soccer games. Would this work or am I going to have to "nut up" and drop a big chunk of change?

If I need to drop some money on a bigger lens, what would be the best fit?

Teleconverters can be a relatively cheap way of getting more reach, but they are not a perfect solution. There may be some loss of sharpness, though the Canon 1.4x II is pretty good about that. More problematic for you will be the loss of one stop. You will have to compensate with slower shutter speed (and/or higher ISO). It also means that auto-focus will be slower or may not work at all. I'm not familiar with the 70-210 and didn't see it listed on Canon's lens spec summary, but maybe someone else has experience with putting a TC on it. Canon TCs don't work on all lenses, BTW, so you better verify that it is compatible with the lens you have. It would be a good idea to try one out if you can before buying. I don't do any sports shooting, so I'll also leave it to others to suggest alternative lenses.

HTH.

pathfinder

RIP,

TCs are great and used a lot by many pros. BUT, as RS says, there is no such thing as a free lunch. They do degrade the images slightly. If used in conjunction with an excellent prime lens, the change is barely perceptible, but they cost 1 stop of light for the 1.4x and 2 stops for a 2x.

TCs cause significantly more image quality loss with lower quality zooom lenses. Actually, they just make any lenses flaws more apparent.

Do a search here on Dgrin for TCs or teleconvertors and you will find numerous threads about the utility of TCs.

I own and use Canon's 1.4 and 2x so I think they are worthwhie. But I do not like them with zooms, even Canons L glass zooms. You will hear from others here who do use them with Canon's 70-200 f2.8 IS L and even the 100-400 L. But I think the images begin to lose contrast and gain flare.

Like I said, no free lunch. You may find they work fine for snapshots of your kids playing soccer. They will be cheaper than good prime tele lenses.

claudermilk

If you can try one out first, do so. With what you are shooting they're probably fine. The opportunity I had to play with a 2x on a 70-200/2.8IS left me very disappointed with the combo--though I was shooting low light, so already pushing the un-extended capabilities ofthe lens. That experience told me you really want to be able to try out the setup before spending money on it.

RustingInPeace

OK, so the teleconverter could be a problem
Any ideas on what focal length lens is going to get me that little extra pull on a soccer and football field?

pathfinder

Anywhere from 100 to 200mm.

Some folks prefer 300mm for soccer. Some like the Canon 100-400 for football during the day, it is not fast enough in aperture at night.

Mereimage shoots a LOT of football

Check out his images and the exif data will tell you what lenses he uses and you can see for yourself what to expect.

I see a lot of shots at f4 at 280mm, which suggests he is using a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom with a 1.4 teleconverter for many of his shots.

claudermilk

There was a Sigma 120-300/2.8 on the Flea Market recently with some good example shots from soccer. The lens has a good reputation & the examples I see it's deserved. Puts on *my* wishlist.

RustingInPeace

Thanks to everyone for their input
Went and took some test shots between rain storms yesterday on the soccer pitch. My 210mm with the converter was over kill. It was seemed to really slow down the AF and I had to push the exposure compensation 1.25 stops to get a usable image. Kind of interesting thing was when I used it with my older 35-70 (56-112); it shot just fine. Not as good as my older 70-210 (112-336). No exposure comp needed and the AF worked perfect.

I also got a chance to try a Sigma 135-400 zoom. That seemed to be the ticket. I was able to hit all of the shots I wanted. I guess I am just going to have to dig into the piggy bank and buy something like it. dang lens is cost about the same as my camera, but that's life with this type of hobby.

Locally, the camera stores are crap. We really only have one "real" camera store but the prices seem "real" high as well. I won't need it until the spring season starts so I have got some time. If anyone has a vendor they trust and recommend I would love their contact information.

Again, thanks for everyones help.

pathfinder

B&H and Adorama have both given me excellent service.

Their prices are not always the very cheapest, but they are reliable, and want to be your vendor for the long haul.

Scott_Quier

I second what PF said about B&H. In the last 3 years, I guess I've dropped close to 10K at B&H and have had zero - that's NO - problems or issues. All has been delivered one time, as promised, no need to call to confirm order, no hard sell on accessories, NO bad news here at all.

BTW - I have no relationship with B&H aside from being a very satisfied customer.