Canon Extender 1.4 X VS. 2.0X

<p>Hi,<br>

I am a semi-pro photographer and am interested in purchasing a extender tube for use with my Canon 70-200 IS USM 2.8 and my Canon 7D. I am looking at this primarily for personal use and not for my professional work. More specifically, I am looking to use it to do wildlife photography at my cabin (relatively bright conditions). I haven't used an extender tube since my days in film and was wondering if anybody had any experience with either of these tubes. I am also interested in any other thoughts anybody might have on the topic.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Generally I prefer cropping from images made with a 1.4x over using a 2x. However some situations, like my kids' soccer games, lend themselves to using the 2x to get even more reach while maintaining the flexibility of a zoom. For wildlife I would still prefer using a 1.4x until I could afford a long telephoto prime, like the 300/4 L or 400/5.6 L. There are times when the longest lens you have is still not long enough and there is no point in always using a zoom at it's longest setting. This is when it is time to buy a telephoto prime.</p>

<p>The 1.4X will allow for better image quality than the 2X.</p>

<p>OT: Am i correct in my calculations that a 200mm lens on a 1.6x crop body + 1.4x extender would yield a 400mm equivalent focal length?</p>

<p>Rubo -> 200 x 1.6 x 1.4 = 400!?... should be 448 right?</p>

<p>I have both and the 2x is very poor (I have used it on my 300 F4, 70-200 f2.8 non IS and 70-200 F4 IS) with the 2x and an F4 lens you essentailly lose AF except on a 1 series body. In addition while the IQ from the 1.4 x is reasonable the 2x is not good. Indeed I cannot remember the last time I used the 2x. While the 1.4x is quite acceptable it is not in the same league as a prime or zoom. For example the 70-200 f2.8 non IS plus 1.4x is not in the same league for IQ as the 300F4. Also even with the 1.4x AF speed suffers a lot.</p>

<p>Rubo,</p>

<p>Not really, it (a 200+1.4TC on a 1.6 crop camera) will give you the same field of view as a 448mm lens on a FF camera. But that is not quite the same thing. The image is exactly the same if you mount the lens TC combo onto a FF camera and crop it.</p>

<p>Anyway, whilst most people are fairly dismissive of the 2x TC on the zooms there are a few that get on with it very well. One person is a member here, William W, he even has <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">a folder of images</a> just for threads like these. One difference might be that he uses the non IS version of the lens, but I doubt it. Almost everybody that uses the 1.4 TC seems happier with the results though.</p>

<p>i have both Kenko 1.4X & 2X TCs, 1.4 is definitely has less IQ degradation than 2X. if "moment" is more important than IQ, im not hesitating using 2X on my 70-200 2.8 IS. and besides, 5D2 has more room for correction.<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4404845467_43694d90a4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>There is a review on photo.net comparing the two, looking at eagles in a nest. Bottom line is to use the 1.4, ditch the 2X. My experience as well. I shot the moon with both, but the 2X was inferior to a 1.4X plus cropping.</p>

<p>pl visit the previous forum..<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vw2P">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vw2P</a></p>

<p>Thanks, i new my math was off :)</p>

<p>Dave Holland--Where is that review? I cannot find it.</p>

<p>I recently came back from a trip to Costa Rica. I decided to take only the 1.4x and crop the images as suggested. But I also had space limitaions in my camera bag that precluded the 2x, or I would have taken it anyway. It turned out that the shot I most wanted to get--of a Quetzal bird--did not even require a 1.4x, but it did require ISO 3200 because of the lack of light.</p>

<p>Larry,</p>

<p><a href="../equipment/canon/tc1/">Here is the review</a>, it is under Equipment: Canon and then deep in there. Both tests are the same. I am not sure I agree though, the images look way worse than mine. I think both items tested were MkI versions though and the MkII's (particularly the 2x) are definitely better. My 70-200 certainly turns in sharper images and mine have way more contrast than his even at 100%. So look elsewhere for more authoritative examples.</p>

<p>Scott my 2x is a lot worse than my 1.4x but not as bad as the review you linked to. Like you my 70-200 F2.8 is the non IS version. Both my 1.4x and my 2x are the Mark II versions. By the way this has always been the way with canon as the old FD 1.4x is a lot better than either of the two FD 2x (they did one for 300mm+ and one for shorter in the old days). The 2x-B came with the 300 F2.8L but I always found the 1.4x works much better on this lens.</p>