85 f//1.8 or 100 f/2 w/a 2x TC

<p>Any thoughts on using a 2x TC with either the Canon 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 lenses? I have a Canon 50D and use a 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my standard lens. I am considering one of the two listed lenses for tight portraits of my 5 month old twins. I thought use with the TC might add to the versatility of the additional lens when traveling light. I already have a 1.4 and 2x TCs to use with my 70-200 f/4 L IS lens, but I am considering trading this lens for the 2.8 IS version. Any thoughts/recommendations are appreciated. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Apart from the 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS I never found a lens which I was happy with its results with a 2X TC (85/1.8, 135/2 and all 70-200 variants included). I eventually sold it and only kept the 1.4X.</p><p>HTH.</p><p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

<p>Bryan,<br>

In another post you reference your 70-200 f/4. You have a crop camera, the 50D, which I also have and love. I own the 85 1.8 (I don't own the 100 f/2). I really like the 85 1.8 with this body, which shoots much like a 135 on the 50D and delivers very good portrait shots. I agree with Yakim on the quality issues with the 2X, I think you are better off with the 1.4X. Since it seems you want to go with the greatest reach, maybe you want to consider the 135 f/2.</p>

<p>The Canon TCs won't fit anyway, so that's not an option. The results with a 3rd party 1.4x will probably be OK, but I doubt that the image quality will be high with a 2x. I've gotten pretty good images using a Tamron 1.4x on a 50/1.8 (see <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html</a> for some sample images)</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I have a Canon 1.4x TC and a Kenko 2x TC so the 2x should mount on either lens. I figured both lenses are sharp so the results stopped down to f8 w/the 2x TC should be decent. Has anyone tried this with either of these lenses? </p>

<p>The 85/1.8 and 100/2 are great lenses at very reasonable prices, so I doubt you'll regret buying one of them, even if you don't like the results with the 2x.</p>

<p>If you keep the 70-200/4 I can't see why you would want to extend the 85/1.8 or 100/2, since the resulting 170/3.5 or 200/4 lenses would scarcely be different from the zoom you've already got, excepting that they lack IS and have poorer image quality. On the other hand, if you decide to trade your zoom in for a 70-200/2.8 IS, you will probably sometimes want a smaller and lighter telephoto rig. So I see the extended 85 or 100 as being worth bothering with only if you move to the much heavier f/2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>It is difficult to find reviews of various combinations of TC's and lenses. So if you do finally do some tests, I encourage you to post the results.</p>

<p>The 85/1.8 doesn't sit on the 1.4x, the shortest lens that does is the 135</p>

<p>...Incidentally, another lens worth considering is the 200/2.8 L prime. It's slightly larger than the 135/2, but a bit less expensive, and half the size and weight of the 70-200/2.8 IS. With your extenders you'd have a 280/4 and 400/5.6 as well.</p>