135mm f/2 + 1.4 II vs 200mm f/2.8

[criza]

Hey,

yesterday I shot the same picture with a Canon 135mm f/2 + Canon Extender 1.4 II and a Canon 200mm f/2.8 lens.

After downloading the two photos to the computer I was surprised, the picture with the 135mm + Extender was a tiny bit sharper than the one taken with the 200mm f/2.8, and it had less CA!

Is it possible? Anyone tried this before? Thanks for any answer!

[Dave Johnston]

Check on the ISO chart comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =0&APIComp=0

I am not seeing a better image quality here.

Thats not to say that yours didn't work out that way, it would just be unusual that a prime + extender would be sharper than bare prime.

[criza]

Thanks Dave.

I just had the same idea :-). The difference is more noticeable in the corners, so maybe I should look there when I am already comparing.

I was just wondering cause I could get used to the idea to get a 135mm and sell my 200mm, now that I have an extender..or more likely wait till I've got money for both

[Dave Throgmartin]

Is there any chance the focus was off the 200 f/2.8? I really like the 135L and haven't seen too significant a drop off with the 1.4 II in real life conditions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6825585...teleconverter/

Dave

[JJphoto]

the IQ from my 135+1.4TC II is not acceptable, u must have got very good copys!

[FastGass]

I don't think so, one possibility is that your 200mm f/2.8 shots were slightly less in focus or very slightly motion blured. Another is your 200mm f/2.8 is a slightly soft copy and your 135mm with extender is slightly beating it. But no, it is supposed to be better. I would test the lenses in a controled setup and shoot a test target in live view and also check for AF accuracy before making any conclusions.

Hope this helps,
John.

[Keith B]

the IQ from my 135+1.4TC II is not acceptable, u must have got very good copys!

Darn! I was getting excited. The 135 is on of my favorite lenses.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I've seen lots of people on the web who've had success with 135 + 1.4X II TC. I'm sorry it didn't work out for JJphoto. It's a shame especially because when you spend that type of money on camera gear you expect it to just work!

I really like being able to shoot 189mm f/2.8 if I need to with out having to lug around a heavy zoom. I usually stop down and don't shoot at f/2.8 that often with the extender, but here is one example when I did.


2012_04_01_3839 by dthrog00, on Flickr

[JJphoto]

my experences with TCs are that they work pretty well when the subject is closer to the camera like the shot Dave took above, but the main reason I use Tcs is that when I can't get close enough to the subject.usually the results are not quite good when the subject is farther, softer and CA are the main prblem. I prefer to just move my legs to get closer instead of use TCs or zoom lens. but my 1.4TC II with 300mm2.8 and 500mm 4.0 are pretty good.

[criza]

my experences with TCs are that they work pretty well when the subject is closer to the camera like the shot Dave took above, but the main reason I use Tcs is that when I can't get close enough to the subject.usually the results are not quite good when the subject is farther, softer and CA are the main prblem. I prefer to just move my legs to get closer instead of use TCs or zoom lens. but my 1.4TC II with 300mm2.8 and 500mm 4.0 are pretty good.

This is a good point. The 200mm + TC 1.4 combo is very sharp for close subjects, if the subject is farther (maybe 50 meters and plus) the IQ degrades and it's on the edge to be acceptable (for me). I will continue to use the combo and maybe post some pictures in the future. Unfortunately I just rented the 135mm I mentioned in my first post, so no more tests so far :-|