Canon lens extenders - any good?
Discussion
I'm considering a Canon 1.4x extender as a stop gap before forking out for a new lens. A bit of extra reach on my 200mm would be useful for bird shots etc and I understand that with the 1.4 extender, the autofocus on my lens will still work, apparently not though if I bought the 2.0x extender (they are the same price). Anyone care to comment on whether the extender is worth having, or should I just save for a longer telephoto? Also, is it compatable with the 70-200 IS 11 2.8 and Canon 7D?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Canon 1.4x convertor definitely worth buying with any Canon 'L' prime lens, 2x more trouiblesome to find one that works well with your main prime lens. But well worth the effort if you use super tele's for a living.
IMO it's NOT worth using a convertor with any zoom lens. the Zooms slow F stop and average IQ to begin with only gets worse. easiest is to buy a longer zoom if that's what you really want.
doubtless other's will dis-agree
Shame Canon don't make a 1.7x convertor like Nikon, which would be a good compromise between the great 1.4x and inconsistant 2x Canon convertors
IMO it's NOT worth using a convertor with any zoom lens. the Zooms slow F stop and average IQ to begin with only gets worse. easiest is to buy a longer zoom if that's what you really want.
doubtless other's will dis-agree
Shame Canon don't make a 1.7x convertor like Nikon, which would be a good compromise between the great 1.4x and inconsistant 2x Canon convertors
Edited by S47 on Wednesday 23 November 20:29
This subject really seems to divide opinion. Some suggest a 1.4x teleconverter works well with the 70-200 L series lens I already have (effectively making it a 280mm) and suited to birds in flight, motorsport etc.Fine so far. Others however,say don't touch the teleconverter and a lot of recommendation for a next suitable lens seems to be the Canon 400mm F5.6 L. That looks like a fine lens but although it has AF it doesn't have IS. Then there is the small matter of the price, the 400mm is £1100 compared to the teleconverter at £450. Bloody Hell, I thought performance cars was an expensive hobby...
I regularly use the 1.4X II converter on a 70-200 F2.8L and 400 F5.6L albeit on a 1 series camera. There is little or no difference I can see regarding image quality. On anything other than a 1 series you will loose AF on an F5.6 lens (max aperture).
The 1.4x II is a no brainer.... well worth it. The 2x will work fine on a F2.8 lens but as already mentioned quality may suffer a little more and you loose AF on 'slower' lenses.
The 1.4x II is a no brainer.... well worth it. The 2x will work fine on a F2.8 lens but as already mentioned quality may suffer a little more and you loose AF on 'slower' lenses.
I hired a Canon 1.4x a while back and used it with my 40D and Sigma 100-300 EX f4 with absolutely no problems. I love the IQ of the 100-300 and it was just as good with the extender. It's something I'm considering adding to my bag sometime soon.
Very slightly O/T, has anyone compared the Canon offerings against the Sigma extenders?
Very slightly O/T, has anyone compared the Canon offerings against the Sigma extenders?
I don't think you can use a Canon extender on a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX, or maybe it's the other way round? One of them protrudes too far towards the lens and will touch/scratch the rear lens element.
As I said, the Sigma 1.4x I own is very good, and the 70-200 is fantastic, but in retrospect I should have put the money towards a long prime.
As I said, the Sigma 1.4x I own is very good, and the 70-200 is fantastic, but in retrospect I should have put the money towards a long prime.
From my extensive experience in motorsport, here are my comments.
1D4 + 1.4x (Mk 1) + 70-200 2.8L IS (Mk 1) = strong, punchy, high contrast images. AF performance is perfect even in AI servo, whether in landscape or portrait orientation. I use this very often when I need a zoom function and close to a 300mm range.
Camera + 1.4x + 300 2.8L IS (Mk 1) = even better than the above, simply because it is a prime lense.
Verdict the 1.4x (Mk 1) is a fantastic piece of glass, the Mk2 even better.
Replacing the above setups with the 2x Mk1, quality suffers a little more, AF hunts a little more unless in very bright sunlight. It is a good emergency converter to have in your toolkit, but I wouldn't rely on it to pay the bills, unlike the 1.4x.
