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 12 Mar 2018 (Monday) 02:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Extenders, are they worth it?

 
sploo
premature adulation
2,382 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 453
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 26, 2018 17:10 |  #46

fiebru1119 wrote in post #18594535 (external link)
I've never had a use for a TC (or anything past 200mm) but with an up coming trip overseas I decided to get a 2X III and to get a different perspective on landscapes and such at 400mm. I'll report back in a few weeks if I find out anything earth shattering.

It should work fine with the 70-200II. Wide open the combo will be f/5.6, and I do find that stopping down to f/8 makes quite a difference with the sharpness. AF performance (on a 5D3 and 5D4) hasn't caused me any problems, so a 1Dx should be fine too.

Remember that the TC+lens is a different optical system than just the bare lens, so it's very advisable to MFA the pair on your body.


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)
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,487 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 286
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Mar 26, 2018 19:53 |  #47

Yongnuo 2x with the EF 70-200 L II


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


100% crop


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Stopped down from f5.6 to f6.3 (by mistake...)

Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Milutiche
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
819 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 242
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
     
Mar 28, 2018 00:03 as a reply to  @ post 18594236 |  #48

Yeah I take a 7d2 and a 70-200 also so I'm covered for close shots


www.actionimages.net.n​z
Gear List
Sports Photos on Facebook (external link)
Sports Photos on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,942 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 352
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Apr 14, 2018 23:27 as a reply to  @ post 18583356 |  #49

rarely am I happy with a TC. I guess it comes down to expectations or threshold for pain. usually cropping works better for me or crop camera. I will use my 1.4 III with 80d and 100-400L II for shooting the moon tho.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,477 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3113
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 14, 2018 23:59 |  #50

.
In my extensive experience, both the 1.4 and 2.0 tele-extenders work great with my 400 f2.8, but they suck on my 100-400 v2 and they sucked even worse on my 100-400 v1 and on any other zoom lens I have ever tried them with.

They're made to work best with the really big long super-expensive primes. . That's really what they're for.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,524 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4401
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Apr 15, 2018 06:53 |  #51

1) Extenders on a lens need to be separately micro adjusted for focus over just the bare lens.
2) Extenders and zooms are good for in cases where someone might want a crop body for reach vs using a good 1.4x TC on their FF. If they can give up a stop of light, often a FF with a 1.4x will yield nearly identical IQ to that of the newer APS-C results.
3) There are many that have greater expectations of their images at the pixel level than others, so again the use of a 1.4x may or may not be good.
4) A 2x is good in cases of great light with a zoom like the 70-200 2.8 IS, to get 400mm reach.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,858 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2220
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 7 months ago by Wilt. (7 edits in all)
     
Apr 15, 2018 13:12 |  #52

ed rader wrote in post #18607067 (external link)
rarely am I happy with a TC. I guess it comes down to expectations or threshold for pain. usually cropping works better for me or crop camera. I will use my 1.4 III with 80d and 100-400L II for shooting the moon tho.

I will voice a counter opinion to above, that it all depends upon WHICH LENS is being used with the telextender. For many years photozone.de did testing of Canon 70-200mm zooms in various incarnations, with and without 1.4x telextender, and published MTF ratings for the tests. What they found was that the Canon 70-200mm zooms all performed remarkably well with the 1.4x telextender, and the MTF values for 200mm vs. 200mm+1.4x only fell by about -10%. Considering that pixel zoom (cropping) to achieve 40% increase in subject size in frame was -40% in pixel count (in one direction) vs. the -10% loss of detail resolution via optical magnification increase, the 1.4x telextender was a good trade-off compared to pixel zooming.

Nearly a decade ago, I did some tests of my own to look at subjective differences, and found that subjectively one could not 'see' a loss of 10% in detail resolution. I altered camera position to keep the subject size the same from shot to shot, and these are CROPS of the full area of the frame, and these shots were posted on POTN previously:

Canon 70-200mm at 200mm FL...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_4497.jpg

Canon 1.4x on 70-200...
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_4496.jpg

Canon 1.4x and Kenko 1.4x stackedteleconvertors on 70-200
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_4495.jpg


Some lenses, like the 100-400mm old version have been shown to suffer with the simple addition of a FILTER, which is why I point out the results vary by lens.

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
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,658 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 246
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Apr 17, 2018 19:19 |  #53

I already wrote about the TC’s in other threads, but I will repeat. I never liked the 100-400L II with the 1.4x TC III on my 7D2. Something was amiss, I was never happy with the sharpness no matter how I MFA’d it. I now rarely take the TC off when using with the 5D4, it is a great combo.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,762 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Likes: 1374
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
     
Apr 19, 2018 06:27 |  #54

Lbsimon wrote in post #18608818 (external link)
I already wrote about the TC’s in other threads, but I will repeat. I never liked the 100-400L II with the 1.4x TC III on my 7D2. Something was amiss, I was never happy with the sharpness no matter how I MFA’d it. I now rarely take the TC off when using with the 5D4, it is a great combo.

