A couple of "L" lens questions

[Whaler]

Okay, I admit it I'm a confessed "L" lens whore. With that said, is there any degredation in quality when using the 1.4x teleconverter on the 70-200 f4. In the old days teleconverters were a no no. Also, is the tripod ring for said lens a safety precaution to protect the body or lens or just for vertical shooting.

In advance thanx

[Canuck]

Okay, I admit it I'm a confessed "L" lens whore. With that said, is there any degredation in quality when using the 1.4x teleconverter on the 70-200 f4. In the old days teleconverters were a no no. Also, is the tripod ring for said lens a safety precaution to protect the body or lens or just for vertical shooting.

In advance thanx

Ok, L glass 101:
I would think there would be a slight, probably not noticable degradation using a TC, however there are L glass TCs out there. The bridge has been gapped, it seems.

The ring on there is so when you mount a large lensyou mount the lens to the tripod and the camera to the lens. Think about it...would you use the one on the 10D/300D/Big Ed if you had a monster lens on there like the 5 1/2 pound Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX or larger? Nope! You would have the lens bear the weight of the camera, not the camera bear the weight of the lens. You can do this with small lenses, but not large/monster lenses.

Speaking of L glass convertors, check this out: http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langI d=-1&productId=31571&topCategory=1004&cat1=1022&cat2= 914962
I know, I can hear this...I know, RitzCamera, yadda yadda. It is for the example only. It seems that B&H doesn't carry it. I am surprised!

[Scottes]

Since the 1.4 TC has more glass elements there will be some degradation. From what I've heard it's still very acceptable. I've been happy with mine on my 70-200 f/2.8 L, but haven't done any tests.

Note that you will only be able to autofocus using the center AF point with this combo.

IMHO the tripod ring is for safety - it will balance the rig on a tripod better with less chance of the rig being front-heavy. It's not a necessity, but the lack of a tripod ring helped steer me towards the 2.8. However, I would not use the camera mount with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC - I feel this setup would be far too off-balance. Get a ring if you're getting both.

I *believe* that it's not supposed to be used for vertical shooting - that is, I thought I saw someone mention that Canon does not support the turning of the lens inside the ring. IMHO this is completely stupid and I will turn the lens to vertical if I wish.

[Scottes]

It is for the example only. It seems that B&H doesn't carry it.

Strange. It looks like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220456&is=USA, except for the color and the lack of "II". Oh, the price too - $280 at B&H vs $430 at Ritz.

Yet Canon's site, and my 1.4 TC, have the right color and the "II"

I think that Ritz is trying to pull a fast one.... But please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Coolmax]

I was just reading about this yesterday, there is a bit of degredation even when using the TC II. This article was posted in another message that I think read yesterday:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

It offers a good comparison of a 100-400mm vs a 70-200 with TC.

The article does use the 2x converter and not the 1.4x converter that you're inquiring about, but I think it presents a general idea of the worst to expect.

[mrwickham]

I would agree - Ritz's looks a little iffy. According to Canon USA there is no such thing as an "L" 1.4 extender. Try this and then select from the drop down menu.
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html

B&H, B&H - why looks elsewhere online? I''ve got this extender in my B&H wish list. This is the perfect match for the 70-200 2.8 or F4 L user who only needs the occasional length. This on a 10D gives you nearly 450mm!

Other points - Only losing one stop on my 70-200 2.8 L is important. The amount of shots I will be taking at this length makes it $200 odd well spent. The smaller size and weight compared to the 2X is appreciated. Another lens (ie. 100-400L) not to carry around. Another $1000 saved not buying that L lens, less the amount of grief from the wife on why I need another lens - priceless.[/url]

[Scottes]

This is the perfect match for the 70-200 2.8 or F4 L user who only needs the occasional length. This on a 10D gives you nearly 450mm!

With the f/4 model you lose all AF, with the 2.8 you still get AF but only on the center AF point.

70-200 + 2x TC + 10D = 224mm-640mm equiv.

But if you can't afford the $1400 100-400, well, it's a no-brainer!

[Andrea_T]

I've used the 1.4x II with a 70-200mm f4L and there was very little degradation at all. They are well-matched.

[Canuck]

It is for the example only. It seems that B&H doesn't carry it.

Strange. It looks like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220456&is=USA, except for the color and the lack of "II". Oh, the price too - $280 at B&H vs $430 at Ritz.

Yet Canon's site, and my 1.4 TC, have the right color and the "II"

I think that Ritz is trying to pull a fast one.... But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree, Ritz is pulling a fast one, it was for illustration purposes. I sit (LOL) corrected. I saw it there. I was looking up APO convertors rather than convertors. I was wrong.

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=4668

Just have to know where to look ! :)

[Canuck]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=4668

Just have to know where to look ! :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and open my eyes too, I'd imagine...:)

[kafene]

I *believe* that it's not supposed to be used for vertical shooting - that is, I thought I saw someone mention that Canon does not support the turning of the lens inside the ring. IMHO this is completely stupid and I will turn the lens to vertical if I wish.

I just bought the 70-200 f4L and the instruction manual says that you just loosen the mount ring to turn the camera and re-tighten. I don't think they'd put that in the instructions if it wasn't recommended.

kafene.

[Phil Hall]

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and use both the 1.4x and 2.0 extenders, both give acceptable results. You can also stack both together but the results are not very satisfactory. I think the extenders give better results than enlarging the picture. I will try some experiments next week.

[G3]

Since the 1.4 TC has more glass elements there will be some degradation. From what I've heard it's still very acceptable. I've been happy with mine on my 70-200 f/2.8 L, but haven't done any tests.

Note that you will only be able to autofocus using the center AF point with this combo.

IMHO the tripod ring is for safety - it will balance the rig on a tripod better with less chance of the rig being front-heavy. It's not a necessity, but the lack of a tripod ring helped steer me towards the 2.8. However, I would not use the camera mount with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC - I feel this setup would be far too off-balance. Get a ring if you're getting both.

I *believe* that it's not supposed to be used for vertical shooting - that is, I thought I saw someone mention that Canon does not support the turning of the lens inside the ring. IMHO this is completely stupid and I will turn the lens to vertical if I wish.



Here's a little goodie that might help with vertical shots.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=52783&is=REG& si=feat#goto_itemInfo