Petkal or Doc Klepper or anyone

[jjonsalt]

Y'all have the 135L and 1.4x TC as I do. However, y'all also have the 200L which I don't. Have you ever compared these two set-ups as far as IQ goes? What results?

[PetKal]

Y'all have the 135L and 1.4x TC as I do. However, y'all also have the 200L which I don't. Have you ever compared these two set-ups as far as IQ goes? What results?
Sorry,it would be an interesting comparison, but I have not done it.
Both 135 and 200 mm primes I use "naked".
The only reason I have 1.4x TC is to extend my reach to 420 mm with my 300 f4 IS prime. Again, do not like doing that either, but for me that combo is a better option than 400 f5.6 prime.

[rklepper]

I have not done this comparison either. I guess the 1.4 on a 135 would get me so close to the 200 I see no reason to use this setup. I have, however, used the 1.4 on the 200 with excellent results.

[jjonsalt]

Thanks guys. I have used the 135L and 1.4x TC to my satifaction. Just wondering if it would pay to get the 200L as well.

[genewch]

Does the 1.4x TC slow down the focusing speed of 135mm and 200mm considerably? I'm keen to use them in (indoor) sports pics.

[jjonsalt]

Does the 1.4x TC slow down the focusing speed of 135mm... considerably?

no

[genewch]

So if the 1.4x extender doesn't slow down focusing speed much, I should be happy with the extender with half price of the 200mm. It sounds a good bargain! But, the bare 200mm is really cool! It operates like the 135mm, and saves the weight of the extender.

[rklepper]

It does not slow down the focus speed on the 200, but like I said with the 200 in the bag I have never used the TC on the 135. Maybe I should just out of curiosity.

[jjonsalt]

...I have never used the TC on the 135. Maybe I should just out of curiosity.

If you do, Doc, could you let us know what you think?