Extenders 1.4x vs 2.0x

Hi all,

I've got the 70-200 F2.8 non IS lens and I'm pretty impressed with the clarity, but not so much the reach. I was looking at getting one of the extenders but can't work out which one. I've been told to get the 1.4 but it might not have the reach I may need, but apparently it's fast to focus and has great image quality. The 2.0 would give me the reach I need but I've been told that the image quality drops considerably and focusing is far slower.

Can I please get your input/advice? They're the same price but quality to me is important even though I'm not even close to being a pro, but I don't want to noticeably "downgrade" my lens quality.

I've been happy with the 1.4 TC, but disappointed with the 2.0x. You are right, the loss of image quality is very noticeable with the 2.0x, and the focusing goes from fabulous at f/2.8 to nearly awful at f/5.6. The 1.4 is a good compromise, with a bit of extra reach and minimal loss of quality and focusing performance.

I'd start by using the imaging tool from TDP. For example, here is the 70-200 non-IS at 200 mm compared to with the 1.4x extender wide open, at at f/8 and with the 2x extender wide open and at f/8.

My quick take on this is that you can use the 1.4x from f/5.6 and up, but with the 2x converter you are limiting yourself to an f/8 lens.

My other thought would be to hold off and save a bit longer. There are a lot of good options if you want more reach at the ~$800-$1k mark depending on if you get a sale or not. The 150-600's (Tamron/Sigma), EF 70-300 L, etc.

Another option in that range is to find a good used Version 1 100-400mm or 400mm f/5.6.....these are both very nice intermediate telephoto lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

Hi all,

I've got the 70-200 F2.8 non IS lens and I'm pretty impressed with the clarity, but not so much the reach. I was looking at getting one of the extenders but can't work out which one. I've been told to get the 1.4 but it might not have the reach I may need, but apparently it's fast to focus and has great image quality. The 2.0 would give me the reach I need but I've been told that the image quality drops considerably and focusing is far slower.

---

If you NEED this reach you speak of, perhaps you NEED to spend the money on a proper lens to do the job. I really like LensRental's characterization: if you've spent thousands on a lens that has already gathered the light and has it all ready to shine on the sensor, why would you stick something in the way to mess it all up? I tried a 1.4x III on a 600/4 IS II and wasn't overly impressed, even on a decent RRS tripod with Wimberley gimbal head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

If you NEED this reach you speak of, perhaps you NEED to spend the money on a proper lens to do the job. I really like LensRental's characterization: if you've spent thousands on a lens that has already gathered the light and has it all ready to shine on the sensor, why would you stick something in the way to mess it all up? I tried a 1.4x III on a 600/4 IS II and wasn't overly impressed, even on a decent RRS tripod with Wimberley gimbal head.

---

I think the 600 II does very well with the 1.4xIII...
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5662/2...5aa06edc_c.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3730/1...6e2ba29e_c.jpg

But in the OP's case, I would not put a 2x behind the 70-200/2.8 non-IS.

Well.... I would really recommend the 400 5.6. Light weight etc etc. Great images and the same f stop as if you had the 2x. for not a bunch more dollars perhaps lens authority has one used (sales arm of lens rental).

Stuart had one and I am impressed with it.

Extenders can help expand the use of a lens you already have, but generally are not the answer to focal length issues IMHO...

Dave

Well, I don't really NEED the reach but it'd be handy. I just figured a $500 extender would be better value than a $2800 lens that I wouldn't use too often. There's only bee na few times I've needed the reach so far, but both times were a pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

Well, I don't really NEED the reach but it'd be handy. I just figured a $500 extender would be better value than a $2800 lens that I wouldn't use too often. There's only bee na few times I've needed the reach so far, but both times were a pain.

---

If you're ok with the Gen II extenders I think you could get the 1.4x version for less than $200.

Dave

The extenders work well on the super tele lenses but then you already have a $6-$12K lens of extreme quality....I would agree with the suggestion about the 400mm f/5.6. There is a deal on Canon Price Watch right now for a new one at $999.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

Well, I don't really NEED the reach but it'd be handy. I just figured a $500 extender would be better value than a $2800 lens that I wouldn't use too often. There's only bee na few times I've needed the reach so far, but both times were a pain.

---

Do not buy the 1.4x version III. I am not sure you would even see a benefit from the new version III with your lens. I bought the version III when it came out and for the older lenses the improvement was negligible. If you had the newer 70x200 2.8L IS II then I would get the version III.

Instead see if you can find the 1.4x Version II, you should be able to pick it up for a few hundred.

And I wouldn't even consider any version of the 2x with your lens. The IQ just wouldn't be there.

To echo what others have said, I have the v1 70-200 f2.8 IS and the vIII 2x TC. The resulting 400mm f5.6 doesn't come close to my EF 400 f5.6 in either IQ or performance. Save up a bit more and look for a good used EF 400 f5.6.

I bought my 400 f/5.6 for $901 out the door with taxes refurbished!

I'm a cheapskate and never planned to get a lens as good as this. It's hardly real high end stuff, but I feel blessed to have it.

Dave

Congrats, you will be very happy I predict.