70-200 2.8 w/1.4x or 2.0x extender, need opinion

[eric_staufer]

I would like to get more reach and am currently contemplating asking

Santa for either a 1.4x or 2.0x Canon extender for my Canon 70-200

f/2.8 (non-IS) lens. I understand that the lens will transform into

either a 448mm/4.0 or 640/5.6 at the long end (factoring in the 1.6x

crop). The reviews on this board mostly steer people clear from the

2x because it isn't as sharp, but does anyone have this combo?

Santa can only really afford to spend $270 and not much more, and

longer primes are not an option.<br>

<br>

I had the opportunity to shoot the UF/FSU football game from my seat

(35yd line/2nd row) with my 70-200/2.8 and 20D this past weekend --

I was impressed with the images... I've been wanting longer reach,

but after this game, I clearly would have liked more for some

tighter shots.<br>

<br>

Any opinions?<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.hyperocity.com/uf-fsu/">Some of my shots can be

viewed here.</a>.<br>

<br>

Thanks,<br>

Eric

[lad_lueck]

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS, and had both the Canon 1.4x and 2.0x.

 

If you are at all critical, you won't want the 2x. Noticably softer, noticably less contrast.

 

There's a reason both have the same price...

[phoneguy]

I believe the auto focus is nil with the 2x, I've tried the 1.4x with my 700-200 2.8 USM. Not bad. I don't prefer either one, but the 1.4 is better. I'm lucky enough to be rinkside, or trackside when I'm doing sports. 448mm 4.0 is a heck of a lens. I'd stick with that.

 

Mike

[mark_chappell]

<I>I believe the auto focus is nil with the 2x,</i><P>

 

It should work fine. An f2.8 lens with a 2X is an f5.6 combination, and all Canon SLRs and

DSLRs will AF at f5.6.

[shambrick007]

I have the 70-200/2.8 L IS and Canon 2X II. Works fine for me. <p>" The reviews on this board mostly steer people clear from the 2x because it isn't as sharp,..."<p> BFD - If you don't like it, send it back or sell it.

[mark u]

Maybe you should keep your eye on the possibility of the outstanding Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 at some point. If you are shooting floodlit games or on overcast winter afternoons you need all the speed you can get - and f/5.6 won't cut it for sure, regardless of AF or sharpness issues. Even f/4 is marginal under good floodlights.

[John Crowe]

I have developed a preference for 1.4x converters because they have much less effect on a lens in tests and in actual use, however there was a time when I used a 2x on a very regular basis and was very happy with the results. Some of those shots are still among my best. I did not achieve consistently better results until I got a huge fast super telephoto.

 

 

Remember too that you may have to increase the ISO by one more stop when using the 2x instead of a 1.4x and that you may be just as well off to crop from the lower ISO image taken with the 1.4x. Perhaps you can test this a little with your current lens at different ISO settings and different focal lengths so that you can see the effects you may be getting later with converters. Good luck!

[awindsor]

I don't know how much quality is lost mounting a 2x teleconvertor to a zoom rather than prime lens.

 

There are professional bird photographers who stack telconvertors and then have the gall to sell the resulting images (of course stock is not going to be printed at 11x14 or even 10x8). They used to do this with film (philistines) but with digital it is much easier to increase the contrast after the fact (and they are still doing it even with 1.5x and 1.6x crop factor bodies). The only difference is these guys want "long" lenses so they are stacking convertors on 600/4 lenses.

 

Canon continues to make 2x TCs and I don't think it is for the consumer market. The contrast loss is impressive and jumps out at you but this is easily corrected (oh the joys of the digital darkroom - though pushing slide film was a pretty good way of upping contrast). There is a loss of sharpness but I still think that you are better of shooting with a 2x than cropping.

 

Having said that I would go first for the 1.4x convertor. You do suffer a loss of quality with the 2x and it occurs throughout the range including the bit you already had covered. Unless you want to take it on and off continually the 1.4x will make you much happier overall.

 

Depending on the lighting you may find that the AF at f5.6 hunts a lot. Putting the 1.4x on my 70-200/4 and I notice the less than stellar AF in low light. In daylight conditions it is fine though.

