1.4 vs. 2.0 Extender for the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS L

[Thirdcatgy]

Hi,

I was interested in purchasing an extender and would like to obviously get the 2.0 if possible, however had read that images might get a little too soft at that length even with the IS?

Was hoping to get some experiences on this. Is the image such that USM cannot correct in full?

Thanks in advance,

Billy

[Boosting1Bar]

While I have no personal experience with it, I have a good friend who I shoot with a lot who uses the 2.0/70-200 combination and he repeatedly says that there is no problem with it. His pictures look superb and I'll probably end up buying both as well.

[Belmondo]

Apparently not everyone has had the same experience, so I'd really suggest that you try it before spending any of your hard-earned money. People get consistently better results with the 1.4XTC than with the 2.0X but it may not be enough magnification for you. Don't forget, you'll lose two full f-stops with the 2X, and that equates directly into slower shutter speeds which could affect your photos.

My own experience with the 2.0X TC has been perceptibly softer images. Your mileage may vary.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just to be precise.. Both will function with the lens in question,, both will allow AF and both will not effect the IS function.


I own both.. and use used them regularly with the 70-200mm IS.. but I find the 1.4X to be a much better companion to the lens. The difference with the 1.4X to my eye was barely perceptible... where as the 2X was significant.

The degree to which this will effect any ones use fo the 2X is too much a matter of opinion .. as Belmondo mentions.. it did not stop me from the 2X when I wanted a 400mm IS lens.. but I knew I was making a perceptable compromise.

(I say "was" because I rarely use any T-con on the 70-200mm now that I have the 100-400mm)

[SkipD]

I am going to re-ask the thread title question, but I am looking for your comparisons specifically involving the two currently-available (as new) extender models, the Extender EF 1.4x II and the Extender EF 2x II, and preferably with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM stuck on the front of each.

I currently have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as my longest lens and can't afford longer L glass at this time. By the same token, I don't want to be disappointed with the 2X extender if the images are likely to be noticeably inferior to those with the 1.4X extender. If the difference with the newer extender models is negligible, then prudence (for my purposes) says that the 2X extender alone would be my best choice today.

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

[Longwatcher]

My experience, (reference: all Canon optics)

I rarely if ever notice any significant difference in quality between 1.4x II on 70-200/2.8L IS and without it. If I pixel peep at 100% I can find the difference, but I am a trained imagery analyst, that is easy for me.

When I use the 2x II on the 70-200/2.8L IS, the effect is noticeable, but I find it quite acceptable. However, the images are not as good as my 100-400L without.

When used together 1.4x and 2x, the image is highly degraded, but in the cases where I use it, it is better then nothing. I usually only try on 100-400 though I have tried on 70-200 a couple of times.

So 1.4x II, little if any visible degredation
2x II noticeable, but not too much. The 2x actually does worse on the 100-400 from my experience then on the 70-200/2.8L IS

If you don't have the 100-400, both the 1.4x and the 2x II are a good buy, even if you plan to get the 100-400 later (like 6 months or more).

Just my experience and opinion.

[raylks]

The 1.4x converter degrades only very slightly the image quality but the 2.0x is estimated to degrade image quality by around 20%. I prefer 1.4x to 2.0x converter. If you need long reach, I suggest buying telephoto lens of the intended focal length.

[Rokkorfan]

I have both the 1.4x II and the 2x II. I have used the 1.4x for a while with both my 70-200mm and 300mm, and results have been great. I recently bought the 2x to use with my 300mm, and out of interest , I tried it with the 70-200mm. Images were unacceptably soft for my purposes. Yes they were still contrasty and the image may be OK to some people, but it's not up to my standards and I would never use it again. Sharper results would possibly be achievable with the f/1.4 and minor upsizing.

If you refer to these attachments you will see the full original image plus a crop at 100% taken from right where the active focus point was. This lens is sharp as a tack without the 2x.

Cheers,

Antony

[SkipD]

Thanks to all of you who responded. I think I will get the 1.4 for now and see if I really need/want much more. Then, if I can justify it (if it seems that I will be doing a lot of wildlife work), I'll work on getting permission from the better half to get a 400 or better down the road. That could take some work, however, as I just spent nearly $7K on the new system.

It's all about expanding the hobby for now, but having done part time pro work in the distant past, I'm looking into using photography as a part-time income producer after retirement in a few years. I need to get better at the digital part of it. Learning the finer points of Photoshop, for example, will take some time.

Again, many thanks.

[MarkH]

With the 1.4x TC it spreads the light thinner and you get 1 stop less light (f4 instead of f2.8) this can affect the high precision focus mode for the centre AF point (which only uses high precision mode with a lens that is f2.8 or faster). This depends on whether the camera has a high precision mode.

With a 1.4x TC you will lose quality, but if your lens is very sharp (the lens in question is famous for being very sharp) you will probably find it difficult to notice the quality loss.

With the 2x TC you lose 2 stops of light (f2.8 becomes f5.6) and lose more quality. With a sharp lens you will still get a good photo, expecially stopped down a bit. The trouble is that when you have a 70-200 f2.8 IS you get spoiled by the sharpness of the lens, with the 2x TC you notice that you get results that are visibly softer. If you show the pictures taken with the 2x TC to someone that is not familiar with the results from that lens then they are likely to think the shots are fine. It is really the side-by-side comparisons that show the softness, the pics by themselves are usually acceptable for most purposes.

Warning:
If you print 20x30 or crop and enlarge, you may want all the sharpness you can get. The 2x TC matters less for uncropped 4x6 photos.

[dito]

If I were you I would not buy the Ultra Lens softener, oops, I meant 2xTC, and just go with the 1.4xTC. It IS NOTICABLY softer. Personal experience, as stated before, the 70-200 + 1.4TC is hardly any degradation in quality. On the other hand I am completely dissatisfied with the 2x and only keep it to play with on occasion on the 600mm.