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

[LoneSierra]

Here's my dilemma. I'm going to get one of two lenses. I was looking at the 100-400mm , but I'd really love to have a faster lens. So that got me interested in the 70-200 2.8.


So, I was have been researching, I find that the 2x lens extender would give me the same final focal length, and same f stop as the 100-400mm on it's own, but I'd be able to have a really fast lens as well.


I'm going to get the lens in the next month or so (I hope) so I was wondering if anyone could help me understand how much an extender really degrades the quality. I've seen the shots on this site with them, and the pictures still look phenominal. If at 400mm, the image quality won't be much different between the 200mm with 2x, or just the 400mm alone, I think I'd want to get the extender, because I really would love the faster lens.



Can anyone help? Thanks a lot.





John

[Dallasphotog]

I shoot with the exact set-up all the time. I do a lot of kids sports and the 2x behind the EF70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM works great for me. I've used the combination on my XTi and my 1DMKII, both with good results.


One note, this is a daylight combination. For football under the lights, f/5.6 puts me at speeds below 1/100 and motion blur starts to be a bigproblem.


I have a lot of examples. Drop me your e-mail and I'll send you some unretouched files to examine.

[Dann Thombs]

On the 70-200, it's okay. Wide open, not the best, but stopped down, it's fine. On the 300 f/2.8 I can't see a difference even wide open. Stacked 1.4 and 2x are still fine on that one too.

[LoneSierra]

That sounds great. Yeah, I know that dropping the two f stops will definately not work well for football under the lights, but that's the beauty of this setup. It wouldn't work with the straight 400 either, because that's a 5.6 as well. I don't have the money for a 2.8 400mm at all. I need to start making money on my pics first. haha As I'm just getting started, I want to buy lenses that are worth it, but that I don't have to sell internal organs for.


So in that case, of the football game under the lights, at least I could get rid of the extender, and at least get the speed of that 2.8 lens, that way I could at least the shots clear. The 50D has 15 megapixlels to play with, so if I put a good lens like that on, at least I could crop down pretty well.


I'd love to see what the pics look like. I was worried about chromatic abberation, as that's one thing I heard about using extenders, but we're talking about a really good sharp lens, not just a cheap lens, so I feel it's still going to provide all but the best shots with the extender.


Thanks for your reply. Now that I have that info, I think you helped me dedcide on what to do. Justhaving someone who actually uses that setup withgood results is really what I wanted to hear.


I look forward to your email! (Will private message the address.)


Also, I appreciate any other comments anyone else has to offer! Thanks everyone!

[Feanor]

I've had this exact same combo for a while, although I haven't really used it much in anger. In anything except for the brightest light the AF is awfully slow and often hunts. I'm not very impressed by my 400D's (Rebel in US terms?) AF in general but I have a 5DmkII on order so I'm hoping that will improve things somewhat.


It's just a stopgap measure for me though, albeit one for the forseable future. All the advice I've had is that it doesn't compare with the 400mm f5.6 for AF speed etc. But that doesn't have IS - my 70-200 f2.8 does. If I'm to spend £1k on another lens I want it to have IS - I find it really odd that the f5.6 varient isn't available with this, and wonder if Canon will release one at some point.


If I do find myself with money to burn - and if I either decide that IS isn't so important, or Canon release such a beauty at f5.6 - I will probably get one. But the 2x Extender still won't have been wasted - I can then use it for a lovely 800mm zoom, albeit with MF only. It might not be much use but it would be cool to have .

[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.

[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"]