Canon 2X extender, how bad is it?

[Toogy]

I recently won an auction on ebay for a 1.4X Canon Extender but they shipped me a 2X Extender.
Would there be any reason for me to want to keep the 2X Extender?
It is for a 70-200 F4 so I realize I would lose Auto Focus.
I can't imagine there would be any reason for me to want to keep it, just wondering if there are any reasons that I may be un-aware of for why I might want to keep it.

[Anders Östberg]

My opinion is that the 2x extender is really only good on the best primes. On a zoom like your 70-200/4 I think the 1.4x performs OK, but not the 2x. Return it...

[mbze430]

I use alot of the 2x on my 180mm and I still think its sharp.

[Anders Östberg]

Yes, I'm not saying the 2x is not good, just that it is much better on primes than on zooms.

[Belmondo]

I agree with FretNoMore. I have both and found the 2X to be really marginal when using it with my 70-200 f/2.8 or the 100-400. No problems with the 1.4X.

When I bought the 300 f/2.8, though, I found the 2X worked quite well. I still wouldn't call it 'tack sharp,' but it works more like you'd hope.

[Toogy]

This is what they shipped me

http://www.digitaliso.ca/IMG_2203.jpg

I didn't even realize it at first, until the autofocus didn't work, and then I took a closer look :)

[Anders Östberg]

That's the older (first generation) 2x extender, the newer one has a "2x II" on it, and looks a bit different.

[Citizensmith]

Before you send it back you should really make sure it was an honest mistake and not a bait and switch of some kind. The two are very different sizes, it'd be hard to mistake them.

[Toogy]

I'm hoping it's not, the seller on ebay has a BUNCH of positive feedback and deals in used camera equipment, I just hope it was an honest mistake.

[Toogy]

I just did a search on ebay and they were selling a 2X Extender at the same time. I bet they shipped that guy a 1.4X Extender in a 2X box by mistake.
Anybody buy an extender from Columbuscameragroup on ebay? :)

[Tapeman]

I have the 1.4x MKII and 2x MkII and use both with my 70- 200 2.8 L. I may have an exceptionally good copy of the 2x, but I am very happy with the performance of both extenders.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Toogy,. what did you pay?

I only ask because it might be worth keeping if the price was right ;)
Though I very rarely will use the 2X,. I have both. It is handy at times.

[mr.photoguy]

lol .. what about selling it on ebay for a profit.. lol...
hahaha... okok I will shut up..

[Toogy]

In my research it looks like the 1.4X extender actually sells for more on ebay than the 2X Extender.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... especially the "Mk I 2X" ,. yes you are correct.

The MkII version of the 2X improves on the optics considerably,. thus the mk1 2X has the lowest value of all four. You really should get your 1.4X in return unless you got it for a steal,. which is unlikely.

The Mk1 1.4X on the other hand is optically identical to the newer version. The only differnce being the weather sealing. So the Mk1 1.4X still commands a decent price..

thus the likelihood is that you have overpayed for that 2X. :(

[Toogy]

I hope to get it all worked out. Haven't heard back from the seller yet.

[rdenney]

I hope to get it all worked out. Haven't heard back from the seller yet.

Columbus Camera Group has been around a long time. You might call them on the phone--I'll bet they have an ad in the photo mags.

Rick "who hasn't done business with them but who has seen their ads for years" Denney

[dito]

get the 1.4...2x = soft focus

[raylks]

Get back your 1.4x. It is better than 2x and in your case, only 1.4x can enable autofocus with your lens in non-1 series camera with acceptable image quality.

[PaulB]

There is NOTHING wrong with the quality of the 2x Extender - believe me!
However this guy bought a 1.4x and should get back to the vendor and get his 2x changed to what he wanted, bought and paid for.
And yes the 1.4x will AF on the 70-200/4L but putting a 2x on it means it won't, but the image quality won't turn to mush either.

[chrisvw]

I am getting my new Canon 2x Mk2 Extender tomorrow for my 300 f/2.8. If I get a chance I will post some shots.

[raylks]

I think 2x teleconverter shall only be used on prime instead of zoom. Only the sharpest lens can turn out acceptably sharp image when using 2x teleconverter.

Chrisvw, anticipate your testing shots.

[vkalia]

Here's a sample shot, take with the 500/4 and the 2X TC. Braced on a car window, even. I'm plenty happy with the quality of the 2x TC.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3262072

Vandit

[Moccatino]

Please will someone tell me the answer to this question?
I have a Canon 100-300mm and a sigma 18-55 and 50-200. Will a converter work with the different lenses? I do hope so

I have just got the 350D. I know theis is a bit adventerous for a biginner but I'm an optimist!

[LightRules]

Please will someone tell me the answer to this question?
I have a Canon 100-300mm and a sigma 18-55 and 50-200. Will a converter work with the different lenses? I do hope so

I have just got the 350D. I know theis is a bit adventerous for a biginner but I'm an optimist!

I wouldn't use any TC on those lenses even if the TC does physically fit. Just a word of advice.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I bet they shipped that guy a 1.4X Extender in a 2X box by mistake. :)

Hmm..if I'm looking at this picture right..and I like to think I am...that's a 2x extender with a 1.4x box. Quite the opposite! Straaange.

[Jon]

Please will someone tell me the answer to this question?
I have a Canon 100-300mm and a sigma 18-55 and 50-200. Will a converter work with the different lenses? I do hope so

I have just got the 350D. I know theis is a bit adventerous for a biginner but I'm an optimist!
Canon's and Sigma's TCs will not fit on any of those lenses. Some other vendors' TCs may, but I wouldn't even hint at thinking about using one on the two Sigmas you listed.

[Wilt]

They shipped you the 2x, not the 2x II convertor which has new optics (the 1.4x and 1.4x II have the same optics), so be sure your solicitation for evaluation is based on the correct version of the 2x convertor!

[ajz]

Here http://ajz01.myphotoalbum.com/ you find examples of the 70-200 2,8 L IS and the 200 2,8 L each with the 2x II also in full size.

The quality is acceptable but of course cannot be compared to a 400 L or a 100-400 L at 400 mm.

Rdgs
Andreas

[Tapeman]

I love my 2xMkII and use it lots more than my 1.4 MkII n my 70-200 2.8L. If you have a good copy, keep it.

[JakeC]

Here http://ajz01.myphotoalbum.com/ you find examples of the 70-200 2,8 L IS and the 200 2,8 L each with the 2x II also in full size.

The quality is acceptable but of course cannot be compared to a 400 L or a 100-400 L at 400 mm.

Rdgs
Andreas

Thanks Andreas, samples are great.

In your opinion how do you find the the 200 vs the 70-200 @ 200, which lens performs the best with the 2x. I'm interested in the 200 2.8 but people have said it isn't as good with TC's as the other L primes.

[JakeC]

Hope you don't mind Andreas but I processed that first sample and @ F10 the quality is pretty good I think, it's almost sold me on the 200 2.8 and 2x. Even if the 2x doesn't perform I could always swap it for a 1.4x and be happy with 280mm.

[ajz]

Thanks Andreas, samples are great.

In your opinion how do you find the the 200 vs the 70-200 @ 200, which lens performs the best with the 2x. I'm interested in the 200 2.8 but people have said it isn't as good with TC's as the other L primes.

My experience is limited to the use of the 2x with the above lenses. If you look at the pictures of the church you will see that there is no noticeable difference between the 200 and the 70-200. Both lenses improve considerably with the 2x when stopped down to f8.

I saw pretty good pictures with the 135 2 L and the 2x TK in another forum.

[kenyc]

I agree with FretNoMore. I have both and found the 2X to be really marginal when using it with my 70-200 f/2.8 or the 100-400. No problems with the 1.4X.

When I bought the 300 f/2.8, though, I found the 2X worked quite well. I still wouldn't call it 'tack sharp,' but it works more like you'd hope.

I agree completely. I bought the Sigma 2x with my 70-200L 2.8 and I find it relatively useless. I have taken a few shots that came out good, but for the most part is has just frustrated me. Maybe I'll try the 1.4, but more likely I'll just buy a longer zoom in the near future.

KAC

[ajz]

Hope you don't mind Andreas but I processed that first sample and @ F10 the quality is pretty good I think, it's almost sold me on the 200 2.8 and 2x. Even if the 2x doesn't perform I could always swap it for a 1.4x and be happy with 280mm.

Well, in another (German) forum this picture was not regarded as impressive. Depends on what you want. With the 200 2.8 and the 2 x TK II you get a very good 200 mm and an acceptable 400 m for not much money and with not much weight to carry around. Please bear in mind that 400 mm without IS stopped down to f8 or 10 require either good weather or a tripod.

[busterboy]

When I bought the 300 f/2.8, though, I found the 2X worked quite well. I still wouldn't call it 'tack sharp,' but it works more like you'd hope.



Well I have the 300 f/2.8 and the 2X extender and found nothing wrong with the sharpness on my shots..

Check out the exif on this example shot at 600mm..:)


http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/testers@600mm/sheephead.jpg

[grego]

Only one I have on hand at the moment uploaded, but here's a sample with Canon's 2x II.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/CRW_6600.jpg

[malla1962]

Send it back.:D

[Toogy]

Wow, didn't realize this post was still going on, I have returned it for a refund a long time ago

[Kiddpsychotic]

Hello all

I have been reading these post for a long time, but have never posted a pic here is a shot using a Canon 2x II teleconverter with a Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS Lens, I normally used only a Canon 1.4x II teleconverter with my 300, but since I have been reading all the post where different individuals on this forum touted the 2x II, I decided to try one myself.


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p147/Kiddpsychotic/Copyof0CDQ1190.jpg


Harry :p