User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3

View Poll Results: IS the EF 1.4x Teleconverter worth it?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - There are no image quality problems.

    23 95.83%
  • No - Image quality it just terrible.

    1 4.17%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: EF 1.4x teleconverter

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    EF 1.4x teleconverter

    Hello,

    I am thinking about purchasing a 1.4x teleconverter to put on my 70-200mm F2.8 IS. While I cant justify buying the 100-400mm, I can justify buying the teleconverter. I am just wondering how the images quality suffers from the use of the 1.4x teleconverter.

    I am planning on using this on two bodies, 40D and 5D Mk II. Is anyone using this combination? Are you happy with the results?

    Cheers
    -Nigel

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular Bercy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,475
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dear Nige,

    I have a Kenko 1.4 that I use on a 40D with a 70-200 F4L lens, aswell as changing the range of my 28-105. I was trying to get some football shots. It actually worked reasonably well, but the ISO had to be cranked up, to keep the shutter speed fast enough. Tripod mandatory - as the lenses I have are not IS. With the 2.8 there will be greater flexibility I guess. I think it is a great accessory, despite the fall off in light. Its a matter of working around that and accepting the minor limitations. On a bright day - the impact is negligible. It is a much easier changing the range of a few selected lenses without resorting to a shopping trolley to bring all the lenses you might otherwise need.

    Others may have been physics knowledge to explained the benefits and limitations!
    Berni

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    08 May 2009
    Location
    Buninyong
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't be of much help but I do have that exact combo and have used it on my 7D. I have only taken a few silly shots with it and found it fine, haven't done any pixel peeping though. So treat this as "yes it works and the results aren't a disaster!"

    edit: Re the light fall off, they say you loose 1 stop, so your f2.8 would become a f4 so yes you will have to bump your ISO or settle for a slower shutter.
    Mic

    Photography is the art of telling stories with light.

    www.michaelgoulding.com

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Jan 2010
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a 5D2 and a 70-200 f4 IS. I used to have a 40D. I find the 1.4 TC fairly disappointing and use it only when I have no choice. It's just not very sharp. The 70-200 is extremely sharp normally, but degrades significantly with the TC - it makes it look like a cheap lens. I'm told that the 100-400 is significantly better than a 70-200 with TC.

  5. #5
    Member linden's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Mar 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think its a good idea and you should do it
    My Flickr

    Canon 50D | 135mm f/2.0 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | 50mm f/1.8 | 580 EXII

  6. #6
    For the love of what I see.
    Join Date
    28 Dec 2009
    Location
    Yokine
    Posts
    986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Nigel.
    Got a 7D, 70-200 2.8 (non IS) plus the 1.4 TC and have no regrets at all. The change from 2.8 to 4 makes no difference to me as mostly I'm outdoors in full sun.
    My suggestion is that if the funds are there then do it. You can always take the TC off if you want but I rarely do now.
    Peter.

    Some of my photo's are at www.peterking.id.au

  7. #7
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,870
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Nigel. I dunno that the poll contains enough options, as the answer would be both Y and N, depending on quality of the converter. I'd go ahead and get one, though I think going from f=200mm to f=280 mm on your zoom is just not worth it. I'd go for a full 2x converter. IMO the 1.4X converters are more of use for shorter focal lengths. Actually, on 2nd thoughts, I really don't know what a 1.4X converter is more useful for.
    Am.
    PS via an Edit: At least the 2X would give you the full f=400mm at the long end of the zoom lens, which you seemed to hint at.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane - Bayside
    Posts
    3,416
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have heard the 2x converter isn't as good as the 1.4x converter. Has anyone else found this. In sharpness I think?
    Thanks for looking....Cheers,
    Julie-Anne / Julie / Jules / Julesy / JAS

    MY ..... MY BLOG..... Feel free to look.
    Canon 40D / 24-105mm L IS / 70-200mm L IS / 75-300mm / 50mm 1.8 / Sigma 10-20mm / Manfrotto tripod / Bits and pieces to fill the bag.


  9. #9
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday
    Join Date
    27 Mar 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Nigel,
    I have both the 70-200 2.8IS and the 1.4xii and have used the combo with no noticeable degradation in image quality. There is an unavoidable loss of 1 f/stop, although if comparing to the 100-400 you are still better off over the equivalent focal lengths.

    The 2x TC is not recommended for any of the zooms and will produce 'significant' reduction in image quality.

    Cheers
    John


    EOS 1D MKIII x2, EOS 6D; Samyang 14 2.8 IF ED UMC, EF 17-40 4 L, EF 24-70 2.8 L, EF 50 1.4, EF 85 1.8, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS, EF 100 2.8 macro, EF 400 5.6 L, 1.4x II TC, EF25 ET; Speelite 580EX, 430EX; Nissin Di866II; Yongnuo YN560i/ii & YN460ii, YN622C's, RF602's; Gitzo GT3541XLS + Markins Q20i; Manfrotto 055XProB + Giottos MH1301; Manfrotto 680B c/w Kirk MPA-1; Tamrac Pro5, ThinkTank Airport Accelerator, Airport Antidote V2, Pro Speed Belt + Racing Harness + Modular Skin Set; Lightroom 5.3, Photoshop CS5.
    myflickr

    Scarlet letters aren't that bad.. I rather like L



  10. #10
    Member mikspics's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Sep 2010
    Location
    south coast
    Posts
    128
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 41jas View Post
    I have heard the 2x converter isn't as good as the 1.4x converter. Has anyone else found this. In sharpness I think?
    kind of depends which lens it sits behind julie, the 40d 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 x tele from canon is a great combination for extra reach, and if you include the crop factor of 1.6 you get nearly 400 anyway.....?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane - Bayside
    Posts
    3,416
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mikspics View Post
    kind of depends which lens it sits behind julie, the 40d 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 x tele from canon is a great combination for extra reach, and if you include the crop factor of 1.6 you get nearly 400 anyway.....?
    Thanks for that mikspics. Always good to know.

