1.4x vs 2x extender on 70-200/2.8is, anyone have samples of both?

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Mark, here's <a href="http://jeff.medkeff.com/photo/tc/">the first draft</a> of the page I mentioned above. More 1.4x and 2x extender shots with the 70-200 than you can shake a stick at, all of them shot raw, converted with the same settings, unsharpened, unleveled, and full-pixel cropped of a subject near the middle of the frame. The photos I have don't exactly match what you are asking for, but maybe my spread is closer to your specification than what's been posted here.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p><i>Unfortunately with the 2x it becomes noticeably soft even stopped down to f4 or f5.6 (quite poor wide open)</i>

 

<p>Not sure what the above is trying to say. It is not possible to use the 2x converter on the 70-200/2.8 IS at f/4, and f/5.6 is wide open, not stopped down.

[photographicsafaris]

Ok so I know that it is 2 years late... But looking at the results from Matt's test and those

baseball shots they appear to be poles apart, in fact completely different lenses and

extender combinations.

 

I have the 1.4x extender and in the 70-200f4 it is considerably useable. mildly softer, but

deffinetly useable.

 

The results of Mat's shots are awefull and an embarrasment to Canons lens designers for

insinuating that they were two compatible products.

 

I'm confused: My zenit with a 300 mm lens produced better results and that was given to

me to put into a bin as unuseable.

 

Sorry I dont believe that you can get two so completely different results: I have gotten

more acceptable results with the bottom of a coke bottle Jessops 2x converters.