1.4x and 2.0x extenders on 70-200 2.8 L lens [Archive]

CyberDyneSystems

24th of December 2003 (Wed), 22:30

It is a multiplier,. and its also addition... turns out that the math that will take you to the next stop occurs when you multiply by 1.4.....

... likewise the math necessary to take you two more stops down is achaeived by multiply your existing stop by 2

So you can multipluy your the existing number by 1.4X. (which is easier because you don't even have to know what "the next stop" is... or you can add a complete stop.. either way if you stsart at f/2.8 you will end up at f/4 :)

Go figue?

KennyG

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 03:30

The Canon Mk II x2 TC gives the least degradation to the image with a 70-200 2.8 compared to Tamron, Sigma, Canon Mk I, etc. It is the only x2 TC worth considering.

I did some practical tests 'in the field' and the results were acceptable. Not as good as my 100-400L, but OK at a pinch. This is with the 70-200L 2.8IS and MKII x2 TC. 1/200, F25, ISO400.

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/horne.jpg

Merry Xmas to all.

defordphoto

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 09:14

msnow wrote:
RFM--

Are you 100% sure about the 2x extender and image degradation? I just bought one and I tested both first and could not tell the difference at all (other than the 2 stops of light). I also did a little research, any negatives were about the 2 stops. Let me know, I can still return it.

That's what all the research shows. The measurebators are quite adamant about it and the tests also show it's true. I don't have any personal experience with the 2.0, but after reading post after post after post on every board saying the same thing, I wasn't going to touch it.

PaulB

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 09:30

RFMSports wrote:
msnow wrote:
RFM--

Are you 100% sure about the 2x extender and image degradation? I just bought one and I tested both first and could not tell the difference at all (other than the 2 stops of light). I also did a little research, any negatives were about the 2 stops. Let me know, I can still return it.

That's what all the research shows. The measurebators are quite adamant about it and the tests also show it's true. I don't have any personal experience with the 2.0, but after reading post after post after post on every board saying the same thing, I wasn't going to touch it.

Do you believe ALL you read?
Just because all the measurabators come to the same conclusion doesn't make them right.

I use both the 1.4x and 2x Extenders on all my L lenses which will take them and find that whilst the 1.4x has the minimal observable effect on image quality, the 2x is extremely usable and its use barely affects image quality - certainly not to the extent that an image taken with it is unusable (and it may be to only way to get a particular shot anyway).
What I would steer clear of are third party converters with Canon L lenses (There, now I've upset all the users of Sigma/Tamron et al!).

defordphoto

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 09:39

No I do not believe all I read. But, test after test after test shows the 2.0 degrades sharpness, contrast and color rendition siginificantly. I would never put that kind of glass in front of an L lens.

However, IF I was ever to buy one it would definitely be Canon as it is the sharpest 2.0xTC out there. If you're happy with your's then that's fine. No issue there. Everyone has to use what they're comfortable with.

KennyG

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 10:38

RFMSports wrote:
No I do not believe all I read. But, test after test after test shows the 2.0 degrades sharpness, contrast and color rendition siginificantly. I would never put that kind of glass in front of an L lens.

There are some lenses made by Canon that were actually designed to have the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's in their optical path. Namely the big primes, 300L, 400L, etc. Stacking of TC's has even been taken into account.

I often use a x2 with my 300L F2.8IS and it is sharper, plus has more contrast, than any of the non-Canon brands near that length. Not quite as sharp as my native 500L F4.0IS, but what would you expect.

I only mention this because you should not write of the x2 TC altogether. It is important to realise that the MKII x2 TC was redesigned and is nothing like the old MKI.

I know this has nothing to do with the original query, but I thought I would point out that Canon made some of their lenses to specifically take the TC's.

scottbergerphoto

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 10:55

Just to add my 2 cents. I used the Canon 2X Extender II with my 100-400 IS L a few weeks ago. It is possible to get great shots with it, but it is very difficult. The loss of 2 f stops makes the viewfinder much darker (1/4 the light gets in as without it). It took about 30 shots to get this one:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23527173.jpg

Merry Christmas,
Scott

defordphoto

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 11:47

That's an excellent shot and I have seen some other great photos with the 2.0x before, but as Scott said, it took 30 shots to get that one. You have to manual focus which is very difficult with a bright viewfinder much less dark.

For me it comes down to a personal choice. If I had access to one I'd certainly try it out for gins and giggles, but I'm not about to part with (almost) $200 just to try one out.

I seriously considered the 2.0 when I bought my 70-200L f2.8, but then after reading the reviews on it, went with the 1.4 instead.

henkbos

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 11:59

A solution might be to stack 2 1.4's if at all possible? Has this been tried by someone?

PaulB

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 12:31

[quote]RFMSports wrote:
No I do not believe all I read. But, test after test after test shows the 2.0 degrades sharpness, contrast and color rendition siginificantly. I would never put that kind of glass in front of an L lens.
/quote]

If you put it in front of the L lens then it would degrade the image!
Seriously though this is something which you have to try for yourself and not take third-party 'reports' as the ultimate truth.
I know Pros who use the 70-200/2.8L and both the converters in preference to adding a 300/2.8L to their kit. It seems to work for them and makes for a more compact, lighter set-up and does not seem to affect the saleability of their work.
The main factor in any problems with the 2x Extender seems to be that on the DSLRs there is the 1.6x crop to take into account and the loss of two stops of light.
In my opinion this leads people to use much longer focal lengths than they realise - they crank the shutter speed down to compensate for the two stops and end up with camera shake and autofocus on the limit of its' ability.
I have some A3 prints done from my 300/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L + 2x Extender at the first motorcycle race meeting I covered with my 10D and the sharpness leaves nothing to be desired.
As for stacking the 300 and 2 2x converters on the 10D...............................

Scottes

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 12:31

A solution might be to stack 2 1.4's if at all possible?

I can't see this as being reasonable. 2 1.4s = 1.96 but requires more glass elements than a 2.0, so it would probably degrade a little bit more than just a 2.0. Might as well have a 1.4 and 2.0 and have many options.

But no, I haven't tried this, it's just my opinion from researching the TCs.

PaulB

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 14:24

-->

PaulB

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 14:25

It is NOT physically possible to stack 2 1.4x Extenders.

The 2x Mk11 Extender was altered, not only optically - for the better - but in construction which allows it to be stacked with either another 2x or a 1.4x - which is why I bought a Mk11 2x (still have the Mk1 which is how I know they perform stacked together).
The 1.4x and 1.4x Mk11 are optically identical, and differ only in the body shape and weatherproofing: with the rear element right at the back of the mount it is not possible to insert the front element of a converter.

Surely before making such assumptions it is easy to check on the construction of lenses and such on the relevant Canon website?

Scottes

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 14:58

Surely before making such assumptions it is easy to check on the construction of lenses and such on the relevant Canon website?

Where on Canon's web site does it say that one can't stack two 1.4s?

BTW, try as I might, I see no assumptions being made. Someone asked a question stating "if at all possible" and someone else (me) clearly stated that he had never tried it.

defordphoto

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 15:46

Paul: Got any of these photos online?

KennyG

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 16:54

henkbos wrote:
A solution might be to stack 2 1.4's if at all possible? Has this been tried by someone?

You can't stack 2 x 1.4 TC's because the rear element of that TC is flush with the body and the front element protrudes. You can stack a 1.4 and a 2.0 (1.4 nearest camera), or 2 x 2.0 as the MKII 2.0 has a recessed rear element.

No meaning to be rude or anything, but some people are making comments when they have never actually seen or used the latest Canon TC's.

PaulB

25th of December 2003 (Thu), 17:02

Sadly not at the moment - my online presence is a big zero.
However I may try and get something up somewhere in the nest few days; if I do you will be the first to know. (Check back in this thread)
All the best for a prosperous New Year.

Phil Hall

26th of December 2003 (Fri), 16:08

you can stack the 1.4 and 2x on the 70-200 but the results are not very good. You are better off to use a 1.4 with a 100-400 IS. The 2x is not as bad as most people state. I will post some results when I get back. Meanwhile here is a shot with a 100-400 with a 1.4x, handheld about an hour before dusk.

http://www.pbase.com/image/24477284

defordphoto

26th of December 2003 (Fri), 17:34

Awesome shot Phil! Very nice. I have also had great results with the 100-400L and the 1.4x TC:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/MiscPhotos/img_7603_std.jpg

aekurth

28th of December 2003 (Sun), 22:50

I tested the 1.4X and 2X extenders with my Canon 10D and found that the image quality with the 2X was superior to the 1.4X.

