User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Canon EF 2x II Extender : Yes or no ?

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Regular David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon EF 2x II Extender : Yes or no ?

    Not being in a position to buy a 100-400 L lens for longer focal length in my kit I was thinking of maybe (in the meantime) getting a Canon EF 2x II Extender.

    One problem with this idea is that a Canon 70-200 L 4.0 lens [the one I am thinking of attaching this Extender to] mounted over a 2x Extender becomes a 140-400mm f/8 lens, You gain double the focal length but you effectively lose 2 stops of aperture with this thing.

    F8 is not exactly fast is it and although it will ‘allow’ deeper DOF it will also slow down the shutter speed and for moving subjects (sports, birds, wildlife) that would probably be a nightmare. Also, the background better be ‘interesting’ because I would have a hard time giving it a bokeh/.blurred background effect except in Photoshop, right ?

    I am thinking this Extender might be more suited to a 2.8 for both sharpness and speed IF I had a 2.8 L lens.

    So, for moving long focal length images (sports especially) where you need a fast SS (and consequently wide aperture) this purchase for my current lens kit would be a waste of time ?

    But, maybe for not so twitchy wildlife (kangaroos etc) and still subjects out of subject feature size in the frame (the moon etc) using the 70-200mm L 4.0 lens the Extender would be worthwhile IF the light conditions are good and/or I can up the ISO without crashing the pixels ?

    I dunno, thoughts and comments welcome -I get the feeling people are going to tell me to sit on my hands and wait till I can afford the 100-400 L.
    Last edited by David; 24-10-2009 at 7:03pm.
    Comments and CC welcome..

    Gear: Canon 6D & 1Ds Cameras l Canon EF 17-40mm F 4.0 L USM l Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 L IS USM l Canon EF 70 - 200 F4.0 L USM Lenses I Manfrotto Tripods I Adobe Photoshop CS6 l Lightroom 3.0 I Lee Filters



    "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust 1871 - 1922

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would get the 1.4x extender for it David, at F8 with the 2x extender - the AF of any camera would have problems focusing and tracking when its not bright day light

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2008
    Location
    Booval, Qld (near Ipswich)
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wouldn't, I swapped my x2 for a x1.4 as I just couldn't get the IQ i wanted when using it. It wasn't too bad on the 600/4 but hardly ever used it on that. Also be aware that the Canon extenders only fit on some L lenses, not all lenses. And yes I agree with your last statement. Wait for the 100-400.

  4. #4
    Member mabu's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nr Port Douglas, FNQ
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've not used extenders so dont take this as gospel, but I have not heard much good about the 2x extender.

    I think there can be issues with autofocus when using the 2x. I beleive this is an issue if the 2 stops it adds takes the overall f-stop to greater than 5.6, at which point it no longer autofocus's (perhaps someone more knowledgable can confirm or deny this?).

    I have heard better things regarding the 1.4x extender, and know people that have used this with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L with good results (some say better than the 100-400 L).

    Hope this helps.
    Regards

    Martin

    www.burcombe.net

    Canon 50d, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L, 17-55 f2.8, 10-20mm, 100mm f2.8 Macro

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Allann, Jimmy and Martin for the advise.

    As soon as I read those comments I remembered someone telling me the 1.4 is a better option and a few other things as well awhile back (might have even been De Groote) - see what happens when you get impatient for a 100-400 L, you get desperate .

    Seriously, losing autofocus at F8.0 puts an end to the idea: I will wait till Ive saved my pennies for the 100-400L and leave the extenders for another time.

  6. #6
    Member R1titan's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    David, i've used a 1.4X TC on both the Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS) and the 2.8 IS.
    It is much easier to use on the f4 version as the focus feels faster than the 2.8 IS (but thats with a Kenko TC).
    Hope that bit of info helps
    Canon User

  7. #7
    Member Audible's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 2009
    Location
    not here
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A bit of a curve ball on the subject.

    I have a friend who owns a sigma 2.0 & 1.4x TC, the pro ones. As a bit of a muck around I borrowed the 2.0x and tried it out on my 70-200mm F4L also with a tamron 1.4x I owned at the time and compared it to my Sigma 135-400mm. I tried both set up's off a manfrotto though back then I was shooting with a 300D.

    Bottom line was there wasn't much in it. The canon spanked the sigma in the relevant ranges without any TC and with the 1.4x TC (in the up to 280mm range). But when the 2.0x came into play the IQ degradation on the canon made it pretty comparable to the sigma across the board as both are similar focal ranges or 140-400 v 135-400mm.
    If you consider the price you can pick up a lens such as the sigma 135-400mm compared to a teleconvertor, it could be a good choice to use a fairly cheap longer lens rather than a teleconvertor and degrade a superior lens down to the same level of IQ.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    28 Dec 2008
    Location
    Ipswich, QLD
    Posts
    1,328
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by David View Post
    Thanks Allann, Jimmy and Martin for the advise.

    As soon as I read those comments I remembered someone telling me the 1.4 is a better option and a few other things as well awhile back (might have even been De Groote) - see what happens when you get impatient for a 100-400 L, you get desperate .