I've have to try my 1.4X TC with my 1D X2. I wasn't happy using it with either the 7D2 or my 1D IV. The images were always just that tiny bit soft, lacking in feather detail in particular. Trying to get to somewhere near 600mm is one of my current goals.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
2,108 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 181
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Apr 21, 2018 23:51 |  #55

I’ll agree that it depends a lot on which lens you’re using it with... especially the 2x TC’s (I have the Canon 2x III). It’s acceptable with my 70-200 II, but with the 300 2.8 IS it’s much better. The 1.4x seems much more forgiving than the 2x, which is why I tend to use it a lot more.


GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fordmondeo
Goldmember
1,048 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 227
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Portsmouth England
     
Apr 30, 2018 09:28 |  #56

Lbsimon wrote in post #18608818 (external link)
I already wrote about the TC’s in other threads, but I will repeat. I never liked the 100-400L II with the 1.4x TC III on my 7D2. Something was amiss, I was never happy with the sharpness no matter how I MFA’d it. I now rarely take the TC off when using with the 5D4, it is a great combo.

I found the same thing re 7d2 + 1.4X + 100-400. On the other hand, 7d2 + 1.4X + 70-200 2.8 is very good indeed.


Vaginator9000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,370 posts
Likes: 263
Joined Jan 2010
     
Apr 30, 2018 10:57 |  #57

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18584345 (external link)
You didn't offend anyone, but the info you supplied (pertinent to you) wasn't very pertinent to the individual that posted the question or others that are reading this thread or replying to the OP, thus the comments.

This site has a good reference table of what cameras have f8 and how it is managed. The 7D2 has center plus assist points, the 1DX only the center... for example. One has to remember that a 1.4x reduces the light by 1 stop (so f4 now produces f5.6 equivalent light) and a 2x reduces the light by 2 stops (so f4 produces f8 equivalent light). I only supply this for those that are reading this thread trying to figure out whether a TC is good for them as well.

That has no practical detriment to noise, though, which is what a lot of people miss. The 2x makes AF more difficult or impossible, because f-ratios can have very serious direct consequences in AF. Quadrupling the ambient light intensity will not prevent the decline in AF due to using a 2x TC; this f-ratio is very real here in a geometrical sense, as it is not just about brightness on the AF sensor. In the noise department, there is no detriment and possibly benefit from cranking up the ISO to maintain shutter speed because of a TC.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fordmondeo
Goldmember
1,048 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 227
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Portsmouth England
     
Apr 30, 2018 13:03 |  #58

John Sheehy wrote in post #18616670 (external link)
That has no practical detriment to noise, though, which is what a lot of people miss. The 2x makes AF more difficult or impossible, because f-ratios can have very serious direct consequences in AF. Quadrupling the ambient light intensity will not prevent the decline in AF due to using a 2x TC; this f-ratio is very real here in a geometrical sense, as it is not just about brightness on the AF sensor. In the noise department, there is no detriment and possibly benefit from cranking up the ISO to maintain shutter speed because of a TC.

?????

Any way you can simplify that for me?

That's way beyond my technical understanding of the world.


Vaginator9000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,382 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 453
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 30, 2018 18:01 |  #59

fordmondeo wrote in post #18616750 (external link)
?????

Any way you can simplify that for me?

That's way beyond my technical understanding of the world.

John has a habit of doing that; I think he's a bit too smart for the rest of us ;-)a (that's intended as a compliment by the way, not an insult)

My layman's understanding of the f-ratio/AF issue is that phase AF relies on seeing two versions of the image (one from each side of the aperture) and then trying to align them in order to achieve focus. The larger the aperture (smaller f-ratio value; e.g. f/2.8 instead of f/5.6) the greater the distance between the two sides, and the easier it is for phase AF to work. A larger f-ratio (e.g. f/11) results in a smaller physical aperture size, and that means a smaller difference between the two images, and therefore phase AF is harder. More light from the scene won't solve that problem (though may help in situations where things are borderline due to light/contrast problems).

By noise I'm guessing that John may be hinting that a TC + higher ISO may result in less subject noise than no TC + lower ISO + digitally cropping the image. A TC will result in a subject covering more of the sensor area (and therefore more pixels); so the downsides of the TC may be offset by the lack of need to crop and therefore further enlarge a smaller area of the sensor.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,858 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2220
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 01, 2018 18:53 |  #60

fordmondeo wrote in post #18616750 (external link)
?????

Any way you can simplify that for me?

That's way beyond my technical understanding of the world.

Let me try to help...a telextender changes the f/stop of the light that the lens transmits, but more importantly it changes the characteristics of the light striking the sensor -- beyond simply 'light intensity'.
Think of this... focusing a lens at f/2 is different (easier) than focusing the lens accurately and with precision at f/4. Yet the AF sensor has no real problem changing between ambient light intensity of EV0 vs. ambient light intensity of EV2, which is 4X the amount of light.


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

15,919 views & 19 likes for this thread
Extenders, are they worth it?
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 HCH
773 guests, 385 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.