Canon Extender EF 2x or the 1.4x?

I have a serious question for you.

 

I’m a 30+ year amateur photographer. My wife and I are planning a typical NCL Alaskan cruise with land excursions. I love photographing wildlife (in this case, think bears instead of the usual gators and birds). I’m thinking of buying a Canon Extender to go with my 7D MKII and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens. I don’t know whether to purchase the Canon Extender EF 2x or the 1.4x. I’ve read the 1.4x produces slightly sharper photos, but, then, will I miss that .6 magnification? Given the APS-C sensor, I won’t be printing anything too large, although we usually just view the photos on the computer these days. Both Extenders sell for the same price (new). Any suggestions / input as which I should purchase (other than used or renting)?

 

I would sincerely appreciate any honest input / feedback. Thank you for your consideration!

Personally I don't get the 1.4x TC.

If I am going to multiply the focal length, 2x makes more sense, to me.

 

BTW is even 2x on a 70-200 long enough? 2 x 200 = 400, 400 / 35 = 11.4x magnification.

A wild bear is something that I do not want to be close to.

I don't do much wildlife photography, but from what little I have done, I suspect you will find the 1.4x too short, as Gary suggested. My longest lens is 400mm, and even on a crop sensor camera, I often find that too short for birds. So I would go with the 2.0x.

 

However, if you want to save money, given that you are only going to look at these on screen or printed small, why don't you look for a version II? The version II 2.0x wasn't wonderful, but it might be enough, and you can get a used one in excellent condition, guaranteed by KEH, for less than half the cost of a new III.

I would do research to find out how far out bears can be expected to be. The tour people should be able to give you that info based on past encounters, unless they did not bother to note/record that fact.

Then with the distance, back into the lens magnification you would need for a bear at that distance.

Although the bear could come right up to your bus, so you would need a WIDE lens rather than a long tele :eek:

 

Your 70-200 is a 2-5.7x lens.

Put the 2x converter on it, and you go to a 4-11.4x lens.

 

You could consider renting a Canon 100-400 (2.8-11.4x) or the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 (4.3-17x)

But that would be another big or BIG lens to pack and carry, so more bulk and weight.

It would be difficult to use a LONG lens like that inside a bus, unless you can stick the lens out the window.

These lenses are already at f/5.6 or smaller, so I would not put a TC on them.

Will it be better than your 70-200/2.8 + 2x TC ? The Canon 100-400 probably, the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 I don't know.

 

A tangent alternative is to go Micro 4/3. Although this would entail buying or renting an entire new system.

A micro 4/3, 75-300 zoom is 3-12x, in a comparatively tiny package.

I put a manual focus 500mm f/8 mirror lens on mine for a compact 20x setup. On a stabilized body like the Olympus EM1, this is a hand-holdable setup :)

I managed to purchase the original mk I Canon 1.4x and 2.0x tc's on eBay for $75.00. For my level of skill and the cameras and lenses that I use them with I don't see the image degradation I've read so much about. Have you thought about renting the tc's? After the trip you could buy the one you used most. For me it's almost always the 2x + 70-200 used with the 70D for the extra reach the 1.6x crop provided by the APS-C body.

I don't do much wildlife photography, but from what little I have done, I suspect you will find the 1.4x too short, as Gary suggested. My longest lens is 400mm, and even on a crop sensor camera, I often find that too short for birds. So I would go with the 2.0x.

 

However, if you want to save money, given that you are only going to look at these on screen or printed small, why don't you look for a version II? The version II 2.0x wasn't wonderful, but it might be enough, and you can get a used one in excellent condition, guaranteed by KEH, for less than half the cost of a new III.

Thank you for the thought, paddler!

Personally I don't get the 1.4x TC.

If I am going to multiply the focal length, 2x makes more sense, to me.

 

BTW is even 2x on a 70-200 long enough? 2 x 200 = 400, 400 / 35 = 11.4x magnification.

A wild bear is something that I do not want to be close to.

Gary, I know what you ,mean, I wish I had a longer lens, but being retired, I have to watch the $. So, I guess I'll get close to that bear. If you hear of a bear attack in Alaska next June . . .

I would do research to find out how far out bears can be expected to be. The tour people should be able to give you that info based on past encounters, unless they did not bother to note/record that fact.

Then with the distance, back into the lens magnification you would need for a bear at that distance.

Although the bear could come right up to your bus, so you would need a WIDE lens rather than a long tele :eek:

 

Your 70-200 is a 2-5.7x lens.

Put the 2x converter on it, and you go to a 4-11.4x lens.

