2X TC softness?

BBones

I remember about 2 years ago I was warned to not get the Canon 2X TC and instead go with the 1.4x due to the 2X being a bit soft. I recently bought a 300 IS L 2.8 and was wondering if this was still true for this lens. I have the 1.4x and use it very happily.

jorj7

2x with the Canon 300 f2.8
Bbones,

The 2x tc will decrease sharpness on most lenses. But the Canon 300 f2.8
will still produce very nice (sharp) images with the 2x tc. I've used the
Kenko Pro 300 2x with the Canon f2.8L IS, and have gotten good results,
both with bird and motorsport photography. Here are a couple of samples.

pathfinder

BBones,

It is true that the 2xTC does cost a bit of sharpness and contrast, but the 300mm f2.8 IS L is a great lens, and couples rather nicely with a Canon 2x TC, I use it a lot this way, it is light ( for 600mm ), handholdable, and focuses much closer than a 600mm prime will. It is a nice option in addition to a heavier tripod limited long lens.









These aren't necesarily my best images with a 300 +2xTC, just a few I found quickly. The first three were handheld, so a tripod mount might augment the sharpness some more.

claudermilk

First of all, I'm jealous as that's a fantastic lens. It's also one that I think can handle a 2x TC the best.

pathfinder

Art Morris and Fabs both use the 2x TC on a 500 f4 IS L as well though.

I would agree that these are the two lenses that are best served by a 2X TC. The 300 f2.8 is WHY I bought my 2xTC. Much handier than the 600 f4 in size, weight, near focusing, handholdability, and PRICE.

hgernhardtjr

Question: I'm curious about the newer 7-element Canon EF 2x II ... is this the version of TC everyone is referring to above?

If not, how much improved is the Canon EF 2x II tc in sharpness, etc. Is it comparable to the 1.4x now? From experience I know the 1.4x works quite well with the EF 100-400mm (even better with the 300mm 2.8) and was considering a 2XII as a possible future purchase.

BBones

I am hopefully only getting replies about the II version, though I have not seen anyplace that shows the big difference between the two of them (old vs upgraded)

pathfinder

My 2x TC is the newer Canon version II.

I do not recommend using the 2x TC with zoom lenses generally, just first rate primes if you want the best image quality.

The Kenko Pro 2x seems to work very nice also

claudermilk

pathfinder wrote:

I do not recommend using the 2x TC with zoom lenses generally, just first rate primes if you want the best image quality.

I experimented with a 2x TC (II) + 70-200/2.8IS, and to be kind, I would have been better off using a Quantaray or Crystal Optics lens. Heck, a Holga would have given the resulting images a challenge. :nah:hack

pathfinder

That is my opinion also, Chris, but I know there are some folks around here who say they get acceptable results with a TC and the 70-200 zooms. Most are using the 1.4 TCs, but some do try the 2X versions....

Seamus

I bought a 300 2.8 last year and got the 2x extender at the same time. It allows me to get pics of bikes that were out of reach before. The pics with the 2x are a little softer but are still acceptable.

The pics in this thread were taken with the 300+2x extender.

The extender isn't too expensive and, imho, is worth a try.

pathfinder

One of the truisms of photography is that shooting images with shorter focal length lenses usually gives better images ( I am not talking wide angles here)
Shooting at 300mm gives better images than 600mm if you can achieve the same images size on the sensor - there is less air between the lens and the subject, or 200mm versus 800mm -

Getting closer is always better if you can do it.

claudermilk

pathfinder wrote:

That is my opinion also, Chris, but I know there are some folks around here who say they get acceptable results with a TC and the 70-200 zooms. Most are using the 1.4 TCs, but some do try the 2X versions....

Yeah, I've seen people posting the same. I think they are all doing bird shots out in bright sunlight at around f8 on a tripod--in other words the best possible situation. In which case they get away with it. For me, I'm usually in very challenging light and using that f2.8 for all it's worth and then some--in that situation saying the results suck is being nice. So, there's a big YMMV based mainly on lighting; in bright sunlight on a tripod you're probably ok, in a dark theater, not so much.

pathfinder

Good points about lighting and technical skill in using.