Of note, my setup includes Hoya Pro1 polariser on the 70-200 and Canon's 52mm drop-in on the 300. So, even with the light loss caused by these, the quality is still fantastic.
As with everything, it depends on how you want to use your camera and the level of investment you choose to make, both in buying equipment and time learning how the kit works.
Hope this helps.
1D4 + 1.4x (Mk 1) + 70-200 2.8L IS (Mk 1) = strong, punchy, high contrast images. AF performance is perfect even in AI servo, whether in landscape or portrait orientation. I use this very often when I need a zoom function and close to a 300mm range.
Camera + 1.4x + 300 2.8L IS (Mk 1) = even better than the above, simply because it is a prime lense.
Verdict the 1.4x (Mk 1) is a fantastic piece of glass, the Mk2 even better.
Replacing the above setups with the 2x Mk1, quality suffers a little more, AF hunts a little more unless in very bright sunlight. It is a good emergency converter to have in your toolkit, but I wouldn't rely on it to pay the bills, unlike the 1.4x.
Of note, my setup includes Hoya Pro1 polariser on the 70-200 and Canon's 52mm drop-in on the 300. So, even with the light loss caused by these, the quality is still fantastic.
As with everything, it depends on how you want to use your camera and the level of investment you choose to make, both in buying equipment and time learning how the kit works.
Hope this helps.
-Pete- said:
Oh. As a matter of interest, what's better about the former/worse about the latter?
The 70-200 is sharper and has more contrast than the 100-400 and I'm happy to use it wide open. The 100-400 can be a little soft at the long end and quality improves when stopped down a little. The 1.4x on the 70-200 has a negligible effect on quality and gives a 280mm F4 combination. I also prefer the handling.2slo said:
Thanks for all those replies, good points made. Food for thought and hope the sale prices in January are tempting!
TCs come up secondhand quite a bit. Picked up my 1.4 for a steal. Worth a nose at this for compatibility - http://www.warehouseexpress.com/home/default.aspx?...
nellyleelephant said:
Those charts are a bit misleading. I get autofocus using a 100-400 on a 1 series body.
Just to expand on this slightly you get centre point only AF on a 1 series with the 100-400 and 1.4x converter. I used to use this combination a lot at airshows until I sold my 100-400.
2x you loose AF completely.
I use a 2x Extender ii with a 70-200 f2.8 ii mostly on a 1D3 and the results are usually fine shooting at up to 5fps. I rarely use the 10fps max.
In general I find that subjects moving away are a little less reliably focused and assume ths is something to do with the camera's expectations of how the lens will be used. USing this combination with a polarizer is interesting. Obviously you would usually expect to be needing a polariser for action shots when the light is half decent (although I could foresee some alternative situations) and it will work on the 1D3 even with the loss of 2 extra stops but the success rate drop a little.
What I have found is that diagonal pans with any IS setting (including off) seem to be more problematic with a PL filter fitted even in bright sunlight. For high speed subject (i.e the focus distance is changing rapidly) the first shot can be OK bu the AI servo struggles to keep up wth the target focus point. Frankly considering some of the shots I'm surprised it managed to do anything at all. The PL's extra 2 stop loss will not have helped the cause.
Without the PL the combination works pretty well IMO. The alternatives seem to involve additional investment and extra payload for the carrying system!
In general I find that subjects moving away are a little less reliably focused and assume ths is something to do with the camera's expectations of how the lens will be used. USing this combination with a polarizer is interesting. Obviously you would usually expect to be needing a polariser for action shots when the light is half decent (although I could foresee some alternative situations) and it will work on the 1D3 even with the loss of 2 extra stops but the success rate drop a little.
What I have found is that diagonal pans with any IS setting (including off) seem to be more problematic with a PL filter fitted even in bright sunlight. For high speed subject (i.e the focus distance is changing rapidly) the first shot can be OK bu the AI servo struggles to keep up wth the target focus point. Frankly considering some of the shots I'm surprised it managed to do anything at all. The PL's extra 2 stop loss will not have helped the cause.
Without the PL the combination works pretty well IMO. The alternatives seem to involve additional investment and extra payload for the carrying system!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff