Can someone help? How bad is using a 2x converter?

Here's my dilemma. I'm going to get one of two lenses. I was looking at the 100-400mm , but I'd really love to have a faster lens. So that got me interested in the 70-200 2.8.


So, I was have been researching, I find that the 2x lens extender would give me the same final focal length, and same f stop as the 100-400mm on it's own, but I'd be able to have a really fast lens as well.


I'm going to get the lens in the next month or so (I hope) so I was wondering if anyone could help me understand how much an extender really degrades the quality. I've seen the shots on this site with them, and the pictures still look phenominal. If at 400mm, the image quality won't be much different between the 200mm with 2x, or just the 400mm alone, I think I'd want to get the extender, because I really would love the faster lens.



Can anyone help? Thanks a lot.





John

I shoot with the exact set-up all the time. I do a lot of kids sports and the 2x behind the EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM works great for me. I've used the combination on my XTi and my 1DMKII, both with good results.


One note, this is a daylight combination. For football under the lights, f/5.6 puts me at speeds below 1/100 and motion blur starts to be a bigproblem.


I have a lot of examples. Drop me your e-mail and I'll send you some unretouched files to examine.

On the 70-200, it's okay. Wide open, not the best, but stopped down, it's fine. On the 300 f/2.8 I can't see a difference even wide open. Stacked 1.4 and 2x are still fine on that one too.

That sounds great. Yeah, I know that dropping the two f stops will definately not work well for football under the lights, but that's the beauty of this setup. It wouldn't work with the straight 400 either, because that's a 5.6 as well. I don't have the money for a 2.8 400mm at all. I need to start making money on my pics first. haha As I'm just getting started, I want to buy lenses that are worth it, but that I don't have to sell internal organs for.


So in that case, of the football game under the lights, at least I could get rid of the extender, and at least get the speed of that 2.8 lens, that way I could at least the shots clear. The 50D has 15 megapixlels to play with, so if I put a good lens like that on, at least I could crop down pretty well.


I'd love to see what the pics look like. I was worried about chromatic abberation, as that's one thing I heard about using extenders, but we're talking about a really good sharp lens, not just a cheap lens, so I feel it's still going to provide all but the best shots with the extender.


Thanks for your reply. Now that I have that info, I think you helped me dedcide on what to do. Justhaving someone who actually uses that setup withgood results is really what I wanted to hear.


I look forward to your email! (Will private message the address.)


Also, I appreciate any other comments anyone else has to offer! Thanks everyone!

I've had this exact same combo for a while, although I haven't really used it much in anger. In anything except for the brightest light the AF is awfully slow and often hunts. I'm not very impressed by my 400D's (Rebel in US terms?) AF in general but I have a 5DmkII on order so I'm hoping that will improve things somewhat.


It's just a stopgap measure for me though, albeit one for the forseable future. All the advice I've had is that it doesn't compare with the 400mm f5.6 for AF speed etc. But that doesn't have IS - my 70-200 f2.8 does. If I'm to spend £1k on another lens I want it to have IS - I find it really odd that the f5.6 varient isn't available with this, and wonder if Canon will release one at some point.


If I do find myself with money to burn - and if I either decide that IS isn't so important, or Canon release such a beauty at f5.6 - I will probably get one. But the 2x Extender still won't have been wasted - I can then use it for a lovely 800mm zoom, albeit with MF only. It might not be much use but it would be cool to have :D.

i have that setup, and it's not atrocious.. having a dedicated 100-400mm would obviously be way better, but i didn't have the money for both it and the 70-200mm f/2.8, and the latter's features were way more important to me, so i decided to make do with the 2x for the rare occasion that i need something longer than 200.


your colors and sharpness do suffer a fair amount, and you do lose a couple f/stops, but it's still better than any of the 70-300 lenses, and it's less gear to cart around.

Here is an example of a 2X used with a EF 300mm f/4.0L IS. Yields a focal length of 600 (960 considering 40D body). Photo is cropped, reduced to 5X7 and not sharpened.


1/60sec, ISO 100, f/8. I would not call this "tack sharp" but for me it is acceptable when compared to the cost of a 600mm lens.





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/Moon_5F00_001-copy2.jpg[/img]

Thanks a bunch for posting that pic for me.


I see what you mean about not being tack sharp, but like you said, it's still acceptable considering the cost of a 600mm lens is almost as astronomical as the shot you took.....at least for us who don't have that much to let go of haha.


Still that's a great shot, and if you wanted to touch up the sharpnes just a bit in photoshop you'd still come away with a great picture.


Thanks again!





You know, I had even thought about getting the 100-400 with the 1.4x extender, just to have that extra range for bright sunny days....but I think I'm too attracted to the 2.8 aperture that I could have with the 70-200mm for doing indoor sports and weddings. Maybe some day I'll have both we'll see.

John - With all respect for the experiences of the other members who've posted here, I borrowed a 2x to use on my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for a daytime air show, and I was reallydisappointed in the results. Maybe it was just a mismatch between my particular body (40D), my copy of the lens and that particular copy of the 2x. For the first time ever, I could see CA in my pictures. The contrast and color were lousy (granted, there was a lot of glare). A guy next to me was using a 5D with the 100-400, and he e-mailed me some shots. I don't have his images anymore, but the side-by-side comparison of our almost-identically framed shots of a YF-22 Raptor dramatically illustrated the difference in our equipment. I wasn't shooting wide open, either.


One other note: the 2x/70-200 combo yielded its worst results at full zoom (2x200=400). If you're planning to use it there, I would go with the 100-400.


Also just remembered- I read or heard somewhere that the 1.4 and 2x weren't really intended for use with zooms.

I have to agree with Jeff to a point. It depends on what you are doing with your pictures.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Tom\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_fil elist.xml" />
<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"]</o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"]</o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning />
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas />
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<w:DontGrowAutofit />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"]
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui>
</object>
<mce:style><!
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
-->

<style><!--
&lt;!
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
&gt;
--></style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<mce:style><!
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"]
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->

<p class="MsoNormal"]I actually have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, 1.4X and 2X. I
use it for sports and it is a fine lens indeed even with the 1.4X. Not so good
with the 2X however. If you are
publishing say to a newspaper then the 2X is OK. I included a shot I took with the 300 f/4 because from
the penalty box it is a perfect focal length for <st1:place w:st="on"]<st1:city w:st="on"]action</st1:city></st1:place> around the net and no extender is
needed. And it's a prime. The IQ of the 300 w/o and extender is better than the 70-200 zoom with
one, IMHO. The pro I learned from uses a 300 f/2.8 and before he could afford
it he used the 70-200 with a 1.4X, and made a nice (newspaper) living. However his 300
f/2.8 can go everywhere without an extender and the IQ is about as good as it gets.
BUT it's $4000. Not sure about the IQ of the 100-400 because I don't own one, but I remember reading that the results were mixed at best.
<p class="MsoNormal"][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/CC_2D00_JV_5F00_HFL002-copy-copy.jpg.jpg[/img]
<p class="MsoNormal"]

One more. It's in the glove!!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/CC_2D00_JV_5F00_HFL201-copy2.jpg.jpg[/img]

Tom and Jeff


Thanks for the extra input there. See, I'm lucky enough to be recieving a lens as a getting started gift, so I was going to get either one of these lenses, instead of getting the 100-400 as I planned with my Uncle Sam check.....but I'm starting to think, maybe I should go ahead and buy my 100-400 and get the other one as well.


I know I'm just getting started, but I want to get things that will last me a long time, and give me good results, because if I'm stuck with something that's giving me images that I "think" are great quality, I'll be upset when I finally learn that they aren't....and if I learn that, I won't be happy until I get the lens I need.


I saw a saying posted on here the other day...went something like....you only want to cry once when buying equipment, not every time you use it.


What do you guys feel would be the best course of action? Do you think there's going to be an upgraded 100-400mm lens coming out soon? This is like a 5 year old design, correct?

Hahaha! Love that quote about crying when you buy it, not when you use it.


I did read a long thread somewhere about rumors of an upgraded 100-400 here:


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=247936&amp;page=1


That thread goes all the way back to 2006, and even then some people were convinced that an upgraded 100-400 would be coming out soon. Here's another one on Canon Rumors with recent info:


http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/01/100-400-f4-56l-is-usm-ii-cr2/


But the posts that make the most sense to me are the ones that point out that the rumored upgrades would make the lens gigantic, heavy and expensive. The current one is reasonably sized, reasonably light and reasonably affordable. So that seems to support getting one now instead of waiting.


On the other hand, it also makes sense to get the 70-200 f/2.8 and try a game or two withoutthe TC. You won't have enough reach for some shots, but some of the plays are going to be near you. (I did relatively well shooting HS football with a 200 prime and full-frame...it does mean more hustling to get into position, though.) And theresolution of your 50D might make cropping an option...while you're getting started, anyway.


Hope I haven't complicated your decision for you!


Jeff

When I was getting started I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS first. I shot hockey and basketball with it from the basketball floor and from right behind the glass for hockey. Both from the "corners". Having a f/2.8 zoom was terrific for these shots. For hockey I needed extra reach for the far end so I bought the 1.4X. Now I am at f/4 and that is still OK for hockey as long as I set a custom white balance before I shoot. Later I picked up the 2X more out of curiousity than need. For indoor sports where lighting is usually poor I never use the 2X as f/5.6 is way too slow for fast shutter speeds required to get action stopping shots. However for outside and especially from the bleachers (if you are not allowed on the sideline) say for a football or soccer game you may find it well worth the investment. Later on I wanted more length and decided to go with the 300 f/4 not the 100-400 because I already had up to 200 f/l covered and 400 was at f/5.6 and for hockey which is the sport I shoot the most that would not do. Plus the push/pull thing bothered me. My point here is to start with what you think you need and then work your way into what your photography direction takes you. You can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS IMO. Have fun and happy shooting.

Thanks for all your input guys.


I think at this point, since this is going to be a gift lens, I might go with the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, and get the 1.4x just to make up a little distance. I still want to get both, but for starting out that lens will give me some great shots, and with the 1.4x it won't really kill the lens. Plus, when I do get the 100-400 that extender will get me up to 600mm, even if I will need a nice bright day to use it....even though, for me I don't forsee ever needing a 600mm focal point on a day that's not nice and I'm not out taking pics anyway.





So thanks again for everyone's help, you've made my decision at least an informed one, and I'm sure I'll be seeing you guys around the forum! Cheers!





John

I too just got the 70-200 2.8 IS, have not gotten a chance to strech my "legs" so to speak with it, however intially it is superb. I was just asking the same question about the 1.4x and found and heard from a sports photographer who shoots 300mm prime that you lose some with the 1.4x and too much with the 2.0x


The 1.4x's are going for around $250 new on eBay and I think it would be well worth it for me espcially getting shots of wild life as well as sports. Lucky me... I'm the manager of a bunch of 7 year old baseball stars, so it will mean an additional trip to the park for pics of other kids [:(]


Now I'm in the hunt to figure out do I get the 24-105L or get the 24-70 2.8L, I currently have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 which is a nice lens, but I'm sure as I start shooting L, I'll be spoiled quickly

Well, at the risk of repeating, I'll just say most of the people who advise against this combination don't actually own and use it. I have sold thousands of dollars worth of pictures shot on a 1DMKII or an XTiwith an EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM backed by the 2x doubler. The key is your usage and the light.


My pictures are typically sold as 4x6's or 5x7's. If you look at those images in portrait mode on a 24" monitor, the IQ might not be impressive.If your not blowing up 16x20's, this lens combination will work. If you have ever sold a picture to your local paper you know that your 10-megapixel beauty gets printed at 85lpi. That really makes you glad you splurged for "L" glass.


The second key is light. This combination puts you atF/5.6 wide open.It will not work for football under the lights. This is adaylight only combination that keep you from dragging a 400mm f/2.8 around kids soccer fields for 12-hoursat a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micdon

I too just got the 70-200 2.8 IS, have not gotten a chance to strech my "legs" so to speak with it, however intially it is superb. I was just asking the same question about the 1.4x and found and heard from a sports photographer who shoots 300mm prime that you lose some with the 1.4x and too much with the 2.0x


The 1.4x's are going for around $250 new on eBay and I think it would be well worth it for me espcially getting shots of wild life as well as sports. Lucky me... I'm the manager of a bunch of 7 year old baseball stars, so it will mean an additional trip to the park for pics of other kids [img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img]


Now I'm in the hunt to figure out do I get the 24-105L or get the 24-70 2.8L, I currently have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 which is a nice lens, but I'm sure as I start shooting L, I'll be spoiled quickly



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Yeah, like I was thinking, I'll get the 1.4x because it's not going to kill the pictures, but it will give me the extra I might need.


I'm also thinking about the 24-70mm 2.8 L.....It would be an awesome lens for weddings, and if you had to do an indoor sport like basketball, you could be close enough, and the aperture is big enough to at least let it happen. I know it's not as good as a 50mm 1.4, but...it would still get you by better than a stock lens with an aperture over 4.


All I have to figure out is how to get all the money for the 4-5k worth of lenses I want. :)

I love my EF24-70MM f/2.8. Like you said, it's my primary wedding lens. If you're on a budget, pick up theEF55-200mm F/4.5/5.6 II USM from Adorama. It's running $189 on the refurbishedside.


My daughter uses this lens for her high school yearbook assignments and has won several photo contests with it installed on an XTi. It's a VERY good lens for this ridiculously low price.