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got the Canon x1.4 MkII and use it on a few of my lenses have have found it superbly sharp and very useful. Would love it to be full time AF on my 7D though.

    Shooting at 900mm on MF, I don't expect every image to be perfectly sharp but it does make the sport more interesting and produces some excellent results.
    "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


  13. #13
    Member nwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Apr 2010
    Location
    melbs
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have a 2x tele dont get it they suck on the 70-200 they were designed for the 300 and 400 mm lens trust me you will hate it

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    29 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Guys.

    I wasn't considering the 2x due to the quality loss. I was was wondering about the effect of the IQ using it. It might be the 'go out and try' sort of item. The 70-200mm is tack sharp the longer focal length lens's are just out of the question. If I where to by the the 100-400mm it would be used maybe once or twice and then sit on the shelf for a very long time.

    I am trying to increase my focal length on the cheap.
    Thanks for the replies thus far.

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Nige.

    I own both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC, but admittedly I use neither on my 70-200/2.8. I have a 300/2.8, so I have the focal lengths with that, and it's a lens that produces stellar results with either TC.

    I'd expect the 1.4x TC to produce good results on a 70-200/2.8.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Sep 2010
    Location
    Syd
    Posts
    259
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enduro View Post
    I've got the Canon x1.4 MkII and use it on a few of my lenses have have found it superbly sharp and very useful. Would love it to be full time AF on my 7D though.

    Shooting at 900mm on MF, I don't expect every image to be perfectly sharp but it does make the sport more interesting and produces some excellent results.
    as long as the aperture is 5.6, you should still retain your autofocus on the 7D right?
    i.e it would still work on a 70-200 f/4?

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a 70-200 f4L IS and would like more reach.
    Has anyone had experience with this lens and the Canon 1.4x Teleconverter.
    I know it'll drop a full stop, making it f5.6.
    It's my understanding that autofocus will still work, but will obviously be a bit slower.
    The main use will be for sport, namely Soccer and Athletics, both of which will usually be in full sunlight.
    My main concern is with Image Quality.
    If anyone has images taken with this combination I'd love to see them.

    A 300 or 400 Prime is beyond my finances for the foreseeable future!!
    Mark

    Canon 70D w/Grip l Canon 60D w/Grip l EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM l EF 70-200 f4L IS USM l EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM l EF 100 f2.8 USM Macro l EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM l EF 50 f1.8 II l Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM l 430 EX II Flash l Rode Stereo VideoMic l Manfrotto 055XPROB + 498RC2 Tripod l Benro MP-96 M8 Monopod l Lowepro Vertex 200 AW Backpack l Lowepro Pro Runner 300 AW Backpack l PS CS5 Extended l Lightroom 4.3

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Sep 2010
    Location
    Syd
    Posts
    259
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by unistudent1962 View Post
    I have a 70-200 f4L IS and would like more reach.
    Has anyone had experience with this lens and the Canon 1.4x Teleconverter.
    I know it'll drop a full stop, making it f5.6.
    It's my understanding that autofocus will still work, but will obviously be a bit slower.
    The main use will be for sport, namely Soccer and Athletics, both of which will usually be in full sunlight.
    My main concern is with Image Quality.
    If anyone has images taken with this combination I'd love to see them.

    A 300 or 400 Prime is beyond my finances for the foreseeable future!!
    seeing as the 70-200L f/4 IS is regarded as one of canons sharpest lenses (even sharper than the 2.8), i would not be at all concerened about loss in quality. f/5.6 @ 280mm is not all that slow, though f/5.6 @ 98mm, not the best, though you shouldn't use the converter if you are shooting at under 200mm effective focal length anyway.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks pmack,

    I'd only be using it with the extender at the long end of the range for the extra reach.

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Regular Bercy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,475
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have used the Kenko 1.4 TC with my Canon 70-200L F4 (Non IS). Sorry I can't go home from work to get some photos! However, it was a bit tricky for sport. If it is bright sunshine its fine, but if there is significant light drop off from cloud cover or perhap indoor work then you get can get caught with unsatisfactory results. For sport, a fast shutter speed is pre-requisite. It has to be at least the inverse of the focal length, likely best at 1/500 to 1/1000. The aperture drops out to about 5.6. If that does not let in enough light, then you have to up the ISO. In any direction something has to be compromised. Going to a 2.8 lens would give a substantial advantage of course, but there are relationships between fast/quality/cost. I have managed some shots, but a lot of duds as well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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