1.4x teleconverter

[andrew_viny]

How do you all feel about the 1.4x teleconverter for lenses like the 24-70 70-200 (both 2.8 without IS)? I might also

purchase a 135 f/2 at some point. I've gotten very mix reviews of the 1.4x. Some say it's great some really don't like

it at all. Someone even said not to get it if you think you'll be making prints larger than A4 size prints. Many say

that AF is greatly compromised.

 

Anyway I think it might be a cheap way to get some extra length especially for sports and stuff like that and wanted

to see how you all feel about it.

 

~Andrew

[bobatkins]

The Canon 1.4x won't fit the 24-70, so the point is moot there. I wouldn't bother trying a 3rd party TC which will fit since you have the 70-200 anyway.

 

On the 70-200/2.8 and 135/2 it's capable of yielding excellent results. AF is slowed down slightly but the accuracy isn't compromised (that's why it's slowed down, so it remains accurate).

[greg_moss2]

Which camera are you using? That can really affect the AF. The Canon 1.4 doesn't work with the 24-70 but I don't know about other brands. The Canon TC1.4II on the 70-200 delivers very good images for me. I do not like to use the TC 2x unless absolutely needed. I shoot mainly sports with the 300 2.8 and soemtimes will switch to the 70-200 with the 1.4 to be able to zoom out to capture closer action. I also own the 135 f/2 but never use the 1.4 with it. That would be a 189mm f/4. My 70-200 would be at 2.8 for the same length. Any TC will degrade the image so I would ragther use the 70-200 without the 1.4 rather than the 135 with the 1.4.

 

I would recommend the 70-200 with the 1.4x II as a means of expanding you range.

[robin_sibson1]

The 135/2L + Extender 1.4x (original or II, it makes no difference) combination produces a 189/2.8 (not f/4) and is a very good combination even wide open, although there is a noticeable improvement on stopping down one stop from wide open. However, the 135/2L + Extender 2x II (270/4) is poor wide open, and although it improves quite a lot on stopping down, it never reaches a level of quality I would consider acceptable.

 

I can't comment from pesonal experience on the performance of the 70~200/2.8 non-IS on the Extender 1.4x, but I regularly use the 70~200/4 IS with the Extender 1.4x, and the combination is excellent at all apertures. The 70~200/4 IS + Extender 2x II works OK, but does not appear to resolve any more detail than can be obtained by up-rezzing from the lens+1.4 combination, and of course you lose AF except on 1-series bodies. The consensus seems to be that 70~200/2.8 (IS or non-IS) + Extender 2x (original or II) is fit only for occasional use at 400mm and the 100~400 is much better.

[greg_moss2]

Sorry, the 135 with 1.4x is F/2.8, same as the 70-200 in the same range. My Bad!

[jay a. frew]

Hello Andrew:

 

I have the Canon 1.4TC (newer version) and I use it on an EF70-200/2.8 - non-IS.

 

I do get decent (non-commercial - hobby only) results in good light if I stop down .

 

AF is not a problem with my lens combo.

 

If you look in my "Bird" folder, the first two images were shot with EF70-200/2.8+TC. The Gull was hand-held @

f8. The Grosbeak was from a tripod @f5.6. Both of these images are crops (the gull is the centre 1/3rd of the

original image and the Grosbeak was 1/5th ,or less, of the original).

 

The cardinal was also shot with this combo, but, it was a "mega-crop" (I think I was 15-20 feet from that feeder).

 

Cheers! Jay

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I used to use the Canon 1.4x II with the 300/4L IS USM - a very good lens. Wide open, this combination was noticeably softer than the lens on its own; stopping down one stop or more fixed that.</p>

 

<p>I now use the 1.4x with the 70-200/2.8L IS USM. I've never even bothered to test how it performs wide open; if there was a noticeable loss of image quality on an L prime, I'm sure it's at least as noticeable on an L zoom. But again, stopped down a bit, this combination works very well.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

Here are some sample shots using the 70-200 with several different teleconverters (the page is in german, but that should not matter looking at the images):

 

http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2_teil2.php

[lad_lueck]

The 24-70 WILL take the 1.4x, if you first mount an extension tube! :D Makes interesting macros...

[lad_lueck]

My 70-200 2.8 IS is *very* good with the 1.4xtcII, I can only tell the difference side-by-side, at large/bright apertures. I strongly recommend it.

[William Michael]

My experience is the x1.4MkII on the 70 to 200F2.8L is very nice, on the 135f2 it is nicer, though I rarely have use for

the extender on the prime lens: I just played with it to see what it could do. I have used both lenses wide open (with

the extender) and with efficient sharpening I am very happy with the results at 11 x 14, even in low light / low contrast

conditions. I can see improvements with both lenses stoped down 1 stop, if you can do that it is worthwhile, IMO.

 

I use the x1.4MkII on the 70 to 200F2.8L quite a lot, for sports, especially swimming inside.

 

IMO it is an inexpensive option where the benefits (of cost and weight) certainly outweigh the minor image

degradation. I have access to fast telephotos: if it meant money (i.e. I was selling my work, or being paid for the

coverage), I would use those longer lenses, (or buy one), but for very nice amateur images, the 1.4MkII on a 70 to

200F2.8L will churn out good images provided one employs good shooting technique and knowledgeable post

production, especially sharpening.

 

WW

[dave_holland]

I have both the 1.4 and the 2.0 (I). The 1.4 is fine, but I would not get the 2.0 (I use the Canon 70-200 IS/non IS). For

a great review, with examples, go <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/tc1/index.html">here</a>.

<br>

<br>

Dave

[alan_green4]

the canon tc 1.4 with the 70-200 produces fine results. frankly, i'm surprised how good the images look. highly

recommend

[William Michael]

I think that this combination has its uses. It depends what the tolerances are you wish to work within and what the purpose of the images is to be.

 

I state up front that I am not a fan of the 100 to 400L, and I am not making a direct comparison with that lens: merely saying that in some circumstances the x2.0MkII on the 70 to 200 is acceptable: not award winning, but acceptable, (and it is easier to carry around than the 400F2.8L and cheaper to buy).

 

The fist set are three JPEGs (L) straight out of the camera, (a 20D), the 70 to 200F2.8L @ F11 (lens at F5.6) @ 1/1000s @ISO400, at 400mm (200mm x 2) Full Frame crop to 5 x 7, compressed to fit here: note: NO sharpening.<div></div>

[William Michael]

Taking 1/10th of each frame, again just the JPEG (L) file, no sharpening, just compressed to fit here: just as an indicative.

 

These files come out fine as 5x7 prints: more than very acceptable for website display, and with a bit of Post Processing work on the RAW files I get OK 10 x 8 prints, like I said, not award winning display quality, but quite OK for ``Mum and Dad``.

 

I think sometimes the ``issues`` with the ``image quality`` of longer lenses is focussing error or poor focussing technique; poor technique in regard to Shutter Speed selection; or poor shooting technique. I do not wish to begin an argument, please note I wrote SOMETIMES:

 

As an example, take a close look at my first image: 1/1000s was not fast enough to stop the feet and hands blurring during her fall, those blurs have nothing to do with the x2.0 teleconverter being used.

 

WW<div></div>