I've got a Canon 300mm F2.8 IS and am toying with the idea of getting the 2x converter for it. After reading some user thoughts on FredMirander.com I'm not sure.
What's the general concensus here? Is it better or worse on the 300mm F2.8 than on other prime lenses? Do people get good 'printable' results out of it?
Thanks
Posted by Paul Everett on August 23, 2006 at 12:27 PM
I have had some good results. But only get a Canon converter.
Paul
Posted by Brian Phipps on August 23, 2006 at 12:48 PM
I used to have the 300mm 2.8L non IS and used a 2x quite often and also had good results.
Go for a 2x Mk II - it has a few tweeks that make it better than the MkI version.
Other than that, you should get good results, and even better results if you stop-down the aperture a bit too.
Posted by Kevin Lewis on August 23, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Sorry I have to disagree with the above. The EFx2II convertor is, at best, a last resort to getting a record image only. Most of the time you would be better cropping to the same magnification. The EFx1.4II on the other hand is well worth putting in the bag and I use mine regularly
I regularly use the EF2x. I try to use it at f11 or smaller and I see no diminution in image quality using either a 1D2N or 1Ds2. Several of the recent shots I've posted here were shot with an EF2x fitted.
Posted by Sean Bolton on August 23, 2006 at 5:03 PM
Hi Antony
I don't own one myself but general consensus is that you can get excellent results with the 2x TC and the L primes such as the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4.
There is some degradation but the image quality is still very good, especially if you can stop down a little.
For what the 2x TC costs, it would definitely be in my kit bag if I had the 300 f2.8.
juzaphoto has a very good comparison and evaluation of the 1.4x TC and 2.0x TC when used with the 600 F4 L, plus some original RAW files you can download to assess the image quality yourself.
Posted by Larry Corbett on August 24, 2006 at 3:33 AM
Antony
A few years ago I needed to raise some cash FAST to pay for unforseen builders work on my house at the time I had an FD500mmF4.5 an EF500mmF4L IS and a 300mm F4L IS, 100-400f4.5-5.6, 180mm f3.5 70-200mm F2.8l as well as my 300mm f2.8L IS
I could have kept the 500mm but no In the end I sold everything apart from the 70-200 and the 300f2.8L IS, 'cause I knew that I could get by with out all the other lenses but not without the 300f2.8L IS which without doubt is the sharpest telephoto you can get and with the 2x II extender it's just as sharp...
I use a 2xII extender about 50% of the time with my 300 f2.8L IS..it's my favoured setup
all I can say is that the results are breathtaking!...absolutely pin sharp
here's a shot of a gull taken last spring using a 1d2 and 300 f2.8L IS plus a 2xII extender it's been down sized for web representation and only very slightly sharpened...you should see the 48mb file it's breathtaking...
Shame I could show you alot more but am off on my Hols now, my advice is to buy the canon 2xII use it on your 300mm lens and enjoy the results they WILL be fantastic!!
ps...photozone.de didn't have a good example of a 300mm f2.8L IS don't believe everything you read!!!!...
Posted by Rob Ashton on August 24, 2006 at 5:32 AM
Antony,
Firstly, the 300mm f2.8L IS is arguably regarded as (optically) the best lens Canon produces. If you wish to put any converters (1.4x or 2x) onto any lens, this is the best one for them.
Secondly, I use both a 1.4x MkII and a cheapo (Kenko) 2x converter with my 400mm DO IS (not the best bare lens optically) without too much degradation of IQ (apart from the bad photographer interface).
I should think that the 300mm f2.8 with the Canon 2x MkII converter would be pretty good.
Thanks for the replies. I'm giving it serious consideration.
What's bugging me is that I've just had a day with a Kenko Pro300DG 2x on my 300mm and my other half said she thought the resulting prints were 'crap' compared to what I was getting out of the 400 L 5.6.
On closer inspection I will admit the quality has dropped more than I'd like.
What I need is a definative answer to the question - Is the Canon EF 2x II significantly better than the pro300 2x ?
Regards
Antony
Posted by Larry Corbett on August 24, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Think of it this way...
one is a Lada the other is a BMW, which would you rather have?
Posted by David Kjaer on August 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Hi Anthony
I purchased a 300f2.8 IS in March this year and one of the first things I did was to test it on a Blackbird in the garden with the Canon x2 MkII and was amazed by the quality it gave me. I also use a x2 on my 500f4 but the x2 on the 300F2.8 IS edges the 500f4 into second place for quality. Of course prime lenses are always better but if the situation demands it I am always happy adding the x2.
Antony,
If you'd like to try one before you buy one, email me and I might be able to help
John
Posted by Elliott Neep on August 28, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Hi Antony
I have the same 300mm F2.8 IS L lens and have used a mkII 2x for about a year. If its good enough for my stock agent then it should be good enough for anyone! Have had no quibbles apart from slower focussing in low light. Although you can use it at F5.6 I tend to go for F6.3 to F8 for extra sharpness. Make sure you get the Canon mkII though.
I've read lots of comments that say avoid purchasing a 2x converter but I have honestly used it a great deal from distance mammal shots to close up plant portraits. There seems to be a real stigma about the 2x that just won't die. I think its time for people to re-assess converters (especially for those that have limited budgets) and not simply regurgitate old opinions.
Discussion
14 repliesI've got a Canon 300mm F2.8 IS and am toying with the idea of getting the 2x converter for it. After reading some user thoughts on FredMirander.com I'm not sure.
What's the general concensus here? Is it better or worse on the 300mm F2.8 than on other prime lenses? Do people get good 'printable' results out of it?
Thanks
Paul
Other than that, you should get good results, and even better results if you stop-down the aperture a bit too.
I don't own one myself but general consensus is that you can get excellent results with the 2x TC and the L primes such as the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4.
There is some degradation but the image quality is still very good, especially if you can stop down a little.
For what the 2x TC costs, it would definitely be in my kit bag if I had the 300 f2.8.
juzaphoto has a very good comparison and evaluation of the 1.4x TC and 2.0x TC when used with the 600 F4 L, plus some original RAW files you can download to assess the image quality yourself.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_600_f4_l_is_usm_review.htm
Photozone has a more scientific analysis of the 300 f2.8 + 2x TC with resolution charts.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_300_28is/index.htm
cheers
Sean
A few years ago I needed to raise some cash FAST to pay for unforseen builders work on my house at the time I had an FD500mmF4.5 an EF500mmF4L IS and a 300mm F4L IS, 100-400f4.5-5.6, 180mm f3.5 70-200mm F2.8l as well as my 300mm f2.8L IS
I could have kept the 500mm but no In the end I sold everything
I use a 2xII extender about 50% of the time with my 300 f2.8L IS..it's my favoured setup
all I can say is that the results are breathtaking!...absolutely pin sharp
here's a shot of a gull taken last spring using a 1d2 and 300 f2.8L IS plus a 2xII extender it's been down sized for web representation and only very slightly sharpened...you should see the 48mb file it's breathtaking...
Shame I could show you alot more but am off on my Hols now, my advice is to buy the canon 2xII use it on your 300mm lens and enjoy the results they WILL be fantastic!!
ps...photozone.de didn't have a good example of a 300mm f2.8L IS don't believe everything you read!!!!...
Firstly, the 300mm f2.8L IS is arguably regarded as (optically) the best lens Canon produces. If you wish to put any converters (1.4x or 2x) onto any lens, this is the best one for them.
Secondly, I use both a 1.4x MkII and a cheapo (Kenko) 2x converter with my 400mm DO IS (not the best bare lens optically) without too much degradation of IQ (apart from the bad photographer interface).
I should think that the 300mm f2.8 with the Canon 2x MkII converter would be pretty good.
Rob
What's bugging me is that I've just had a day with a Kenko Pro300DG 2x on my 300mm and my other half said she thought the resulting prints were 'crap' compared to what I was getting out of the 400 L 5.6.
On closer inspection I will admit the quality has dropped more than I'd like.
What I need is a definative answer to the question - Is the Canon EF 2x II significantly better than the pro300 2x ?
Regards
Antony
one is a Lada the other is a BMW, which would you rather have?
I purchased a 300f2.8 IS in March this year and one of the first things I did was to test it on a Blackbird in the garden with the Canon x2 MkII and was amazed by the quality it gave me. I also use a x2 on my 500f4 but the x2 on the 300F2.8 IS edges the 500f4 into second place for quality. Of course prime lenses are always better but if the situation demands it I am always happy adding the x2.
David
Looks like I'll get one over the next few days.
It better be good
Thanks all
If you'd like to try one before you buy one, email me and I might be able to help
John
I have the same 300mm F2.8 IS L lens and have used a mkII 2x for about a year. If its good enough for my stock agent then it should be good enough for anyone! Have had no quibbles apart from slower focussing in low light. Although you can use it at F5.6 I tend to go for F6.3 to F8 for extra sharpness. Make sure you get the Canon mkII though.
I've read lots of comments that say avoid purchasing a 2x converter but I have honestly used it a great deal from distance mammal shots to close up plant portraits. There seems to be a real stigma about the 2x that just won't die. I think its time for people to re-assess converters (especially for those that have limited budgets) and not simply regurgitate old opinions.