    Seriously, losing autofocus at F8.0 puts an end to the idea: I will wait till Ive saved my pennies for the 100-400L and leave the extenders for another time.
    Don't also discount some of the other lenses also, the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm are quite affordable compared to any other 500mm range lenses. IQ is not bad at all. I tried the 150-500mm the other day and I was pretty impressed. It is a heavy lens but can be used handheld no problems. I think it would give the 100-400mm canon a run for its money.
    Critique and comments welcomed on my images!

    www.philrettkephotography.com
    http://www.flickr.com/philrettke

    Canon EOS 5D MKII x 2 | Ef 70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM | Ef 16-35mm f2.8L II | Ef 180mm f/3.5L macro | Ef 24-70mm f/2.8L | Adobe Photoshop CS3 extended | Digital Photo Professional | Photomatix Pro 3 | Adobe Lightroom 2.3

  9. #9
    Member gh0st's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am using Canon 1.4x TC with 70-200 L with very good results, tried 2x but far too soft and AF issues. IMHO - No.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by David View Post
    Not being in a position to buy a 100-400 L lens for longer focal length in my kit I was thinking of maybe (in the meantime) getting a Canon EF 2x II Extender.

    One problem with this idea is that a Canon 70-200 L 4.0 lens [the one I am thinking of attaching this Extender to] mounted over a 2x Extender becomes a 140-400mm f/8 lens, You gain double the focal length but you effectively lose 2 stops of aperture with this thing.
    I wouldn't use the 2x TC with that lens.

    I only use it with my 300/2.8, and recommend it only be used with the fast super-teles (200/1.8, 200/2, 300/2.8 and 400/2.8).

    I use it on my 300/2.8, and the image quality is fine. Someone on dpreview.com once produced a set of images with that combo to demonstrate the image quality, and I was suitably impressed, buying the 2x TC on the merit of that guy's images.

    While I haven't had any experience with the combination you propose, I just wouldn't recommend it based on the specs of the lens.

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No xyzD or xyD will AF with "plussed up" aperture of f/8

    Though lacking full AF (taped pins) I have the Canon 1.4 MkII and it is terrific on the 400mm f/5.6. It was equally good when I had the 40D too. The slight softness and change in bokeh is quite appealing for me too. What is most appealing is that I now have an effective 900mm lens for a smigeon of the price of a 500mm (albeit it is a MF lens).

    On other forums I visit have seen quite a few excellent shots taken with the 500mm with 1.4 and 2x stacked. It really comes down to the light and focal distance.

    slight crops
    40D, 400mm f/5.6 + Canon 1.4TC:

    "Nature photography is about choosing a location, crawling through dirt, being bitten by insects and occasionally taking a great image". - Wayne Eddy.

    Canon 5D MkIII, Canon 7D, 17-40mm f/4L,
    24-105mm f/4L
    + Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS +400mm f/5.6L + Canon 1.4xTC + Canon 100 EF f2.8 USM + 430-EX


  12. #12
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    enduro:

    Some nice shots there.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    enduro:

    Some nice shots there.
    Thanks.

    The shots are really to show the change in IQ with the 1.4 attached.

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Veteran rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,519
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My sentiments with ENDURO, some good shots, hard to fault!

  15. #15
    Member nwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Apr 2010
    Location
    melbs
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i tried using a canon tc 2 on a canon 70-200 2.8 for sport, its just destroys the quality of the image. im not a fan at all. i may look into a 1.4 but if i am going to shoot long id rather rent a lens and get killer quality then try and half ass it and get images i dont like quality wise.

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nwoody View Post
    i tried using a canon tc 2 on a canon 70-200 2.8 for sport, its just destroys the quality of the image. im not a fan at all. i may look into a 1.4 but if i am going to shoot long id rather rent a lens and get killer quality then try and half ass it and get images i dont like quality wise.
    Good call. Since I posted this thread I have saved my pennies and am now 2 weeks away from being the proud owner of the 100-400mm L lens I wanted back then and was looking for cheaper ways of getting the focal length I wanted: . It has been worth the wait I hope and I have the 1.4 TC waiting to load up if necessary.. bring it on

  17. #17
    Member nwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Apr 2010
    Location
    melbs
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yeah thats a solid move not going to lie im a tad envies.

  18. #18
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nwoody View Post
    i tried using a canon tc 2 on a canon 70-200 2.8 for sport, its just destroys the quality of the image. im not a fan at all.
    I personally wouldn't recommend the use of the 2x TC on the 70-200s.

    In my experience, it's best paired with fast super-teles.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon EF 2x II Extender : Yes or no ?

    The new nikon 2x tc is an exception to my long held view that all 2x tcs are rubbish. Irrelevant to the thread but worth mentioning

    Yeah on the 100-400 David, a lens that I'd love a nikon match for


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Feb 2010
    Location
    Tumut
    Posts
    1,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well done David, congrats...The 100-400L will compliment your already impressive line-up. Looking forward to seeing the results

    Roy

    5D MkIII gripped; EF 17-40 f/4L; EF 24-105 f/4L; EF 50 f/1.8; EF 135 f/2L; 580EXII; Manfrotto 055XPROB & 308RC ballhead; Computrekker Plus AW
    My Photobucket / My flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •