Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Extenders 1.4x vs 2.0x

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    205

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,264
    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.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,676
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,619
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Squidy View Post
    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.
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  6. #6
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by peety3 View Post
    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...




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

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,190
    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.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  8. #8
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,061
    Extenders can help expand the use of a lens you already have, but generally are not the answer to focal length issues IMHO...

    Dave

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    205
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Squidy View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •