2x Extender - Should I just sell it?

[darrendrevik]

I've used my 2x extender sparingly since buying it about 18 months ago, and

honestly the results are pretty poor. When I pop it between my 20D and my 70-200

2.8, images from my razor-sharp lens get extremely soft and blurry. I can fix it

a little in photoshop by sharpening, but should I have to? I keep thinking I'm

going to need 400m length down the road, so I'm loathe to eBay it, but should I

keep a lens extender that doesn't give me the results I need?

[brucecyr]

You'll wake up one day and know its time to sell. Probably the morning after you wonder how to scrounge up enough coins for a proper tele :-)

 

Look at it this way -- you need 400mm length, but you don't think the 2X delivers it. Besides, there are plenty of like-new copies on eBay from folks who thought it was a cheap way to get 400mm length without the cost :-)

[davyjo]

Do a simple test. shoot at 400mm w/ the 2X and then from the same position shoot the same subject at 200mm. Enlarge the 200mm subject to match the size of the 400mm and compare the results. They might surprise you. <P>

I think you'll find that the Canon 2X command a pretty good percentage of the new cost. It would be a nice down payment on a 100-400mm

[lester_wareham]

A teleconvertor is not an alternative to a longer lens, but I can assure you if you get a 400mm lens you will probably want to use a TC with that also, at least if you shoot wildlife.

<P>

The 2X TC is much more demanding of a lens than the 1.4X but can give reasonable results with a sharp prime, even if you have to use manual focus. Below is a shot with a 300 f4L IS + 2X for example which is sharp.

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Arthropods/Dragonflies/Insects%20Dragonfly%20109.jpg" ALT="shot">

<P>

I say hand on to your 2X but get a longer lens, preferably a prime that will give good results with it.

[mark_chappell]

I agree with Lester: if you use the 2X with a really good prime tele -- for which it was

designed -- it can produce very fine results. But on all three Canon L zooms I've tried mine

with (70-200/4, 70-200/4 IS, 100-400), results were disappointing.

[sgpix]

I also have a 2x II, and a 70-200/2.8 IS. I also have only used the TC about 5 times.

 

However... when I consider that I have only used the TC that many times (usually at a track day or airshow, so you might argue sharpness is less of an issue than in wildlife) I would consider buying a 400mm prime (or zoom) an even bigger waste of cash for such seldom useage.

 

Am I prepared to sell and miss the occassional trackday/airshow shot? No.

 

But you might think differently. TCs certainly go for good money on eBay, or you might even consider a 100-400/4L for that reach if the 400mm prime is too costly. I don't own either so I can't compare.

 

Good luck

Simon

[ott_luuk]

There`s little point in owning a relatively expensive piece of equipment that does not serve its purpose. If the results it gives are not acceptable for your or your (potential) publishers` standards, it means that effectively you have no 400mm solution anyway.

 

If you intend to get the 400/5.6 or 100-400/4.5-5.6, sell the 2x with no regrets. The resulting f/11 combos would be too dark to focus. Even f/4 primes can be problematic with a 2x, as you loose AF with your 20D. The 2x in good condition (especially the II version) should sell with little loss and help pay for a real 400mm.

 

Only you can decide whether you really need a dedicated 400mm lens or not. If you only need this focal length for some events (a trip to a national park, airshow etc), consider renting the necessary lens for those occasions.

[brucecyr]

Based on the OP's post, I assumed he has a generic rather than Canon 2X TC. I wouldn't change my suggestion even if it is a Canon given the OP's judgement. But if it is a Canon, there are stubs of credible rationalizations for holding onto it in subsequent posts :-) It really depends on the OP's valuation of current opportunities vs. his opportunity costs for holding onto the potentially useful item.

 

I got my Canon 2X to use with a 300mm L non-IS for shooting Waxwings invading the upper reaches of the local mulberries. It works for that purpose, even autofocuses as often as not. But I now prefer using a Sigma 600mm mirror. I'm not sure why -- IQ is different, neither better nor worse, and the Sigma doesn't autofocus under any circumstance, but maybe its easier to for me to use given its comparatively compact dimensions.

 

I prefer to use my money for current opportunities rather than future (unknown) possibilities, but that's just my take.

[m_barbu1]

I would sell it.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>You don't say whether your 2x shots are wide open or stopped down. It would be unreasonable to expect even the best shots with a 2x to equal the quality of the lens itself, but stopping down a stop or two usually helps, at least somewhat, when using a TC. Even with my old 300/4L IS USM and Canon's 1.4x II, there was a definite difference in image quality between wide open (f/5.6) and one stop down (f/8).</p>

 

<p>As well, if you're not using a rock-solid support (you're handholding or using a monopod or a flimsy tripod), are you watching your shutter speed? If you double the lens' focal length, you double the amount it magnifies any motion, and therefore need to double the shutter speed to compensate.</p>

 

<p>If you use it occasionally and don't currently have a use for the money you'd get from selling it, you might as well keep it; you say you use it occasionally (which you wouldn't be able to do if you sold it), and it's not likely to depreciate that much. Cars depreciate by model year, but lenses don't have model years (and many lenses don't even have any marking on them to say when they were made); the same model of lens in the same condition is worth about the same amount whether it's two years old or three. When you find a better use for the money, whether it's to put it towards a 400 or something else, then sell it. If, on the other hand, you <em>do</em> have a current use for the money that's more useful to you than the 2x is, sell it.</p>

[lee_shively]

If the 2x mentioned is a Canon EF 2X II, it should not be giving poor results with the 70-200/2.8. I've used the combination and it's not bad at all.

 

You do realize there are other uses for an extender than just to make a long lens longer. It's very handy for close-ups when combined with a 12mm extension tube and attached to shorter lenses. In fact, I mostly use the Canon extenders for close-ups such as the excellent one posted in this thread.

[james_cope1]

Like the Canon EF 1.4X II, the Canon EF 2.0X II is a good quality lens accessory. If you shoot your 70-200 f/2.8 at wide open setting, in effect, you are shooting at 400 f/5.6. The best thing to do is to stop down a minimum of 2 to 3 f/stops to gain sharpness. This means shooting at 400 f/8 with the 2.0X II or f/16. In any case, you have to your camera rock solid steady. If you do decide to invest in a longer lens and one of good light gathering speed, i.e., in the f/2.8 or f/4.0 range, I would suggest getting the Canon 400mm f/4.0L DO IS USM or 500 mm f/4.0L IS USM. For long range wildlife photography, I would suggest a minimum of the 300 mm f/2.8L IS USM, which, with the EF 2.0X II converter, gives you a 600 mm f/5.6 system, wide open.

[ott_luuk]

The use for macro is a good point. The 1.4x II plus 12mm tube is my substitute for the life-size converter originally meant to go with the 50/2.5 macro. The combo gives nearly 1:1 mag. ratio and decent quality when stopped down 1-2 stops. Even AF works... kind of... With this discovery, I saved myself the cost of a 100mm macro (at least for some time...)

 

The 2x could be used in a similar way but with greater magnification, lesser aperture and more degradation to IQ. I wouldn`t bother with short lenses that are not optimized for close-up range though.