Canon 2X EF Extender II Teleconverter

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by dinsdale, Mar 29, 2018.

  1. Can anyone comment on the quality you would get with this Canon teleconverter? I've never owned or used one.

    I'm looking for an alternative to spending way too much cash on a 500 or 600mm fixed-focal length Canon lens, to shoot sports with. I just can't justify the cost and renting too much of a problem, also.

    I have a Canon 100-400mm zoom lens, that accepts the Canon 2X extender. This would give me a 400mm "reach," and yes, I realize I'd lose two stops of light but I wonder how the quality holds up? Autofocus works well?

    And while we're on the subject, has anyone used the YongNuo teleconverter?

    https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN2-0X-III-Teleconverter-Extender/dp/B00OT0VCP4/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?

    I own one of their speedlights and it is well built and does a great job with my Canon EOS Mk III and IV bodies.

    Thank you.
     
    dcstep likes this.
  2. I have the 2x II and the 1.4x III. I hate them both. The loss of IQ with my 100-400L II is very noticeable. I much prefer to crop images from my 5D IV and 5DS R.
     
  3. Interesting! I was afraid of this.

    Last summer I shot surfing in SoCal with a 70-300mm Canon zoom and cropped in quite a lot. The image held up really well.

    I better start saving for a LONG Canon lens, but until then I'll keep using zoom lens.

    Thanks, rafikiphoto.
     
  4. Also, with the 2x you lose AF.
     
  5. Good to know. OK, that kills it.
     
  6. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I own/use both the x1.4 and x2.0 Canon MkII Tele-extenders. I've done numerous field tests with the x1.4MkII and the original 100~400L using different 5D model bodies. For me the results were not suitable, this is regarding general Image Quality and Follow Focus and Attain Focus Speed. I expect that the x2.0MkII would be worse in both respects with that lens.

    My opinion is the Canon Extenders are not things to hate, its just the wrong lens to use them with: really they've been made to work well with specific L Primes, not the 100~400L zooms. In regard to using a zoom lens with the Extenders: the only two zooms I have found acceptable with the Canon Extenders are the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8L USM and the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII USM.

    BTW a Canon Extender x2.0 EF and a 100 to 400L will give you an effective 800mm Focal Length, (not effective 400mm), at an effective Maximum Aperture F/11 and I expect you will have issues with AF on the cameras you that you mention, (I assume that those are 5D MkII and 5D MkIV).

    You mention the comparison being buying a 500mm or 600mm Lens Prime: the EF 300/2.8L IS works excellently with the x1.4.MkII Extender and very well with the x2.0MkII Extender: I expect the EF 300F/2.8 L IS MkII would do as well if not better, especially with he MkIII Extenders. These comments apply to the EF 400 F/2.8L IS and both the MkII Extenders, though IMO the EF 300 F/2.8L IS seems to provide slightly better results than the 400mm lens.

    If you are serious about Sports Photography (that does not necessarily mean making photos for money) then realistically, F/2.8 is where you need to be, so the 70 to 200/2.8; 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 is where your thinking about lenses should be. You have two bodies, so using a two working camera set is a good idea: I have a mate who uses Nikon and he uses a 70 to 200 and 500mm Prime on his second body for Swimming, but frankly two cameras and a 70 to 200 and 400 prime and some cropping when necessary has worked well for me for Swimming: Field Hockey and Football.

    One main element is camera position and in this regard being allowed to move around and having good access is important.

    If you are yearning for longer than a 400mm lens, then I guess one reason might be that you are not able to get close enough to the action either because of restricted movement or restricted access: maybe look at the problem a different way about - buy an EOS 7D MkII and use that camera with your 100~400L

    I haven't used the YongNuo teleconverter, and I likely wouldn't: I think that making Flash Systems (which they seem to be pretty good at) is different to making optics.

    WW
     
  7. The EF 2.0x TC-III has excellent IQ:

    [​IMG]Waxing Gibbous Moon by David Stephens, on Flickr

    So does the EF 1.4x TC-III, mounted on the 100-400/f4.5-5.6 II:

    [​IMG]Untitled by David Stephens, on Flickr

    Based on images that I've seen, by others, the Series-III 2.0x is a major (HUGE?) step up from the Series II. With the 1.4x III, based on ownerships and many thousands of pics, there was incremental IQ improvement and more significant AF improvement.
     
    Mark Keefer and William Michael like this.
  8. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    ^ I reckon so too - your reports concur with others I know that owned a x2.0MkII and upgraded to a MkIII version.

