Lens extender or another lens?

[PhotobyRune]

Sitting here looking at long telelenses on a budget.

Budget becouse I just purchased a Canon 70-200mm IS F4 L, but I also want a longer lens than that for landscapes.
Something in the 400mm range.

Right now my monthly "play money" is gone, but I should afford something in the 3-4000NOK range. And there are some on the market. Just not much to brag about.
Like a Sigma 50-400mm APO HSM and the rest of the alphabet.

But I also spotted a Canon 2x extender for the same price. So I wonder if I may as well just get that instead, for my new to me Canon 70-200 L lens wich will make it a 400mm lens.
It would save my back and knackered knees at least.

Or are there alternatives that I might afford?

4000NOK is about 350€

 

[Overread]

So the first thing to note is that Teleconverters do not always fit every lens. Many teleconverters have front protruding elements which means that only lenses with a rear that has a gap large enough, can take them. Canon ones are often quite long whilst many 3rd party often engineer them with much flatter fronts (so that they mount to more lenses).

So first do some homework and double check the compatibility. From memory the Canon teleconverters don't fit the 70-200mm f4 (though they do fit the f2.8).

So that's the first thing to check.




Second thing is image quality. Most lenses can take 1.4TC with no problem at all in performance. The 2X though are more demanding. They take away 2 stops of light, reduce AF speed and image quality because they are doubling what the lens creates. This makes them much trickier to use.
Now times have changed a bit, I don't know what camera you're using and some of the newer bodies can resolve detail better than the older ones and the high ISO ranges and improved AF systems mean that these limits aren't quite as strong as they once were; very much still there but some of the latest cameras can just cope better.

I've personally used an f2.8 70-200mm with 2X TC and it works well, the f4 if it can mount to a 2X might be ok ,but its aperture will go below the standard "AF minimum aperture limit". Which means the AF wouldn't engage. This was certainly true on mirrored camera bodies (barring the 1D line of bodies); I'm honestly not sure if its still valid with the new mirrorless bodies, if you have one.
So certainly on the mirrored bodies you'd basically lose AF function entirely with a Canon TV and you might lose it with a 3rd party.




So upshot is I'd consider using a 1.4TC for landscapes (double checking that it will mount and is compatible with your camera); I "might" consider a 2X but I'd want to test it or verify with owners of the same setup (camera+tc+lens) that it will work and what performance you'd get

 

[480sparky]

There is a middle ground between the 1.4 and 2x TCs... the 1.7x.

 

[Original katomi]

Hi I have all three that you spoke about
the canon 200 f4 the canon 400 mm mk1 and the teleconverters.
The 400 is a beast, its heavy. when I go out and want to save weight and have something I can handle quickly I take the canon 70 200 f4 and the 1.5 times converter my lenses and converters are the canon L series and to date I have found them to be very good

 

[Original katomi]

There is a middle ground between the 1.4 and 2x TCs... the 1.7x.

not in canon L series

 

[PhotobyRune]

Thanks a lot to everyone that responded. Using a teleconverter is not something I have considered much in the past. So I am clueless about the subject. And this gave me some more insight.

It seems to me there is to much faffery involved, and I do need something that works.

I think I will go with the Bigma after spending the night researching the subject. It is huge and heavy, but I am mostly a roadside photographer, and it will be carted around in a car and not actually carried that far. ABout 90% of my photography is done on the 24-70 lens, the remianing 10% is Astro, and for that I use a 14mm.

So it will be great change of pace using the longer lenses. But I need that now as I feel I have exhausted the shorter ranges, and I am looking forward to revisit some of my old haumtes with a new composition and do more details in the terrian.

 

[Overread]

One thing to keep in mind with bigger lenses is you might want a nice tripod or monopod. Whilst you can safely handhold many, depending on your kind of photography (esp landscape) then a tripod can make a huge difference in giving you more exposures to pick from.

Remembering that the general handholding rule is 1/focal length for the slowest practical; however my experience is that
1) At short focal lengths you can get away with slower. So a 50mm you might well be able to hand hold much slower speeds than 1/50sec.
2) At longer focal lengths you often need faster than 1/focal length for stable shooting.

Of course this comes down a lot to personal fitness and also your condition at the time; plus your posture, stance and if you can lean on anything. So even just a simple monopod on the lens collar (big lenses you use a lens collar not the mount on the camera base to attach to a tripod/monopod) can make a huge difference.

 

[480sparky]

not in canon L series

Third party?

 

[Rickbb]

The thing to remember about teleconverters is that you lose F stops. With a 2x you shouldn't use the 2 widest F stops on your lens. So, your F4 becomes more like a F8. Not a problem shooting with high ISO and bright light. But something to consider.

I've used 2x's for many years and gotten good results, but only when conditions are right. It extends my 70-300 zoom to 600, but it has to be a really sunny day and on a tripod. In my old film days, a 2x would make my 200-400 zoom perfect for rock concerts, but I had to push Tri-x pan to 1600. Talk about grain, but when shooting BnW concert shots it didn't matter about grain.

 

[Original katomi]

Hiya if you are out in the car you can use a bean bag on the car to rest the lens on
Protection from the heat off the car and forms a mobile stable rest

 

[binx88]

Sitting here looking at long telelenses on a budget.

Budget becouse I just purchased a Canon 70-200mm IS F4 L, but I also want a longer lens than that for landscapes.
Something in the 400mm range.

Right now my monthly "play money" is gone, but I should afford something in the 3-4000NOK range. And there are some on the market. Just not much to brag about.
Like a Sigma 50-400mm APO HSM and the rest of the alphabet.

But I also spotted a Canon 2x extender for the same price. So I wonder if I may as well just get that instead, for my new to me Canon 70-200 L lens wich will make it a 400mm lens.
It would save my back and knackered knees at least.

Or are there alternatives that I might afford?

4000NOK is about 350€

About the Canon 2x extender. A full size sensor is almost essential for that extender to work well. I use that and the 1.4x. The 1.4x is much more forgiving as far as ISO and noise is concerned. I use both on my Canon 600L and that 2xII never quite lived up to its billing unless you pair it up with a good 3rd party sharpening app. Of course, YMMV. All I'm saying is you need to go the extra mile to get that 2.0 working adequately. Hell, just for the giggles I've even paired up both extenders just to see what would happen. I needed a whole lot of daylight to get that anywhere near acceptable. I suggest you have a chat with a reputable dealer and see what you can see about those extenders and what you're going to use it for.

 

[Don Fischer]

Sitting here looking at long telelenses on a budget.

Budget becouse I just purchased a Canon 70-200mm IS F4 L, but I also want a longer lens than that for landscapes.
Something in the 400mm range.

Right now my monthly "play money" is gone, but I should afford something in the 3-4000NOK range. And there are some on the market. Just not much to brag about.
Like a Sigma 50-400mm APO HSM and the rest of the alphabet.

But I also spotted a Canon 2x extender for the same price. So I wonder if I may as well just get that instead, for my new to me Canon 70-200 L lens wich will make it a 400mm lens.
It would save my back and knackered knees at least.

Or are there alternatives that I might afford?

4000NOK is about 350€

I've never had or even seen an extender. But have an idea it amounts to a gadget. I've got a 55-300 for my Nikon and then found out they also make a variable to 400mm, seems the price was about the same. Gonna probably be more than one of those extender's but I'd think do a better job. Also I have a 170-500 Sigma and it works fine but I just don't have near the use for it I was thinking I had. Seems I recently saw a couple used for just a few hundred dollars. Can't remember where though!

 

[greybeard]

The biggest issue I have with extenders is not necessarily sharpness but light loss. You will loose at lease 2 physical stops and in some circles I have read that you could loose considerably more light transmission. In any case a 2x will compromise your AF system do to this light loss.

 

[480sparky]

1.4x usually loses 2/3 stop. 1.7, 1-1/3 stops. 2x, 2 stops.

 

[JoeW]

My 2 cents on the matter: it depends upon what you're shooting. If it's not low light and it's not moving and you can do a very long exposure (ie: no wind) then a teleconverter (ie: extender) is a good option to consider--especially if you're traveling and are trying to save luggage space. On some cameras and lens, it may force you to go all manual. Also, I'd highly recommend NOT using one with a mirrorless body. Why? I was told that part of the advantage you get in sharpness with a mirrorless body is you get the lens closer to the sensor, thus a sharper image. The teleconverter moves the glass further away from the sensor. So separate from losing a stop or two, you also may lose a little sharpness when putting it on a mirrorless body.