Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Sep 2005 (Tuesday) 12:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

STICKY: -=FAQ=- Teleconverter/T-Con Tele extender Discussion

 
lauderdalems
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Oct 01, 2012 20:28 |  #526

I just checked the 24-70 and it has the 5 pins plus the additional two ones

But I also notice the 70-200 has 8 pins plus 2 additional...which is probably the reason.

Thanks for your comment


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,702 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2533
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Oct 01, 2012 20:42 |  #527

lauderdalems wrote in post #15067357 (external link)
I just checked the 24-70 and it has the 5 pins plus the additional two ones

But I also notice the 70-200 has 8 pins plus 2 additional...which is probably the reason.

Thanks for your comment

Right, my recollection was wrong...I've edited my prior post to reflect reality of pin configuration.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Oct 02, 2012 04:21 |  #528

Wilt wrote in post #15067352 (external link)
True telephoto lenses which are expected to be used with a teleconvertor have more connecting pins... a group of eight and an additional set of two (one regular size, one large size connector pin). Other lenses which Canon does not expect to be used with their teleconvertor have the group of five plus the two others. It is the extra pins which communicate the presence of a 'reporting' teleconvertor, so the body knows about the change in FL and change in f/stops available.

And the magic here is of course that the user always lose that stop. It's just a question of getting the correct information in the viewer or the EXIF data. With a non-reporting TC or with a lens without the extra connectors, the camera will just present the wrong information.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peter2516
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,302 posts
Gallery: 949 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 24287
Joined Oct 2010
Location: State of Washington
     
Nov 16, 2012 09:46 |  #529

Hi everyone don't want to start a thread so I thought maybe I will get some answer here or direct me to a link or something.

I already have a canon 1.4 x tc but I like to have some inputs about the kenko 2.0x dgx pro I am thinking of buying it and use it with my 300mm f4l. Is it worth it? I love taking pics of birds but don't have the money for 500mm 600mm lens. Does this 2.0 kenko really auto focus with enough light or brightness outside? Thanks


Peter
http://www.flickriver.​com/photos/peterbangay​an (external link)
EOS 5D Mark IV, 1Dx1, 7D Mark I & II/Canon T2i Gripped/EF 500mm f/4L IS USM MK1 / EF70-200mm f2.8L IS II USM / EF100 -400 f4.5-5.6L USM/ EFS 10-22mm/EFS 17-55mm/EFS 18-200mm/Canon 1.4x II/Canon 2x III/ 430EXII / 580EXII.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,724 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6389
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Nov 16, 2012 17:45 |  #530

Technically, with the F/4 a 2X would put you at f/8, and thus no AF.
In the past we used to use Kenkos to get around this limit and could trick the Camera into trying to AF< but mileage always varied.

If you want actual functional AF and to retain the kind of IQ you get with the 300mm with no TC, you should look for a longer lens.

The best bang for your buck if price is prohibitive, is a used SIGMA 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sotied
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Boston
     
Nov 25, 2012 16:12 as a reply to  @ CyberDyneSystems's post |  #531

I bought a Sigma 1.4x Teleconverter for my Sigma 150-500mm being used on my 7D.

I got an error every time I tried to shoot with it.

I am not looking to get AF working, MF is fine.

I also read in the included literature that the teleconverter will NOT work with my lens. The list of lenses that it works with is fairly short and includes only Canon and Sigma lenses.

Can anyone confirm that this teleconverter is useless to me - or do I need to do something like clean contacts, etc to get it working.

**The 7D was new in February 2012

**The 150-500 was new about then too.

**The teleconverter was new in August.

Thanks!

Jeff




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Nov 25, 2012 17:41 |  #532

Used a Sigma 1.4 and 2X on my 150-500 without any issues.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sotied
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Boston
     
Nov 25, 2012 19:12 |  #533

artyman wrote in post #15288269 (external link)
Used a Sigma 1.4 and 2X on my 150-500 without any issues.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Have listed it on eBay and Craigslist already based on a lot of talk about diminished IQ, but if I could get it working I'd be happy.

Is there any trick to attaching it? I've been putting it on the lens first (with lens at 150) and then I've attached the camera body to the lens.

Tried shooting with OS switch on and off.

Tried shooting with AF on and off.

Tried shooting in AV, P and M.

Get an error each time I take a shot. And each time the camera says I might need to clean the contacts. But all contacts are bright and shiny and look clean.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Jeff




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Nov 26, 2012 03:40 |  #534

Do you have another lens you can try the TC on to see if it works with that, possibly a friends.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Nov 26, 2012 09:04 |  #535

I was going to start a new thread, but thought it might be better to ask this question here as part of the larger TC discussion. Presently I have version II of the 1.4x and 2x Canon TCs. I recently upgraded to the 70-200 II. I have seen completely conflicting reports on whether I should upgrade to the III TCs to get acceptable quality with the 70-200 II when extended. Some say the benefits of the III TCs are only visible in the new Super Telephoto II lenses. Some say there are night and day differences even with a 70-200 and so absolutely upgrade from II to III TCs. Having spent a lot to get quality lenses and body, I am certainly willing to spend another couple hundred bucks to get the III TCs, but would rather not if there will be near zero effect on the output. Any concrete conclusion on this based on experience here?

As a side note, my goal here is to avoid adding a 100-400 to the bag, and I do understand the AF speed I give up vs. the 100-400.


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,409 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 463
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Nov 28, 2012 02:13 |  #536

convergent wrote in post #15290667 (external link)
Presently I have version II of the 1.4x and 2x Canon TCs. I recently upgraded to the 70-200 II. I have seen completely conflicting reports on whether I should upgrade to the III TCs to get acceptable quality with the 70-200 II when extended.

No personal experience, but you may find the following useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=6​&APIComp=0 (external link)

The focal length drop-down contains 280mm and 400mm twice (for the 1.4x II / 2.0x II vs 1.4x III / 2.0x III).


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Nov 28, 2012 12:07 |  #537

sploo wrote in post #15298629 (external link)
No personal experience, but you may find the following useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=6​&APIComp=0 (external link)

The focal length drop-down contains 280mm and 400mm twice (for the 1.4x II / 2.0x II vs 1.4x III / 2.0x III).

Thanks for explaining that... I had tried that site before and didn't get how to compare. Its funny that based on the charts there the 1.4x II looks slightly better to my eye than the 1.4x III. I'm sure that's sample variation, and probably means the two are virtually the same. I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 2x II, and these images affirm that decision. Looking at some of the other 400mm alternatives (100-400, 400 primes, 50-500, etc.), the 70-200 II + TC2x III looks dang good at 400 in comparison. I fondly miss my 400 2.8 when looking at these charts, but think I'll be happy with this combo in leu of adding a 100-400 to my kit. I think I'd benefit much more in adding a 7D vs. adding a 100-400, since at the long end I'm going to be in good light outdoors.


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,409 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 463
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Nov 28, 2012 12:37 |  #538

convergent wrote in post #15300207 (external link)
Thanks for explaining that... I had tried that site before and didn't get how to compare.

No problem.

Some later reading of a few other threads/sites seemed to point in the direction that the difference between the 1.4x II and III is pretty small, that it is probably sample variation / testing issues on the DP site, and that if you have the II it's probably not worth getting the III.

For the 2x, apparently the III is a step up from the II. I have a fleeting interest in a 70-200 f2.8L II with a 2x TC for the rare occasions I'm really needing the reach. Apparently it's then a bit worse than a 100-400L at 400mm, so acceptable, but probably for occasional use only.

I should probably just bite the bullet on the 70-200 and hire the 1.4x and 2x TCs to try them out...


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
convergent
Goldmember
Avatar
2,211 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Nov 28, 2012 15:57 |  #539

sploo wrote in post #15300328 (external link)
No problem.

Some later reading of a few other threads/sites seemed to point in the direction that the difference between the 1.4x II and III is pretty small, that it is probably sample variation / testing issues on the DP site, and that if you have the II it's probably not worth getting the III.

For the 2x, apparently the III is a step up from the II. I have a fleeting interest in a 70-200 f2.8L II with a 2x TC for the rare occasions I'm really needing the reach. Apparently it's then a bit worse than a 100-400L at 400mm, so acceptable, but probably for occasional use only.

I should probably just bite the bullet on the 70-200 and hire the 1.4x and 2x TCs to try them out...

Stunning image with the combo in this thread. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1003363


Mike - Victory Photo (external link) | Full Gear List | Feedback
5D3 gripped - 7D2 gripped - 17-40L f/4 - 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - 24-70L f/2.8 II - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II - 100-400 L f/4.6-5.6 IS II
135L f/2 - 300L f/2.8 IS - Siggy 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 100 f/2.8 Macro - TC1.4 II - TC2 III - (2) 600EX-RT - ST-E3-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,409 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 463
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Nov 30, 2012 04:08 |  #540

convergent wrote in post #15301178 (external link)
Stunning image with the combo in this thread. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1003363

Nice. Thanks.

From some testing I did, I noticed that a 70-200 f4L IS shot taken at 200mm, then cropped and zoomed up in Photoshop to match an image taken at 300mm was sharper than an image taken at 300mm on a Tamron 70-300 VC. This was pretty much true for all apertures.

Granted, it's an unfair comparison, given the relative costs of the two lenses, but it does make me wonder at what point pixel zooming would be better than a TC. I.e. I've seen reports that would indicate a 70-200 f2.8L IS II + 1.4x TC is better than no TC + pixel zooming, but I wondering if that lens + 1.4x TC + pixel zooming might be better than the lens with a 2x TC. Guess I could test it if I got the lens and hired the TCs, but it'd be interesting to know if someone has already tried this out.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

306,271 views & 1 like for this thread
-=FAQ=- Teleconverter/T-Con Tele extender Discussion
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is faster3ck
1893 guests, 333 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.