Extender?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by MLeeK, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. MLeeK

    MLeeK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Location:
    NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I want to purchase one... I am usually up on all of the lenses and camera bodies, but tele-extenders isn't something I have delved into.
    I shoot a lot of sports and I am not rollin' in the dough so I don't have the lenses I'd LIKE to have... I am still working with a 70-200 f/2.8 as my main. So... I really would LOVE to go with a 2x, but... I also know I have read that the 2x isn't so hot...
    Help?
    best bang for the buck? I do not want to compromise on sharpness if I can get away with it. The compromise on f/ I can do in most situations, so I am willing to try it!
     
  2. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,807
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The Canon 1.4X and 2X teleconverters are both on version III. I've heard that the new ones are better than the old ones...for what that's worth.

    The main thing to know (if you don't already) is that Canon's teleconverters are only really compatible with certain Canon lenses (fast telephotos usually). Off brand TCs may be more compatible with all lenses...but they still have the same light eating issue. As in...the 1.4 costs about 1 to 1 1/2 stops and the 2x costs 2 stops.

    As for sharpness, you will read a lot about how they hurt image quality, but I think that in real world shooting, it's not that bad...especially in the centre of the frame. The story I have, is about the time I was out shooting with someone who had both the 1.4 and the 2x. He said that he sometimes stacks both of them behind his 70-200 F2.8. I thought that the quality would be terrible....but it was actually decent (especially in the centre).

    So yes, there is going to be a compromise in sharpness (compared to a 400mm prime lens) but considering the cost of that 400mm and the convenience of just carrying the TC....it's a pretty good trade off for most.
     
  3. SCraig

    SCraig Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I have a Kenko M7 2x TC for Nikon that is useless. Far too much light loss, far too much loss of sharpness, even with relatively short lenses. On the other hand I have a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 1.4x TC that is very handy. I do lose one f-stop because of it but there is little loss of sharpness, autofocus normally works just fine, and it goes with me a lot. The 2x non-Pro version I threw in my box of mistakes.
     
  4. Tony S

    Tony S Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    598
    Location:
    Eatonville, Washington
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The newer tele extenders work well with the newer lenses and in most cases very little noticeable drop off in quality until you really start pixel peeping at 100% images. For your 70-200 though, start with the 1.4x version as that combo has the least amount of image degredation but maintains useability and focusing functions. Going to a 2x version will cut out your auto focus on most camera bodies (top shelf pro bodies keep the focusing ability with 2x extenders).

    Remember you are also going to lose light, so you will have to crank the iso up to keep shutter speeds up to stop any action, this is also a drop off of quality, how much depends again on the body you are using the combo on.

    I have both the 1.4 and 2x II Canon extenders, on my 70-200 2.8 IS the 1.4 works great with no quality drop off issues, to me using the 2x on this lens does not work well. But on my 400 2.8 IS both extenders provide very good useable image quality as long as I do my part with exposure and a good stable base to work at longer focal lengths.
     
  5. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,143
    Likes Received:
    12,661
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I think the 1.4x converters make the most sense with something like the 70-200/2.8 lenses. With today's higher-MP count bodies, post-capture cropping in is also a very valid option. My understanding is that the very-newest converters from Nikon and Canon are actually significantly better when paired with the very-newest, re-designed lenses both companies have released the past 2 to 4 years. The costs have gone up on the TC's quite a bit.

    I think it's quite important to realize what one actually "typically gets" with a 1.4x converter added to a 70-200/2.8 zoom. You get a maximum focal length of 280mm at f/4, with VISIBLY SOFT corners, until the lens is stopped down one full f/stop, so that means you get an f/5.6 lens that goes from 201mm to 280mm. ALL SETTINGS UNDER 201mm with the zoom + TC Combo are visibly compromised at shooting apertures wider than f/5.6. ANY focal length of 200mm or under is MUCH BETTER when shot with the converter removed. At 70mm with the 1.4x installed, you get a 98mm f/4 lens with soft, degraded corners...and ALL focal lengths from 98mm to 200mm are degraded, and could be MUCH BETTER and with wider aperture values, with the converter removed...SO, again, when you really stop and look at it, the 1.4x converter gains you only the range from 201 to 280mm, while costing you one full f/stop of light, as well as serious corner image quality, lowered contrast, and if you're honest about it, an across-the-frame loss of contrast and resolving ability at wide-open (f/2.8 on the main lens) all the way down to one f/stop closed down from max, which is f/4 on the main lens, so an effective aperture of f/5.6 is where the quality becomes "passable." So...is it better to crop-in on the 200mm captures, or to use a 1.4x?

    Not many people stop to consider what a 1.4x really does to their pro-grade 70-200mm lens. A 280mm f/5.6 lens of moderate quaiity....versus say, a used 300mm f/4 of superior quality...consider the new price of these latest 1.4x converters....and then consider the price of a used 300mm f/4....
     
  6. MLeeK

    MLeeK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Location:
    NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If at all possible I'd love to see images of the two stacked like that.
    Off brand lenses is a concern for me as my main 70-200 is the Sigma OS version and my secondary is the Tamron, so I know i have to research that carefully before buying. I am pretty sure I am going in to NYC in January and will probably go to B&H where I can try them out and play first hand and purchase then. If not then it will be at WPPI in January-where again I can play first.

    Have you/do you use a TC at all and what is your feeling on the sharpness loss? Is it going to bring me back to a kit lens standpoint or worse? Is it going to be a fuzzy loss of sharpness or just a loss in the fine details? That statement probably sounds so ignorant, but I am lacking a better description at this point. I have some old lenses that I can compensate with a bit of clarity for the fuzzy look to the loss of sharpness and I have some that just lack some of the finer details in their loss of sharpness... So incredibly technical, I know.
     
  7. GooniesNeverSayDie11

    GooniesNeverSayDie11 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    The Goondocks
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I used to use the Canon 2x extender II on my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 7D. It worked pretty decent. IS still worked and as long as you had decent light, focus would work with no problems. However, it does slow things down a bit and you do degrade the image slightly. I ended up selling the extender and getting the 400 f/5.6 for $1000. I have a Kenko pro300dgx 1.4x as well that works a bit better on the 70-200 in terms of degrading and speed, but I rarely use it anymore. I hate the thought of degrading the IQ so I try to avoid using it.


    Also: it should be noted that I am a complete sharpness fiend. Sometimes I wonder if I am too critical on some shots and tend to pixel peep. So you may be more forgiving to the shots with the 2x. Who knows. They are by no means TERRIBLE.
     
  8. mjhoward

    mjhoward TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    414
    Location:
    Bowling Green, KY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    This has been my observation. We have the old 2X Extender II and rented the new 2X III and there is a significant improvement. We also tested the new 400mm f/2.8 II with the new extender against the 800mm f/5.6 and surprisingly they are pretty on par with each other. In some cases the 400mm w/2X was a little sharper and others the 800mm w/2X was sharper. This is when pixel peeping, otherwise you probably wouldn't know the difference. There was a slightly noticeable reduction in color contrast/richness. The colors with the 2X just seemed a bit duller. I believe on shorter focal length lenses such as your 70-200mm, the results will not be as good. Teleconverters just don't perform as well on lenses with shorter focal lengths, perhaps because they typically don't perform as well as a telephoto prime to begin with, but distortion also becomes an issue with something shorter than telephoto.

    Derrel has good advice. The money spent on a Teleconverter would be better spent on a used Telephoto lens, even if it has a bit smaller aperture.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. MLeeK

    MLeeK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Location:
    NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    OK... I am re-thinking now that I look at the costs vs the benefits... AND worrying about my lenses...
    The 2x runs about $475 (canon version) and that is assuming the canon version will work with my off brand lenses... The sigma version is much cheaper, but I've not heard anything good really about it and I don't want to take the chance.
    Instead of upgrading that Tamron dinosaur I have I am thinking that I probably should just buy the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L USM IS. Adorama has one used for $1199 and another for $1299. New runs $1530.

    In my thinking here I'd be ahead of the game... Correct me if I am wrong in this... I need to have 2 working 70-200 lenses for this if I went with the extender. The Tamron's focus is SLOW. AS. MUD. which is why I want to upgrade it to at the very least the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. I have an offer on my Tamron for $650 if I sell. The 70-200 will cost me $1300 new or an additional $650. The extender to go with it $475 for a total of $1125. And there I am compormising on the IQ/sharpness and 2 full stops of light putting me at 5.6 anyway.
    The 100-400 I am still getting rid of the Tamron and used is $1200. $550 out of pocket. I am still at f/5.6 and not compromising on the IQ by using an extender.

    Any opinions on the lens? Now that I have typed this I realize I probably should just ask for opinions on that lens seeing how I have no experience with it... Oh well. Here's hoping!
     
  10. MLeeK

    MLeeK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Location:
    NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    AND if I use the 100-400 on my 7D I am at 640mm at the zoom end.
     
  11. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,807
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If all you're trying to do, is get to 400mm (you're not buying the TC to use on a future 300mm or 400mm lens), then yes, consider the 100-400mm L IS. It's a beast of a lens and nobody really likes a push pull zoom (dust magnet)....but the IQ is very good.
    I can't find the link...but not too long ago, I read a review of Canon's 70-200mm lenses with a comparison to the 100-400mm. I was surprised to see that the 100-400mm practically blew them all out of the water, including the new 70-200mm F2.8 II.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
  12. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,807
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Equivalent FOV....not equivalent focal length....but you knew that. ;)
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

canon extender compatibility & tokina 50-135

,

nikon tc-300 tc-301 comparison