I like to photograph wild birds. Often I cannot get any closer to my subject and my only option is to use the longest lens I own and then crop the photo. I wanted my test to determine if the quality of my image was better using the 1.4x, 2x, or no extender at all. The 2X gave the most detail. Next I placed the two extenders together and found that this combination produced slightly more detail.

The bad news is that my 10D will not autofocus with the 2X or the 1.4 and 2x combo. The 10D screen is very difficult for me to manually focus. Camera movement, subject movement and improper focus are all real problems with the 2X and extender combo.

I have not had much success with the 2x in the field. I plan to test it in the field with a EOS-3 in the near future. The EOS-3 should autofocus with the 2X.

Remember, when I say the 1.4x and 2X combo produced the highest quality image, I'm speaking of a photo of a bird that was always the same distance from the camera and did not completly fill the frame in any of the shots. If I could have gotten closer I could have produced an even higher quality image.

defordphoto

28th of December 2003 (Sun), 23:27

aekurth wrote:
I tested the 1.4X and 2X extenders with my Canon 10D and found that the image quality with the 2X was superior to the 1.4X.

Odd. You're the only one on the planet that feels that way.

Belmondo

28th of December 2003 (Sun), 23:46

Which lens are you using, aekurth?

aekurth

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 17:22

RFMSports wrote:
aekurth wrote:
I tested the 1.4X and 2X extenders with my Canon 10D and found that the image quality with the 2X was superior to the 1.4X.

Odd. You're the only one on the planet that feels that way.

I don’t mind standing alone if I’m right.

The test is fairly easy to repeat. You will need a Canon 10D, a 600mm IS lens, 1.4X and 2X extenders, and a short extension tube to mount the 1.4 and 2X extenders together. Put the 600mm lens on a rock solid support – I used a Groofwin on concrete. Focus on a stable subject with plenty of fine detail – I used a $20 bill at about 25 feet. I took 10 shots with no extender, 10 with the 1.4 extender, 10 with the 2X extender, and 10 with the 1.4 + 2X extender. My 600mm is sharper stopped down one stop so I stopped down a stop with each combination. I had to manually focus the 2X and double extender combo. The distance between the front of my lens and my subject never varied.

I used breezebrowser to pick the sharpest shot from each of the four variations. At these focal lengths there are plenty of things that can destroy sharpness and I only wanted to find the best possible image that each could produce.

I loaded the four images into Photoshop. The 1.4 and 2X combo produced the largest image so I enlarged the other three to exactly the same size and cropped them to match. I now had four files that were of the same subject, had the same number of pixels, and could be compared side by side.

The image from the 1.4x and 2X combo had slightly more detail than the 2X image. The 2X image had more detail than the 1.4X image. The 1.4X image had more detail than the 600mm alone.

As I mentioned in my original posting, I have not been able to produce the superior quality in real life use of the 2X extender. I lose 2 stops and can no longer auto focus. My subject isn’t sitting perfectly still and air quality and wind are a factor. My tripod is not as stable as the Groofwin on concrete. The better image quality that my tests proved the 2X could produce is easily degraded by other factors to the point that the 1.4X extender is usually a better choice.

defordphoto

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 18:32

That's just weird. That goes against every test and testimonial I have ever seen/read/heard, everywhere. Not to mention that it just doesn't make sense. Have you tried that on any other lenses? Maybe that's just an idiosyncrasy with the 600?

aekurth

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 19:07

RFMSports wrote:
That's just weird. That goes against every test and testimonial I have ever seen/read/heard, everywhere. Not to mention that it just doesn't make sense. Have you tried that on any other lenses? Maybe that's just an idiosyncrasy with the 600?

I originally made this test because of a problem I had photographing an owl. It was in a tree across a swamp. Even with the 600mm and 1.4 converter, the owl only filled a small part of the frame on my 10D. There was no way to get closer and when I cropped all the unwanted detail from arond the owl, my final owl photo wasn't very good.

