using 70-200 F/4 with teleconverter

<p>Hi all , I am seriously considering purchasing a 70-200 F/4 based on the over all great reviews it gets and its light weight. I would like to know however is if anyone has tried using it with the 1.4 teleconverter and if so, what were the results like? i do not like toting around the much heavier 70-200 F/2.8 or the 100-400mm f/5.6 as i much prefer lighter lenses and if i can get good results with a combination of this lens and th 1.4 teleconverter then thats the router i will take. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>The combination works, and works as expected, a one f/stop light loss (the widest effective lens opening is now f/5.6) and it's not troublesome; auto-focus remains available. But keep in mind the realities of math: 40% more to the existing 200mm only nets an 80 mm gain... you now have an up-to 280mm lens. Not exactly mind-blowing. If it's an effort to capture images "on the other side of the lake" or far-away whatever... it really isn't going to make much difference. Whereas, if you have say, a 500mm lens and add the 1.4X converter - you've now got +200 or 700mm's of telephoto power which is an appreciable gain. To bring this math aspect into clear focus, if you could attach the 1.4x converter to a 50mm lens (can't be done)... you'd only end up with 70mm, not exactly a night-day difference from the base 50mm lens.<br>

Cost might be a suggested judgment, is the converter worth the extra $300? That's your call. The 70-200 f/4 is a superb lens, one of Canon's finest, sharper than it's wider cousin f/2.8 and a huge amount lighter, easier to carry. One thing not to overlook, though, is the - IS - function (image stabilizer) which is worth it's weight in gold. Don't buy a lens without it! That is money well spent.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 70-200/4 + 1.4 converter, but I have used the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 and it works well. I would expect the f/4 + 1.4 to be as good or better. Also, the ISO 12233 crops over at the-digital-picture.com show excellent performance.</p>

<p>The combo works well (IQ-wise), but you might end up not using it much. The extra reach is insignificant compared to what you'll lose (fast focusing in lower light, sharper results etc).</p>

<p>I use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 with my 70-200mm f/4 all the time, looking at the prints I can't tell the difference image quality wise between having it on or off, at least on my 40d. In good light it focuses just as fast in my experience. I suppose a full-frame camera might show some loss of quality in the corners though. Personally I do find the extra reach to be useful.</p>

<p>I found that my old non-IS 70-200mm plus Canon 1.4TC did seem to have some IQ problems when the TC was used. I sold the lens and replaced it with the 70-200mm IS version and this lens plus the 1.4TC seems to have no IQ problems! The images taken with and without the TC seem to be much the same.<br>

The 70-200 IS lens is a fairly different lens to the standard 70-200mm lens and this may have something to do with it. I am very impressed by the 'combo' and the ease of portability. My very super 400mm f5.6 Canon needs the tripod and gimbal. I should add that I am now using the 7D with the 70-200 combination. I find that I get excellent images even at 3200 ISO. I would publish one but I don't know how to do it!</p>

 

<p>I</p>

<p>I have saved the photo as a JPEG and, hopefully, it will download. Taken at 3200 ISO.</p>

<p>Success! The image is full frame but saved at 700 pixels for this site and the IQ suffers. The original from the 7D was quite super and I was very impressed.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't agree with Ed that the 1.4x factor brings more on a 500 mm than on a 200 mm. It is precisiely the factor that matters, not the absolute difference in mm. On a 20 mm, 1.4x is 8 mm, that is a large difference for a wide angle and nothing on a telephoto. Same thing here--I'd say 260 mm is sufficently different from 200 for all practical purposes.<br>

Having said that, the loss in image quality can be significant. It won't show up in an image resized for web posting but it will show up in bigger enlargements. It really depends on your budget, weight/space considerations, type of use (camera, light conditions), and image quality requirements. It is certainly not a bad investment to get the Canon TC for this lens, even if you get a longer lens later. Even then, you may prefer carry the compact TC with you.</p>

<p>I'm using the Canon 1.4TC quite a lot on my 70-200mm f/4L IS. I keep my 400mm f/5.6L on my 7D, with a 1.6 crop factor and the 70-200 plus 1.4 on my full frame 5D MkII. Even though the 5D2 is slower forcusing than the 7D I find the AF is fine. I'm using them for bird and wildlife photography and grab the camera based on the focal length that I need.</p>

<p>The Canon 1.4x TC (version II) works great with my 70-200 f/4/IS. I use it mostly for florals. See the 2008 and 2009 florals at http://www.pbase.com/bander. I may have some shots on photo.net but I didn't always list the TC as being used.</p>

<p>Focal lengths work on a logarithmic scale, so saying you get more out of a 1.4 TC at higher focal lengths is just plain wrong. 40% is 40%, it's just as significant going from 10mm to 14mm as it is going from 500mm to 700mm. If all you own is a 70-200, going up to that 280mm is going to help get better shots of whatever is currently too far away. The prime consideration of course is: how far are you trying to get?</p>

<p>I think the one argument to be made however is that there is a significant <em>price</em> advantage to using a TC at higher focal lengths. The Canon 400mm f/5.6 costs $1200, whereas the 500mm costs a whopping $6000 and the 600mm costs $8000(!). Clearly, using a TC is a great way to eke out 560mm from the 400mm lens, albeit without the same performance as the true primes. By comparison, the conversion of a 70-200mm to 100-280mm is <em>just as helpful</em> percentage-wise, but the cost difference is much less important as an actual 70-300mm lens only costs $550.</p>

<p>It works.</p>

<p>The only problem with the 1.4TC when used with the 40mm f/5.6, even with the pins taped, the AF is too slow for birds in flight and fast moving wildlife on most Canon bodies, like the 7D.</p>

<p>Judging from this comparison:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3</a></p>

<p>the 70-200 f4.0 IS with 1.4x is a bit sharper than the same combo with the f2.8 IS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 70-200 f4.0 IS with 1.4x is a bit sharper than the same combo with the f2.8 IS.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not a surprise.</p>

<p>I've used the 70-200/4 with the 1.4x. The results were perfectly acceptable.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>