    It's interesting (to me) the good quality you get from the combination of the x1.4MkIII and the 100 to 400 MkII I expect that the improvements in the lens has much to do with that.

    Have you had any experience with the original 100~400L IS lens and the x1.4MkII? As I mentioned I was not very impressed with that combination.

    WW
     
  9. WW, sorry, but I didn't have the direct 1.4x TC-II experience with the Series I 100-400. I did have excellent experience with a 1.4x II/500/f4 Series I combo.
     
    William Michael likes this.
  10. Thanks, everyone.

    I misspoke in my original post, meaning to indicate an 800mm reach, not 400. (Hence the term doubler.)

    The YongNuo speedlight I referred to is a remarkable unit, for what...a quarter of the price of a Canon speedlight? Just saying...

    Thanks again and especially to William Michael for his extensive reply.
     
  11. Canon 5D MK IV - Sigma 150-600 C - Sigma 2X TC moon 2xTC x 2400-8456.jpg
     
    dcstep likes this.
  12. For the record, I've never used the Canon teleconverters, but i have used others like the original Vivitar and Nikon 2X converters.
    They both worked well with my 500mm Reflex-Nikkor and a reflex Celestron 1250mm.

    I have the mark 1 100-400mm and I use it with an Aps-C body to get the extra reach -

    Whether some relatively slow teles work with the Canon converters also depends on the body model.

    Another option if you are shooting relatively stationary subjects is one the the excellent mirror lenses - these are, by the way, NOT the cheap mirror lenses being offered new these days.
     
    dcstep likes this.
  13. When I bought my 100-400 and 40D, which was the current top of the mid-line at the time, I "tested" both the 1.4x and the 2.0x with the body and lens that I was buying, by shooting the brick church tower that was visible above the buildings across the street. The 1.4x seemed to lose very little image quality, while the 2.0x was pretty bad. I bought the Canon 1.4x, but skipped their 2x in favor of an off-brand 2x, which performed better with that lens.There was still noticeable loss of sharpness, but the added reach was more important to me at the time. Better a less sharp image than no image.

    Canon have stated in print that their TCs were designed for their primes and may not perform well with lesser lenses, but it may also vary from lens to lens. One TC may work well on one sample of, say, the 100-400, but not work well on another sample of the same lens. Tolerances are tight, but not perfect.
     
  14. Minimum aperture for most Canon bodies is still f/8. Hence, an EF 2.0x TC-III is unlikely to work will with an f/4.5-5.6 lens, like the EF 100-400mm, Series I or II. The EF 2.0x TC-III works great on recent bodies, like the 7D2 or 5DIII or later, when coupled with a native f/4 or larger lens, like the 500/f4 or 300/f2.8, etc.
     
  15. I think you mean "Minimum aperture for most Canon bodies to autofocus is still f/8. Hence, an EF 2.0x TC-III is unlikely to autofocus with an f/4.5-5.6 lens, like the EF 100-400mm, Series I or II..."

    The original phrasing makes it sound like you can't use the 2x at all, on most Canon bodies.
     
  16. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Ahhhh... interesting point. There is often confusion about the meaning of the verb "work" when it is used as above.
    Good that it has been clarified for those who might have misunderstood...

    Moreover along the same line of general warnings: it is important to note that the Canon Tele extenders EF do not MOUNT on all the Canon EF lenses and they do NOT necessarily MOUNT on all L Series lenses and they DO MOUNT on some non L Series lenses.

    WW
     
  17. For me, "working" mean tack sharp focus, that stands up to a 50% crop with great detail retained. With today's cameras, in my experience, with super-telephoto lenses, that's close to impossible. I've done it in Live View with a stationary target, with 10x multiplication, but it's close to impossible otherwise. Working, to me, means getting super sharp images. Without AF, it seldom happens.
     
  18. I have also been unable to manually focus any longer lenses without stopping down. With EOS 400D,or Rebel XTi there was only an APS-C narrow angle pentamirror viewfinder, with no access to live view. The autofocus was so good that it didn't jump out as a problem.
    As dcstep says, live view focus works, but with difficulty, so my 750D is less restricted.
    While I blame my ageing eyeballs, pentaprism full frame was the answer for film SLR's and probably is for digital too. Even with my old Zenit 3M with matt screen, I could get to where I needed to go with a bit of wiggling back and forth.
     

Share This Page