Afterwards I wondered what I could have done differently. I wondered if a 2X converter would have given me a photo with more feather detail. My test proved that if the resolution with the coverter was the only factor, I would have gotten a better owl image.
Less detail in the overall frame perhaps, but more detail in the owl.

If I would have tested by taking a photo with the 600mm 2X combination and than moved closer to the owl and taken the same shot with the 600mm 1.4X combination; there is no question that the 1.4X would have produced a superior image. A shorter focal length will normally produce a image with more lines of resolution per milimeter.

The part of this test that really amazed me was the combination of the 1.4X and 2X. This combo produced a little more detail than the 2X alone.

I intend to repeat this test with a EOS-3 early next year. That way I will have autofocus for the 1.4x and 2x tests and I can work with film that has more resolution than my 10D. Do you think that this test will turn out differently? Has anyone already tried it?

CyberDyneSystems

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 20:00

aekurth wrote:

I loaded the four images into Photoshop. The 1.4 and 2X combo produced the largest image so I enlarged the other three to exactly the same size and cropped them to match. I now had four files that were of the same subject, had the same number of pixels, and could be compared side by side.

Sorry,. but to me this invalidates any test,. the software has interpolated the original images making them no longer valid.

It is understood that magnigfication via lenses is superior to magnification via software interpolation.. in effect you were comparing the 600mm with both t-cons or 1680mm optical zoom against an image made with 600mm optical zoom and 1080mm's worth of "digital zoom"

After the 600mm lens image was blown up to nearly triple it's original size, of course it is not going to look very good. It has been destroyed by the re-sizing in software.

So your methodology was flawed,. thus the results that contradict not only what the common knowledge claims,. but also what optical physics in general would dictate.

Here is where i will agree with you,. it is nearly allways better to gain your magnification of a subject through lens magnification,. be it a longer telephoto,. or a T-con,. than it is to increase "magnification" via "blowing up" the image,. be it in film or digital in software.

aekurth

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 22:01

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
aekurth wrote:

I loaded the four images into Photoshop. The 1.4 and 2X combo produced the largest image so I enlarged the other three to exactly the same size and cropped them to match. I now had four files that were of the same subject, had the same number of pixels, and could be compared side by side.

Sorry,. but to me this invalidates any test,. the software has interpolated the original images making them no longer valid.

It is understood that magnigfication via lenses is superior to magnification via software interpolation.. in effect you were comparing the 600mm with both t-cons or 1680mm optical zoom against an image made with 600mm optical zoom and 1080mm's worth of "digital zoom"

After the 600mm lens image was blown up to nearly triple it's original size, of course it is not going to look very good. It has been destroyed by the re-sizing in software.

So your methodology was flawed,. thus the results that contradict not only what the common knowledge claims,. but also what optical physics in general would dictate.

Here is where i will agree with you,. it is nearly allways better to gain your magnification of a subject through lens magnification,. be it a longer telephoto,. or a T-con,. than it is to increase "magnification" via "blowing up" the image,. be it in film or digital in software.

If all the images had been viewed at the smaller size, the image taken with the most optical magnification would still have been sharper because it had more pixels and details to start with.

Apparently we both agree that superior image in my test was the image that received the most optical magnification - the one with the 1.4 and 2X extender.
We both agree on the reason - the images that were smaller (less detailed) had to be enlarged via software.

This proved to me that using a 2X extender could produce a image of better quality (more feather detail)of a subject that was too distant for my 600mm. The reason is that the 600mm shot would have to be cropped more (digitally enlarged) and the remaining pixels did not contain as much information as the less severely cropped 600mm + 2X image.

My test was conducted with a prime 600mm lens and matched extenders. I'm pretty sure that the results would not have as clear cut with a zoom. The extenders magnify any flaw in a lens and zooms tend to be less completely corrected than prime lens.

defordphoto

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 23:04

aekurth wrote:
If all the images had been viewed at the smaller size, the image taken with the most optical magnification would still have been sharper because it had more pixels and details to start with.

