Canon 1.4 vs 2.0 extenders - thoughts if you've used them?

[ceejtank]

Looking at buying a 1.4 - 2.0 extender to pair with my 5d Mk3 and 70-200mm 2.8 USM (NON IS)...

been reading some review on them both, and it seems to me that the 1.4 is better due to less light loss. But people with a 2.8 may be fine to use the 2.0.

Can anyone who's used one or both make a recommendation? Just looking for more info here. I'll probably rent one or both.

My uses for it would be with wildlife photography, and not wanting/being able to shell out a few grand for a larger lens right now, but if people say this isn't worth it, I may just save up for one instead.

Any input on these (with image examples for clarity in real field usage vs. what i can find online of tests) would be much appreciated.

Thanks for reading.

CJ

 

[Overread]

Few thoughts:

1) The 1.4TC will work very well and you really shouldn't have any problems on that lens, even shooting wide open at its widest aperture it should still render good results. You're right it only loses 1 stop of light with the 1.4TC so that gives you a nice f4 lens.

2) The 2*TC is a big more serious; it magnifies things twofold so any little weakness in the glass stands out a lot more; the result is you oft want to shoot with the lens closed down by around 1 stop to claw back that sharpness (though I find f7.1 works well - not quite a full stop down but enough to get the sharpness back).
It's losing you two stops of light in addition so even wide open you're at 5.6.
In addition I've used it with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS M1 and the MII and on the M1 i generally used it once or twice in the time I owned it. It works, but its just not really impressive - the MII of that lens it works much better with; it still takes an image quality hit but not as strongly.


Personally on that lens the 1.4TC would be my choice optically.
Wildlife wise though 300mm (which is about what the 1.4tc gets you to) isn't quite enough for most things - 400mm is more usable and every bit you can get helps really.

It's a tough choice; personally I'd try and save for a 400mm f5.6 L or 300mm f4 + 1.4TC - you might get lucky with a second hand 100-400mm (though prices on that might have gone any where as the new version is on the market now - and if its price is a significant step up the old version might be selling for more than before as the market slowly dries up).
After that things get more and more expensive; you've got the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS which can take a 2*TC to get to a 240-600mm f5.6; you've got several superzooms now from Tamron and Sigma which go up to 600mm (sigma has two - a low and high price option) and from what I've read those new zooms do pretty darn well!

 

[table1349]

I have both the 1.4X TC III and the 2X TCIII along with the 70-200 f2.8 II IS. As Overread stated the 1.4 works fine on the 70-200. The 2X not so much. Keep in mind that using the term "wildlife" is pretty usless in a post is pretty useless with out a description of what you mean by wildlife.

200 mm can be all you need for "wildlife" such as birds, squirrels, etc. and even larger animals with patience. When I shoot wildlife it is generally larger, and often dangerous animals including bear, & couger along with elk, eagles. That requires reach. On my 400mm f2.8 the 2X TC is works quite well. Remember that it is being used on one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes so the IQ degredation is minimal.