tom22 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 How well do the 1.4x or 2x extenders work on the 70-200mm 2.8 IS. Does anyone use an extender on that lens frequently? I'll be using an EOS-3. I'm curious about using my 200 for nature photography if the quality is still high with an extender attached. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I use the 1.4x on a regular basis.. as there is only a one stop difference... The quality is still good (still better than a crappy 70-300 lens!) but I've read mixed reviews on the 2X.... I was considering also buying the 2X... but I am still debating this... getting the 300mm F4 + the 1.4x would be a better choice - but then again, that's more money than buying the 2x alone.... ..............<br> If you plan on using the 2X for birds, I have a feeling that you will notice a lot of CA and fringing. You may want to look into the 100-400 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rog21 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Some will say the 2XII give unacceptable results, other will say it gives acceptable results. I think the results with that combination are acceptable (for me). <br><br> EOS 3, 70-200 2.8 L IS, 2XII, 400mm hand held:<br><br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1196861-md.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 While we're at the zoo, here's one shot with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with the 1.4x TC:<P> <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3660286-md.jpg"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 That's right Roger... Sports Shooters use and love their 2X and 1.4X... and they even stack them up! But the shots are about a decisive moment and are not meant for fine-prints<br> I guess it all depends on the type of photography, expectations and budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_kriete Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 There is a reasonably extensive writeup right here on photo.net by Jeff Medkeff: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/tc1/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary petersen Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I don't know why anyone would call the 70-300IS a <b><I>crappy</i></b> lens. It's pretty good for the price. It's also light weight and black. This is taken wide open at 210mm handheld.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Do you own a crappy 70-300 lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 yes I do - Cheap, Lightweight and does the job most of the time but at 5.6 when at 300mm it's not good enough for lowlight situations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rog21 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Denis, what does my shot have to do with "sports shooters?" It is about the decisive moment I guess though. I was not about to lug my 500L around the Zoo with me and the Gorilla was too far away to shoot at 200mm, so the extender got me the shot that was otherwise not available. The 8 x 10 is excellent and I think a 16 x 24 would be as well, so for me... it works. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Robert - I was not reffering to your shot... Just about the fact that many sports shooter use a prime (300,400,500mm) + a sandwich of the two extender... to get closer in the action. And these shots usually end up in a newspaper and/or a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Did you mean the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM SLR Lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 what's up today? is it the full moon or what?<br> Everyone seems so aggressive...<br><br> Do your own set of tests... try the 1.4x on a 70-200mm versus any "cheaper" (instead of crappy) 75-300mm Canon - even the IS version (which doesn't have better glass than the non-IS version BTW). and look at the results for yourself...<br><br> Do a small setup with detailed and textured objects and shoot at 5.6, 8, 11, 16 and 22 with both lenses using a tripod (use 280mm on the 75-300).<br> then go outside and try a long range test...<br> My decision was to stop carrying the cheaper lens and bring the extender instead - as the results my results were, at least equal, if not better with the 70-200+1.4 combo.<br><br> I will most likely keep the 75-300 for the more discreet and/or lighter bag sessions.... <B>These are only tools.... it is what you do with them that make the difference in the end.</B> <br><br> What was the original question again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 <p>While we're on this subject, has anyone tried the Canon 1.4x extender on the 70-200 <b>f4</b> lens? If so, how is it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnicholson Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Tom, I say rent the 2X before you buy one. I haven't ever been happy with the 70-200 2.8 IS with the 2X combination. Of course, thats compared to the 400 5.6. I think you can rent one for a weekend for less than $20. It's worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "While we're on this subject, has anyone tried the Canon 1.4x extender on the 70-200 f4 lens? If so, how is it?" I've owned a 70-200/4 for nearly three years, and a Canon 1.4x TC for two. I can't tell much of a difference between the images I've taken with the 70-200/4 (on a 10D and now 20D), with and without the 1.4x. (My 70-200 is very sharp, and I'm not much of a pixel peeper.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now