Canon 2x Teleconverter (or) 100 - 400mm f5.6L IS Lens

<p>I've 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens and wondering whether the quality of the image with 2x converter would be the same when compared to the output of 100-400mm f5.6 L Anyone has extensively tested the outcome with 2x TC. Pl let me know both pros and cons if any. Thanx in advance for your time.</p>

<p>The 2x has a noticeable negative impact on image quality. You will NOT get the same results as from the 100-400.</p>

<p>This topic has been discussed many times before, and some people will swear by the 2X mounted on 70-200 f2.8 (as being optically very good).</p>

<p>I do not have the 70-200 F2.8, but I do have the 2X (which I use with the 300mm F2.8 prime), and the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is an excellent lens, very sharp. The 2X however degrades the image quite a bit, especially when the light is not perfect. I only use it when there is enough light and the conditions are perfect. Otherwise the photos taken with the 100-400mm (cropped accordingly) are much better.</p>

<p>I have only had the 2X extender since Christmas and I've only used it a few times, but I haven;y found it to be as bad as many people have said it is.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200mm f2.8L IS, which I got last summer. I traded my 100-400 towards it. I got the 2X to help replace it and so far I think it's a good replacement.</p>

<p>Ed</p><div></div>

<p>This thread may be of interest to you:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SH1K">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SH1K</a></p>

<p>I agree with Ed. Canon's 2x extender is excellent and the only device I have ever used that doesn't seem to compromise IQ like other TCs, especially when used on the 70-200mm. I have even tested the 2X with the 100-400mm with very positive results.</p>

<p>Most who put down Canon's extender have never used it - I highly recommend it as an excellent alternative to those who don't have the funds to purchase the 100-400mm. While it is not exactly equal in IQ or convenience to the 100-400mm, the 2x extender is a very affordable option that give excellent IQ and AF when used with Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Sreehari:</p>

<p>The 100-400 will be sharper, have higher contrast, and focus faster than the 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>That said, you may find that using a 2x suits your needs. Buy one used, and if you don't like it, you can sell it for almost what you paid. Or, rent one for a week. They're fairly cheap to rent.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

 

<p>You might find <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2">this tool</a> useful. A word of advice, go with Eric's suggestion: try before you buy anything.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses..</p>

<p>Some time back 'luminous-landscape.com' tested this exact combination. The results are here -</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml</p>

<p><strong><em>"I've 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens and wondering whether the quality of the image with 2x converter would be the same when compared to the output of 100-400mm f5.6 L"</em></strong><br>

<br>

As you already have the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM, I assume that one reason for asking this question is you are considering buying the 100 to 400. If this is so, then I think the first question to ask “<strong ><em >how often will you use FL 200mm to 400mm and under what conditions will you be shooting and for what purposes the images are to be used.”</em></strong><br>

<br>

The reason I advise to think this way, is because the "difference" might be acceptable, or not to you - as decided upon the above.<br>

<br>

That said and in answer to your question: Yes, I have made extensive tests of the 70 to 200F/2.8L USM with the both the x1.4MkII and the x2.0MkII individually attached. (yes and I have played with the teleconverters, stacked also).<br>

<br>

I have used the 100 to 400. I did not buy this lens mainly for two reasons<br>

> It is too slow<br>

> It is too soft from about 300mm to 400mm, used wide open.<br>

<br>

So therefore I have NOT made direct A/B comparison tests with the 100 to 400.<br>

<br>

My bottom line is that the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII is capable of providing professional & publishable results, here are some: <br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9193632">http://www.photo.net/photo/9193632</a><br>

<br>

It seems (by most lab tests) to be only an insignificant IQ difference (in theory) between my 70 to 200 and your IS model - so I expect that your lens could do the same with the x2.0MkII Teleconverter.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

<p>and:</p><div></div>

<p><em>"Some time back 'luminous-landscape.com' tested this </em><strong><em>exact</em></strong><em> combination."</em><br /><br />Luminous-Landscape tested the same lenses, <em>but LL did <strong>NOT</strong> use the x2.0MkII Teleconverter. </em>I think that is a significant point to mention.<em> </em><br /><em></em><br />Although not stipulated in the OP's question, I think it safe to assume that the EF2.0MkII Teleconverter would be used, nowadays. <br /><br />Noted that LL intended to later test the <strong><em>exact</em></strong> combination - I do not believe they have. <br /><br />LL have tested the x2.0 Teleconverter against the x2.0MkII Teleconverter, both using the EF300F/2.8L IS USM. <br /><br />My interpreation of LL's conclusions, of the teleconverter A/B test, although noted that there was IQ improvement with the MkII model, the LL tester remains biased to anti teleconverters - and therefore remaind disappointed with the 2.0MkII's performance, in any case its application; consideration of circumstance; purpose and final of use the image.<br /><br />WW</p>

 

<p>Thanks Williams The results are really good.. But in the cropped section of second image looks like loosing lil bit of detail when compared to the same crop from the 1st image though I guess setting are same.. Why is that.?</p>

<p>In the first pair of images there is about x4 enlargement a little less actually - ALSO this is full wide frame of the original.<br>

<br />The second pair is about x9 enlargement - perhaps a bit more. - AND the top image of this pair is a crop of the original frame. about 2/3 of the original.<br>

<br />Go to the links I provided, these images in the portfolio are larger files than posted here.</p>

<p>The picture (Moonset) is is softer light - which has an impact too - and you can determine that the worst fall off is at the edges.</p>

<p>"World Record" is low light indoors for another comparison under adverse conditions and an "inferior" camera - this is a situation where a 400/f2.8L and a 1Series at ISO3200 is standard use.<br /><br>

WW</p>