Just got a 1.4 extender

[richard_martin10]

<p>I finally purchased a nice lens on Ebay despite all my rantings on previous posts! The deal was a good one because it also included a 1.4 extender which I always was curious about trying. Most of my work is motorsports photography and I won't have a chance to try it at the track for a month but I went out this afternoon using my 70-200 F/4 and 300 F/4 with and without the extender and I can't believe the results. I'm usually annoyed by pixel peepers but I did just that with all the shots I took and if I wasn't looking at the shooting info I would not be able to tell which shots were done with the extender. Focus speed didn't seem to be affected either, if they perform as well at the track as they did today I'll be thrilled! Cheers to Canon for what seems to be a marvelous product.</p>

[hjoseph7]

How much did you pay for it ? I was relunctant to buy it because the cost did not justify the need to me, but now I have to buy it, because I just got a job shooting Marathon runners in the DC area and they require it #$%%@.

[robert_dale]

<p>I'm thrilled with my 1.4x and 2x TC's</p>

[awahlster]

<p>Richard what body are you using the 1.4X on?<br>

I'm in the weird process of trying to justify going from a HUGE Canon FD manual focus system to a Digital system. One of the HUGE hang up is I do a lot of shooting with my 400mm f4.5 and 500mm f4.5 and with doublers on them. So since I would rather buy a new car then a new 400 or 500mm EF mount lens I'm looking at possibilities with a 1.6X body and a 300mm f4.0L</p>

 

[awahlster]

<p>Richard what body are you using the 1.4X on?<br>

I'm in the weird process of trying to justify going from a HUGE Canon FD manual focus system to a Digital system. One of the HUGE hang up is I do a lot of shooting with my 400mm f4.5 and 500mm f4.5 and with doublers on them. So since I would rather buy a new car then a new 400 or 500mm EF mount lens I'm looking at possibilities with a 1.6X body and a 300mm f4.0L</p>

 

[richard_martin10]

<p>I picked up an unused 70-200 F/4 and the 1.4 mk2 extender for 750.00/free shipping. I have a 40D, and my other lenses are a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, and 300 F/4L non IS. </p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I'm not sure I follow your logic; the 400mm f/5.6 costs less than the 300mm f/4 + 1.4X extender (both end up being f/5.6), and the 400 + 1.4X is better than the 300 + 2X.</p>

<p>I personally love the idea of the 300 + 1.4X for versatility; it maintains autofocus even with the extender and its got a much closer minimum focusing distance than the 400. But if focal length is what you need and you don't mind smaller apertures, the 400 will get you farther for less (certainly not "car cost").</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>The 70-200 f4 IS (did you get the IS version? Likely non-IS version performs similarly) shows little downgrade in quality, with the 1.4x, and even the 2.0x, judging from the target shots at The-Digital-Picture. There will be a difference, I think particularly in the corners, but it's a good combo. The 70-200 f2.8 (mark I) (which I have) doesn't fair as well.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Mendel,</p>

<p>How is it that the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens doesn't fare so well? I have used mine for many years, with various combinations of extenders, and have never felt the slightest bit of angst. I grew up with the FD series of lenses going back to 1972, and also have a fair representative collection of MF gear and lenses, so I'm not blind to what a good image should look like at all. I'm just curious as to why you seem to rate one of my favorite bedrock wedding and portrait lenses for the past near-decade as an inferior product with the 1.4x extender. That has simply not been my experience at all over time. </p>

<p>Would you care to share some examples?</p>