Okay yeah. Now I see what you are doing. For one thing, all your photos have the same number of pixels whether shooting with a 50mm lens or a 1200 mm lens with 12 TC's attached. All the photos will have exactly the same number of pixels.

Your "test" is not a test of the clarity of the 1.4 over the 2.0 or the 600mm with ot without the TC's but of optical and digital enlarging. When it comes to that, the optical will always win. And I see what you're doing in your test and I agree that you are correct, but it does not prove the 2.0 is more optically correct over the 1.4. Not at all.

msnow

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 23:21

For what it's worth (and remember I'm not really as experienced as you guys are with this) the guy at Canoga Camera told me when I was trying to decide whether to get the 1.4 or the 2x for my 70-200 f.2.8L that there was no loss of quality with either and that the ONLY difference was the 2 stops loss for the 2x. Based on that I chose the 2. Since then I've read what all of you have said but I don't have the 1.4 to compare mine with, however, so far, I am VERY satisfied with the 2.

CyberDyneSystems

29th of December 2003 (Mon), 23:43

This is an interesting discussion,. we have totally different veiws of the argumnet itself :).. and yet we do agree on some points.

aekurth wrote:

Apparently we both agree that superior image in my test was the image that received the most optical magnification - the one with the 1.4 and 2X extender.

Well,.. not really,. I agree that the image that was NOT ruined by software enlargement or interpolation would probably indeed be the better image. (of course I've seen none of the images,. but I think it is a logical assumption)

We both agree on the reason - the images that were smaller (less detailed) had to be enlarged via software.

Again,. it only proves what we allways knew,. that using software to blow up an image is inferior to using a good lens. But the image that has more inherent magnification DOES NOT necesarily equal the image that has more detail,. or that is inherently clearer,. sharper,. has better color rendention,. has less chromatic aberation, less spheric distortion...etc. etc. etc. So no,. I disagree with you here 100%,. all things being equal I think the image degradation that a 2X T-con will impose on the image of a lens will allways result in an image of inherently "less" quality then the lenses image on it's own. Image quality and magnification level are not the same.

This proved to me that using a 2X extender could produce a image of better quality (more feather detail)of a subject that was too distant for my 600mm. The reason is that the 600mm shot would have to be cropped more (digitally enlarged) and the remaining pixels did not contain as much information as the less severely cropped 600mm + 2X image.

Again, I will concur that the 2X is a better alternative in most cases (if not all) than drastic cropping and enlargement.

But,.. to my mind the question of "what is a better way to bring the subject closer",. Vs. "what group of glass lens elements will produce a clearer image" are two different questions...

Scottes

30th of December 2003 (Tue), 08:55

Ya know what? I can't afford a 600mm IS, but I can afford a 2x TC. My pictures will not be as sharp as the 600's. BUT I WILL HAVE THEM. Eventually I will learn how to get closer without disturbing wildlife. Maybe I'll win the lottery and get a 600mm. But until then I'll take pictures. And I won't care if they're not as good as pictures from the 600 because they'll be the best, sharpest pictures that I have. And I'll be happy.

defordphoto

30th of December 2003 (Tue), 12:02

The 2.0x TC is certainly not the devil reborn and is many lenses cheaper than the 600, so for the majority of us here, it is indeed the only way we'll see 600mm, magnification-factor not withstanding.

CyberDyneSystems

30th of December 2003 (Tue), 12:23

scottes wrote:
Ya know what? I can't afford a 600mm IS, but I can afford a 2x TC. My pictures will not be as sharp as the 600's. BUT I WILL HAVE THEM. Eventually I will learn how to get closer without disturbing wildlife. Maybe I'll win the lottery and get a 600mm. But until then I'll take pictures. And I won't care if they're not as good as pictures from the 600 because they'll be the best, sharpest pictures that I have. And I'll be happy.

lol!

Well said and point taken!

I'm not sure if I made this point in this particular thread,. (I seem to have been caught up in the theoretical arguments that drive those who are actually out using there cameras crazy! :D )

..but I do want you to know that I have said this dozens of times...

get the dedicated T-cons! Both of them. They are a phenomenal value at about $150.00 each for Sigmas and $250.00 each for Canon. Where else can you upgrade a 300mm lens to 600mm for only $150.00?