Teleconverter 1.4x vs 2x

[standing_bear]

<p>I'm in market for a teleconverter for my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II w/ EOS 7D. I have successfully used this lens to take photographs of insects and birds but most of the times I feel that I do not have enough reach and end up cropping to get the desired composition. I also take many outdoor portraits with this lens though I love the quality, I would love to have a bit more of reach.<br>

What would you recommend and why?</p>

[jesse_barba]

<p>I would stick with the 1.4x as the image quality of the 2x is noticeably worse (haven't used the 70-200 vII, though). A longer lens is probably in order if you are into birds, though. For bugs I would consider an extension tube, as well.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I have never used either converter, so I can't give any real world testimony, but here are comparison shots of each at different focal lengths and f-stops. I was quite surprised at how bad the 2x looked, especially at the corners, but like I said, I don't know how that translates to real world use. Also, the new 2x ver. III tele converter may be vastly improved, but I haven't seen test on it yet.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0</a></p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>The Kenko Teleplus 1.4x Pro 300 got quite good reviews:<br>

http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2_teil2.php (although in German the test images should speak for themselves).<br>

It is cheaper than the Canon one and can be used with all lenses and not only L lenses. I have one and I am very satisfied with it.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>SB, you can't beat a macro for insects. I love my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=143902">Canon 100MM 2.8 macro lens</a>.</p>

<p>I <strong><em>hate </em></strong>to crop images!</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Canon has announced, but not yet released, version III of both teleconverters. If you're not in a hurry you might wait for reviews.</p>

<p>I've used the 2x with the 70-200/2.8 IS mk 1, shooting on a 5D, and found it to be quite usable at f/8 to f/11 with postprocessing to clean up the chromatic aberration. The 7D has much smaller pixels though, so you might not find it acceptable if you pixel-peep.</p>

<p>I don't think many people are doing birding with a 70-200; the 400/5.6 or 100-400 seem to be the favored lenses.</p>

[znabal]

<p>I don't consider myself much of a pixel peeper, and I tend to believe as <a href="http://www.seanduggan.com/books/index.html">Sean Duggan</a> says "sharpness is overrated"....with that in mind, I find the 2x MKII with my 70-200L IS M1 on a 5D M1 unacceptable for most applications....I've found I'd rather crop until I save money for the 400 2.8L IS.</p>

[standing_bear]

<p><strong></strong>I agree, nothing beats a macro lens. The main reason I'm looking for teleconverter is that 200mm is not long enough to take some shots. At times you cannot go close enough.<br>

<strong></strong>I will look into Kenko, but they aren't much cheaper...?<br>

I'm in no hurry. I take occasional bird shots, it is not what I want to invest in a lot of money.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p> "What would you recommend and why?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Buy both.<br>

Because they are both useful.<br>

But as mentioned wait until the MkIII versions arrive, for the lens you own.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I have never used either converter, so I can't give any real world testimony, but here are comparison shots of each at different focal lengths and f-stops. I was quite surprised at how bad the 2x looked, especially at the corners, but like I said, I don't know how that translates to real world use"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>"Real World"</strong> use:</p>

<p>70 to 200/2.8L on a 20D + x2.0MkII (last two images): <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=971685">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=971685</a><br>

70 to 200/2.8L + x2.0MkII on a 5D: <a href="../photo/10291553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg</a><br>

Just a whole load of fun stacking them on a 135L : <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978596">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=978596</a></p>

<p>The <strong>unprocessed JPEG file</strong> of that image FYI:</p>

<div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have both the 1.4x II and the 2x II. Both reduce quality and AF speed but the 2x has a much bigger impact on image quality. I find that I almost never use the 2x but do use the 1.4x (but not that frequently).</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I actually prefer my 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC and a 25mm to a macro lens. The working distance and zoom make it incredibly easy to use and IQ is great at decent magnification. I just don't see the advantage in a macro lens until you get into magnifications great that 1-to-1.</p>

<p>The 70-200mm plus a 1.4TC is an excellent telephoto lens. I wonder if the 2.0x TC III will fix some of the distortion of the 2.0x TC II. If it did, then that'd be incredible with an f/2.8 lens.</p>