 

You could consider renting a Canon 100-400 (2.8-11.4x) or the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 (4.3-17x)

But that would be another big or BIG lens to pack and carry, so more bulk and weight.

It would be difficult to use a LONG lens like that inside a bus, unless you can stick the lens out the window.

These lenses are already at f/5.6 or smaller, so I would not put a TC on them.

Will it be better than your 70-200/2.8 + 2x TC ? The Canon 100-400 probably, the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 I don't know.

 

A tangent alternative is to go Micro 4/3. Although this would entail buying or renting an entire new system.

A micro 4/3, 75-300 zoom is 3-12x, in a comparatively tiny package.

I put a manual focus 500mm f/8 mirror lens on mine for a compact 20x setup. On a stabilized body like the Olympus EM1, this is a hand-holdable setup :)

You do have to tell the body the focal length of the manual lens you put on, so that the IBIS will work properly.

Wow, thanks for all of the input - I've never thought of some of this. Thank you!!!!

I managed to purchase the original mk I Canon 1.4x and 2.0x tc's on eBay for $75.00. For my level of skill and the cameras and lenses that I use them with I don't see the image degradation I've read so much about. Have you thought about renting the tc's? After the trip you could buy the one you used most. For me it's almost always the 2x + 70-200 used with the 70D for the extra reach the 1.6x crop provided by the APS-C body.

 

Mark, thank you for the suggestion of renting. I thought of it, but didn't pursue it as the cost at a local shop would be half the purchase price considering the length of time we're gone - given that, I'd rather come away with something new in my camera bag. However, I just checked the national renters and they are much cheaper, so who knows.

I also appreciate you took the time to compare the two tele-converters. I've wondered if it was more hype or actually true.

Thank you!

Be sure that whatever extender you get will autofocus with the extender on, on your camera body.

 

That, by the way, is one reason for the 1.4X.

 

Remember,too, that you are already getting a 1.5X from the APS-C sensor size.

I have both of the (MKII) Canon Tele-extenders. I have the EF 70~200 F/2.8L USM and two APS-C Bodies. I’ve used a 7D but not the MkII. I have used (tested for a few hours) both (MKII) Tele-extenders on the 70~200/2.8L zoom lens you have (and the other 70 to 200 lenses too)

 

If you buy one only, my advice is to buy the x2.0 MkIII

 

Rationale:

 

Speaking in terms of FoV and Max Av – at 60ft SD (about 18mtrs) on a 7DMkII with a x2.0 and 70~200 you’ll get an approximate effective FoV 9’6” x 6’6” at the 70mm end; and 3’4” x 2’4” at the 200mm end – all at F/5.6. Considering that you might be (probably) doing the inside passage; and considering that not all animals are as big as bears - I would want that reach.

 

In overcast conditions the 7DMkII will eat High ISO at F/5.6. The lens stopped down 2/3 Stop will show some better IQ, but wide open for the description you’ve provided, you’ll be fine.

 

I think Gary makes a good point; you’ll have to account for those opportunities which come at you at close range. My solution would be either smaller camera, which I always carry on holiday, presently a Fuji x100s – or alternatively what other zoom lenses do you have and how quick and how enthusiastic are you to change lenses – something like an 18 to 85 would be my thinking.

 

Just expanding on Gary’s point of what Subject Distances to expect – also think about how often you would need to changes lenses really quickly. I think that if you’re in a bus, or car, the side of the road would warrant the 18 to 85 to be ready; if you get out and walked around in the open, then the longer lens would be a better option – UNLESS wildlife is close by – and if it were close by you’d see it before you got out of the vehicle . . .

 

Samples (from a while ago) of the 2.0MkII, with my EF70 to 200/2.8L USM lens – the Swimming are on a 5D, to show the edges of the frame, the Hockey are an APS-C Camera, probably a 20D or 30D, by comparison, Image Quality, and High ISO, you're 7D MkII will eat it, and the AF will be fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW

. . . Personally I don't get the 1.4x TC.

If I am going to multiply the focal length, 2x makes more sense, to me.

 

Yes, if you are only considering the multiplication of FoV:

 

But if Tv (Shutter Speed) comes into the question, then it might be better to use the 1.4 and have a wider shot or to crop rather than to risk Subject Motion Blur or another Stop of Noise, by bumping the ISO.

 

Additionally, as JDMvW mentioned, there is the consideration of AF.

 

WW

WW, thanks for the sample images and explanation. I have both 1.4 and 2.0 only because they were packaged together and they were cheap. For my skill level taking pictures of the dogs running around outside the 2x + 70-200 worked quite well and I was pleased with the results.