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

[Jeff Lucia]

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.

[Tom Wertman]

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-comffice:smarttags" name="place"]</o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice: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 />
<wontGrowAutofit />
</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 <st1lace w:st="on"]<st1:city w:st="on"]action</st1:city></st1lace> 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"]

[Tom Wertman]

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]

[LoneSierra]

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?

[Jeff Lucia]

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

[Tom Wertman]

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.

[LoneSierra]

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