Lens Extenders

[jonesejm]

Hello everyone


I am currently shooting with a canon 450d and 70-200 f4L lens and was thinking of getting a 1.4x extender to add a little more range. I have seen there are other manufacturers of the extenders (e.g. kenko) at much cheaper prices. Would people recommend staying with canon or are these third party offerings just as good.


Thanks for your help


Edd

[Trondster]

As the extenders contain optics, I would go for the ones with best lenses to avoid compromising image quality. The Canon extenders are rather good - buy the new mark III ones or see if you can find a good deal on a used mark II.

[PaulM]

Canon extenders have electronics that let the camera know there

[neuroanatomist]

Not sure about the IQ - perhaps someone with a Canon 1.4x can let you know?

Generally speaking, a native lens will be better than a lens + extender, when you're talking about comparing lenses in the same class. For example, a 70-200mm f/4L + 1.4x (=280mm f/5.6) will not be as good across the frame as a 100-400mm. But that doesn't hold true for non-L lenses compared to L lenses. Also, Bryan reports that the 200-300mm region of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens is it's weakest area. Check out Bryan's ISO 12233 Crops comparing them - the 70-200mm f/4 + 1.4x II wins, hands down.

[Sheiky]

Would people recommend staying with canon or are these third party offerings just as good

I can't the find the review I had seen like a year ago about different brands teleconverters, but I'm pretty sure that Canon didn't win it.So you might google some more [A] However I'm not sure why the Canon didn't win it. Price/quality difference or just quality..... I guess I will have to google myself as well []


Plus with the new markIII converters(don't know if they will be optically any better), the mark II's will be cheaper and therefor maybe more interesting. Second hand they're also a safe buy, since there isn't a lot that can be wrong with them. Other than you can see visually.


Jan

[Jayson]

I own two 1.4xTC and they are both Kenko. I take almost all of my macro shots with an extender on the lens. I own the 70-200mm f/4 L IS and the only thing I caution on if you went the Kenko route would be to make sure you get the non DGX version. For some reason it doesn

[PaulM]

Bryan reports that the 200-300mm region of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens is it's weakest area. Check out Bryan's ISO 12233 Crops comparing them - the 70-200mm f/4 + 1.4x II wins, hands down.

Good thinking - Bryan to the rescue on that wayward advice! Nearly went boggle-eyed looking at the 70-300 chart [:|]


Paul

[Sheiky]

I googled a bit for the extender comparison, but the only think I found so far is this: [url="http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2_teil4.php]http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2_teil4.php[/url]


It's in German though, so you'd have translate it. (easy with Internet Explorer). I already put it on page 4 with the conclusions so you don't have to search for it.


[quote=Paul McSweeney]


[quote=neuroanatomist]Bryan reports that the 200-300mm region of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens is it's weakest area. Check out [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0]Bryan's ISO 12233 Crops comparing them[/url] - the 70-200mm f/4 + 1.4x II wins, hands down.[/quote]


Good thinking - Bryan to the rescue on that wayward advice! Nearly went boggle-eyed looking at the 70-300 chart [img]/emoticons/emotion-8.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
[/quote]


I was shocked when I saw the results [:S] It had to be very good to justify it's price (which is A LOT more than the 70-200 F4L IS with 1.4x extender). Good info []