I have a Canon 70-200mm/2.8 (non-IS) and would like a bit more reach. The 1.4x TC seems to satisfy most people quality-wise, but how about the 2.0x? Does it degrade the image quality too much? It's intriguing to think I can get to 400mm/5.6 with it, but not at the expense of the image.
If anyone has the 2.0x, I'd much appreciate your take on it.
Paul, I sold my 2.0 and purchased the 1.4 instead. I use only the L lenses and the quality of the 2.0 did degraded my images too much to be acceptable except when the subject was unobtainable otherwise. I would advise the 1.4 only, I am very happy with it.
I have the 1.4 and the 2.0x converters. The only lens I use them on is the 500mm f/4. The 1.4x is superb. I can't see degradation of the image using the 1.4x. Using the 2.0x I lose autofocus since it now at f/8 (using either my 5D or 50D). Using a 1-series body it will autofocus at f/8 using the central autofocus sensor. I can see degradation using the 2.0x converter, but using the proper technique will help. I don't use the 2.0x all that much. I'd use it more if I didn't lose autofocus. You won't lose autofocus since you will be at f/5.6 on your 2.8 lens. I've done some rudimentary tests to see if cropping an image using the 1.4x to match the angle of view of the 2.0 would be better or worse. I think it is about a tossup.
On the 70-200 2.8 IS (I know, a different lens), I've found that the 1.4x produces images that really border on acceptable/unacceptable. With the 2x, not worth the effort of atttaching.
I've been happier with the 300 f4 and the 1.4x. Tossed images are user problems, not lens converter issues. I've used it with the 2x in a pinch and it is reasonably good. I have kept a fair number of images with that combination.
With the 180 macro, both the 1.4 and the 2x are combinations I use regularly, but the 180 macro is easily my sharpest lens. There is a slight loss of image quality with the 2x but nothing I worry about. Images shot with that are generally tossed because of shutter speed, subject motion or trying too hard to get an image.
In short, both are excellent pieces of glass but not necessarily a great combination on zooms, even with one of Canon's best zooms.
I use the 1.4x and 2.0x on my 300 f2.8 IS with very good results. I used the 1.4 on my 70-200 f2.8 IS once. The results were disappointing. I haven't use that combination since.
The non IS lens works better with the 1.4x and 2.0x. When I was shooting 35mm film my long lens combo was the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 2.0x. It was a sharp combo back them. I'm not certain about digital. I think that the biggest problem is shake. I don't think that the collar is strong enough so you really need to take all precautions when using the combo.
I prefer the Kenko Pro 2x for Canon to the Canon 2x in quality. You can see an example of its use in the "Moose" photo I recently posted in Fauna.
David M. Cobb
Posted by Paul DeCesare on June 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
This is exactly why I so appreciate this website... several good perspectives come back when you have a question from people who know what they're talking about. Imagine trying to get a response like this on some Flickr blog? Puh-lease!
Thanks everyone for the replies... I think that IF I go for a TC it'll be the 1.4x. The 5D2 image is so big I have crop room anyway, especially if the image is web-only. Plus, I just got my 16-35mm Monday, and sticker shock is still guiding me around the house.
Steven, I actually prefer a 16mm landscape over a bird shot, but my landscapes are... well... mediocre at best right now, so that's why I threw up the cardinal in my avatar, just happen to catch him soaring by a couple weeks ago when out with my 70-200mm attached. Yes, it's heavily cropped.
Discussion
8 repliesIf anyone has the 2.0x, I'd much appreciate your take on it.
Thanks in advance!
I've been happier with the 300 f4 and the 1.4x. Tossed images are user problems, not lens converter issues. I've used it with the 2x in a pinch and it is reasonably good. I have kept a fair number of images with that combination.
With the 180 macro, both the 1.4 and the 2x are combinations I use regularly, but the 180 macro is easily my sharpest lens. There is a slight loss of image quality with the 2x but nothing I worry about. Images shot with that are generally tossed because of shutter speed, subject motion or trying too hard to get an image.
In short, both are excellent pieces of glass but not necessarily a great combination on zooms, even with one of Canon's best zooms.
The 1.4 has to be better but doesn't seem to do much on a 35mm sensor.
I would just call either one a temporary solution and be content with what I have at the moment.
Your bird avatar indicates you really need the lens of 400-600 first. For landscapes the temporary works ok.
Shutter speeds of 1/50 to around a second might be the red areas for more shake. With or w/out IS.
David M. Cobb
Thanks everyone for the replies... I think that IF I go for a TC it'll be the 1.4x. The 5D2 image is so big I have crop room anyway, especially if the image is web-only. Plus, I just got my 16-35mm Monday, and sticker shock is still guiding me around the house.
Steven, I actually prefer a 16mm landscape over a bird shot, but my landscapes are... well... mediocre at best right now, so that's why I threw up the cardinal in my avatar, just happen to catch him soaring by a couple weeks ago when out with my 70-200mm attached. Yes, it's heavily cropped.
Thanks all!