1.4x vs 2x extender on 70-200/2.8is, anyone have samples of both?

I'm looking at a Canon 70-200/2.8 is. I would like it to be longer

every once in a while. I'm debating between the 1.4x and the 2.0x

extenders. I would like to have the 140-400 range of the 2x, but

sharpness is equally/more important. I'd like to see the quality

difference in sharpness between the 1.4 and 2x at same focal

lengths. I've already searched and read all the older postings, and

also Luminous Landscape 400 vs 400. I know a tele prime will be

better, but will use the 70-200 range the most, and can't afford

this and a prime.

 

Does anyone with these 3 pieces have any comparisons. I'd love to

see 100% crop center comparisons between the 1.4 and 2.0x at:

 

1) 280mm (1.4x and 2x), both wide open, and f/11 (f/8 x1.4= f/11 and

f/5.6 x2=f/11).

2) 400mm (2x) wide open and f/11

3) Between 280-400mm (2x) how well it can do.

 

If someone has some shots, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,

 

Mark

This pic is the full image, scaled down, shot at 400mm, 70-200 2.8 with 2x extender.

This pic is the 100% crop image, shot at 400mm, 70-200 2.8 with 2x extender.

If you shoot it at 400mm wide open, it is soft.

 

Cut it back to not quite full zoom & f/8 and smaller, it's not too bad.

 

I have a 2X, but I don't use it much for the softness. I am looking to get a 1.4X soon to hopefully solve that issue.<div></div>

Mark,

I got some pretty good results with some long airshow shots with the 70-200f2.8IS and the 1.4X extender. Check out my pictures on this site of the warbirds and the stunt planes.(just click on my name) I to would like to see some more results with the 2x.

Good shooting,

Bill

Here's one at full 400 mm, f/8.

 

LAB color lightness unsharp masking and color correction only.

 

From a moving tour train through the San Diego Wildlife Park.<div></div>

Mark: I find that the 70-200/2.8 works best in high contrast, bright lighting. About a month ago I was at the Yankees / Red Sox game #2 of the season opening series and grabbed a few shots that I thought were pleasantly surprising. Admittedly, I bought the 2x extender when I got my 70-200 a couple years ago and I don't really use it that much since I'm not shooting serious telephoto that often. It's certainly no substitute for a 400mm/2.8, but for the money, it's pretty damn good most of the time. I'm going to post a couple shots here if I can. By the way, I had GREAT seats about 10 rows back from the Yankees dugout but did not have access to any photographers' pit next to the field.

 

~Mike Green<div></div>

Here's another....<div></div>

another......<div></div>

Tony Womack steals second base<div></div>

Sidewinder.<div></div>

Jeter on deck<div></div>

Captain Caveman---Johnny Damon<div></div>

Looks like Manny knows I don't like him. :-)<div></div>

Jorge Posada rips one...<div></div>

The game winner coming off the bat. (Thank God!)<div></div>

The celebration.<div></div>

FYI, many of the above posted shots were cropped to some degree to satisfy my sense of composition. The last shot of Jeter being congratulated was actually a vertically composed shot that looked much better when the center, horizontal third of the frame was used--therefore that's what I did.

 

I shot all of these wide open (f/5.6 because of the 2x extender) at 200 ISO on my EOS-10d with shutter speeds around 1/1250th.

Very nice shots, Michael. Thanks for sharing them.

Mike, nice shots, all were done with the 2x extender on? Can you post a 100%/full size picture. Thanks

 

Mark

Funny. I intended to post exactly the same question as Mark because I am planning to replace my Sigma 2.8/70-200 APO (which is a nice lens) with the expensive Canon 'IS' glass - I like the IS...

 

As I often use longer tele lenses from Novoflex today I considered buying an extender to take many pictures with that Canon combination...

 

But I must say that from a technical point of view I find these results absolutely terrible, especially when I consider Canon's high prices for extenders. Obviously the extenders trade not only focal length against aperture but also against quality.

 

I am afraid I have to dig deep into my pocket to find some money for a long Canon IS/DO 400mm prime...

Mark, I don't have any samples to hand but I have all three lenses, and my experience has shown that the 1.4x works very well from 1 stop down (a little soft wide open), and is nearly indistiguishable from the zoom alone. Results are very good.

 

Unfortunately with the 2x it becomes noticeably soft even stopped down to f4 or f5.6 (quite poor wide open), and I would not recommend using this combination if, like me, you are discriminating when comes to sharpness. It would probably produce better results to simply crop/enlarge using the 1.4x, or of course use the 1.4x on the 300mm f2.8L IS ;-)

 

The upshot of my experience is that whilst I am happy to use the 2x on the 300mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8 simply cannot handle it. Perhaps there are just too many elements in the zoom to make it useable.

 

Cheers,

Matt

<p>Michael, nice of you to make sure you got some of the big Canon glass in the background of some of your shots :-)</p>

<p>I'm about a day away from finishing a web page that has full-pixel center-frame crops from the 70-200/2.8 IS alone, with the 1.4x, and with the 2x, including shots taken with the extenders at each full stop down to f/22, along with some comments. I was then going to offer the review to Bob for use on photo.net. So if you can wait a few days, you'll have exactly what you are asking for.

<img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3327358-lg.jpg><p>10D, 70-200/2.8 IS & 2X Mk II