[ilkka]

1.4 is also smaller and lighter and keeps the 'feel' of the lens similar to its original design. The 2 is quite long and changes the balance.

[m_keiser]

1.4x TC = No quality loss (It seems less sharp some of the time due to decreased field of view but I have shots every bit as good with it as without.)

 

2x TC = Dramatic quality loss (Unless you can up the contrast ie. digital then the loss is only slight.)

 

That is my experience with the 70-200 IS and teleconverters.

 

Maybe I'm less picky than some.

 

P.S. One side note my 70-200 with 2x teleconverter BLOWS AWAY my 75-300 IS at the tele ends. The 75-300 is quite good to about 200mm.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I don't have the 70-200 (yet) and have never used the 2.0x. I have the 300/4L IS USM and the 1.4x II. With the 1.4x, the lens shows about twice as much chromatic aberration (though that's not too difficult to fix in software). Wide open, the lens on its own is very sharp; with the TC, it's somewhat softer (nothing I really noticed on slides or in 4x6" prints from my film camera, but 20D images viewed at 100% definitely lack the snap that I get without the TC). Stopping down a stop pretty much fixes the softness.</p>

 

<p>That's a well-regarded prime lens with a well-regarded 1.4x TC. The 2x can't help but produce more degradation. This is overly simplistic, but imagine a lens capable of resolving 100 lp/mm*. A 1.4x spreads those 100 lines over 1.4mm, so even if the TC itself is absolutely perfect (and no lens or TC is), you're now down to about 70 lp/mm. A 2x spreads those 100 lines over 2mm, so again, even if the TC itself is absolutely perfect, you now have 50 lp/mm, or half of the resolving power of the lens itself.</p>

 

<p>A 1.4x TC is not a bad idea on a high-quality lens, and the 70-200 is a high-quality lens. A 2x TC is best regarded as a last resort, if you need the extra reach and there's no other way to get it. So if Santa can afford either TC but not a longer lens, ask him for the 1.4x unless there's absolutely no way it will make your lens long enough.</p>

 

<p>*: I'm not suggesting that this is or is not the resolving power of the 70-200, the 300/4, or any other lens; it's just a nice round number.</p>

[digitmstr]

It depends on YOUR priorities: will you be examining resolution charts or will you be taking pictures? Are you shooting for fun? If so it's a moot point. If you are shooting professionally then, your job requirements hold the answer for ALL your purchases VS costs.

 

If you NEED the most reach get the 2x. There are some resolution cons with it VS the 1.4 but, does it really matter to you if it gets you the reach and therefore the shots you want?

 

If you want the one that has less negative effect on resolution get the 1.4.

 

I know many pro sport photogs who use the 2x and have their pictures published weekly. But, their requirements are different that yours.

 

If you want the best of the best and the most reach (within your budget) you can sell your 70-200 lens and get a 300 f/4L with a 1.4. But, you'd lose the flexibility of the zoom.

[jim_doty]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 lens and both teleconverters. The 1.4x is quite good and I don't hesitate to use the combo.

 

The 2x is "ok" which means I will use it in a pinch but it is a bit disappointing for critical work.

 

If I could only have one, it would be the 1.4x.

 

Jim

[yakim_peled1]

I had the 1.4X Mk II and used it with the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS. Results were excellent so I recommend it wholeheartedly.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[rog21]

I shoot with the 2XII from time to time on my 70-200 2.8L IS and am satisfied with it. Yes, there is some loss of quality, but it is not as bad as some might lead you to believe. Check out my Jacksonville Zoo gallery for some examples of shot with the 2x and without. These scan have had no processing done to them at all.<br><br>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=263116>Jacksonville Zoo Gallery</a><br><br>

 

As some others have said, I believe the quality is better than cropping a larger image and when I need the reach, I use it. If you don't like the results, they are easy to sell.

[rog21]

Sorry, I meant to include that the Lemur, Gorrilla, and Heron are the 2XII shots (this information is in the details section though).