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

[atticusdsf]

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.

[Tom Wertman]

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]

[LoneSierra]

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.