Canon 1.4x II & 2x II versus 3rd party options or skip it?

[14mm 2.8l]

I've got a 70-200mm 2.8L IS and I've just about decided to get 1.4x II and wonder

about 2x II or maybe I should just skip it/them. I'm using 5D dslr.

 

I routinely read people say canon eos teleconverters are not spectacular and

primes like 300mm f4 IS and 400mm 5.6L are better option. But neither of these

big lenses won't fit the pack like a couple teleconverters will.

 

Is the bad image quality of these canon eos teleconverters a fact or simple

parroting of info by people who don't own them or have never tried them?

 

If you love/hate the image quality of your 70-200mm 2.8 L IS and canon brand or

off brand teleconverters please let me know.

 

Thanks Lindy

[bjscharp]

I have the 1.4II TC, and I use it on my 135mm f2

 

On that, it works very well, but the 135 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, and I'm using a crop body (400D), so reduced corner sharpness is lost outside the sensor.

 

A disadvantage of the Canon TC's over off-brand ones, is that canon ones only work with a select subset of lenses, most of which are L-glass, IIRC. off-brand will work with anything, but will be less sharp.

 

YMMV

[steve torelli]

The Canon TCs are designed to work with the super teles and a few primes, the 135 f/2, as mentioned. I've never been happy with the results on the 70-200 zooms I've owned while using them, even with the 1.4. I've never tried the 2X. I've had a couple of them and always end up selling them. Optically, you're better off with a longer lens rather than a shorter one with a TC attached, but, if you need 280mm and you don't have a lens off that native length, the 1.4 will get you there. It's not bad on your lens, but it was never good enough for me and I ended up getting a 300 f/4. YMMV. Good luck.

[marknagel]

I have a Canon 1.4X and a Tamron 2X. I had the Canon 2X and did extensive side by side comparisons on my 300/2.8is and the Tamron was sharper. I'm sure there is variation in them and I may have a good Tamron and had a bad Canon.

 

Mark

[bobatkins]

I have some tests of the 70-200/2.8L IS and Canon 1.4x and 2x TCs here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_70-200_f28L_IS.html

 

It's not bad with the 1.4x, but with the 2x you'd better be prepared to stop down a stop and your expectations shouldn't be too high or you will be disappointed. It's certainly not awful, but it's not great either.

[lad_lueck]

The 1.4x II and 2x II are great TC's on the 400 5.6.

 

The 2x on the 70-200 2.8 IS kills contrast, and just didn't look good on mine unless I was shooting flash in a dark room.

 

Both Canon TC's extend from the TC/lens mount, into the lens. The 1.4x can be mounted to the 2x, which then must be mounted to the lens (so the 1.4 fits inside the 2x).

 

The TC's are very good, but you cannot infinitely magnify and crop a zoom lens, and expect it to be perfect at 100% crop.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I have both Canon TCs.

 

I use the 1.4X II with 70-200/2.8 IS occasionally. But, only when I don' t have my 300/2.8 IS handy. The zoom/TC combo works pretty well, but the 300mm prime is a killer lens that puts almost anything else to shame.

 

I use the 1.4X II and 2X II on both the 300mm and 500mm. All the possible combos are excellent. There's a little image quality loss with the 2X on the 500, but it's minimal.

 

Some time ago I experimented with the 2X on the 70-200 and found the image quality was just too compromised for my tastes. I avoid using that combo now. I have read some other people are happy with it. I'm not.

 

I have heard and read some really good reports on certain of the Kenko teleconverters, but I don't have them and can't recall exactly which. You might find more info here searching the archives. I don' t have any info on any of the other third party teleconverters.

[derek_hofmann]

The 2x (I don't remember if mine is the I or the II) on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS at 400mm, stopped down to f/11, gives a noticeably sharper image than one using the lens alone. I don't like the results at f/8 or f/5.6. So if you can live with f/11, it's not a bad gadget to have.

[marknagel]

Here is a test I did a long time ago with various setups (at camera shop) so not a lot of setup, but it shows a good comparison of 70-200 w/ 2x vs 100-400.

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/100-400%20vs%2070-200.jpg

 

Here is a link to my Canon vs Tamron 2X comparison:

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Teletest.jpg

 

As I said above, it may well be sample variation.

 

Mark

[baivab]

Mark - seeing the results I do see (a) Canon 1.4x is definitely better than 2x. (b) As you stop down, Canon seems to be gving better quality than Tamron counterpart.

[14mm 2.8l]

Thank you for All the helpful responses. I'll skip the 2x II for sure and continue to think about the 1.4x II.

 

I guess it really becomes a question of which prime lens I should shoot for in the future: 300mm f4 IS , 400mm 5.6 or throw all my cost worries out and figure out how to make a 300mm 2.8 IS happen. I can't help but think the 400mm 5.6 could get an IS upgrade like Canon did to original 300mm f4 L.

 

Thanks Again,

 

Lindy

[mark u]

You aren't the only one thinking that way about the 400 f/5.6: see the June 3rd entry here:

 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html

[14mm 2.8l]

How's that for a coincidence? Wondering about the possibility of 400mm 5.6L getting a IS update is why I passed on getting one yesterday while B&H briefly had it stock. In two hours it went from available to out of stock. Anyways, the 400mm 5.6 is still being produced, as i saw a 10 month old one at ebay a month ago. its was like only 3,338th made from june 2007: #"103338". Seeing its build code info surprised me, but i believe in the easy to decipher build code info and serial numbers so canon's not been selling a bunch of them over the years. Another upgrade would be rubber gasket on mount and associated better sealing inside.

 

Lindy

 

 

 

 

I just checked and you can see for yourself since pix are still up, 400mm 5.6L made June 2007, the 3,338th made, sold at ebay several weeks ago:

 

Ebay closed item number 280213087691

 

You'll need to plug number into ebay usa site since I cannot provide a handy link to it on this forum.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280213087691

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 1.4x II and 70-200/2.8L IS USM. I have never tested this combination to see how much image quality is lost with the TC and/or how much benefit there is to stopping down. I did previously use this TC with the 300/4L IS USM, and noticed that this combination was quite a bit softer wide open than the lens was on its own. Stopping down one stop pretty much fixed that.</p>

 

<p>On the theory that TCs usually yield better results with primes than with zooms, therefore, I make sure I stop down a stop or more when using the TC with the 70-200.</p>

 

<p>I have never used any third-party TC or either of Canon's 2x TCs with any of this equipment, so I can't comment, other than two generalizations: of the third-party TCs, the el cheapo ones are highly likely to be crap while the higher-end ones tend to get rather good reviews; and a 2x TC cannot help but result in more image degradation than a 1.4x TC of equivalent quality.</p>

[wgwhite]

Price has got to be an important consideration. Any 2 x TC on a 70-200 F2.8 IS L is a whole lot cheaper than a new prime lens. I have used a canon 2x TC on a 100-400 F4.5- 5.6 IS L, hand held for wildlife photography. Results are poorer, and the lens is harder to handle, but it is a lot lighter on the wallet!

 

Maybe team up with a friend or a club and share a prime lens?