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 Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 01 Oct 2018 (Monday) 11:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1.4 or 2.0 Extender

 
kevanpelt
Member
36 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2013
     
Oct 01, 2018 11:48 |  #1

I’m just a mom who enjoys taking photos of sports. Specifically my son who plays football. I shoot with a 1Ds and sometimes my 7D. I have a 70-200 f2.8 lens I use almost all the time. I shoot from the stands for the most part. I can’t decide which extender to buy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CCapps
Member
62 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Aug 2017
     
Oct 01, 2018 13:31 |  #2

My preference is the 1.4. I don't like losing the 2 stops of light with the 2.0. Plus you've already got the crop factor on the 7D, so with the 70-200 and a 1.4 you should have good reach even from the stands.


Canon 70D Gripped - Canon 7D Gripped - Tamron 28-75 2.8 - Canon 85 1.8 - Canon 70-200 2.8 - Canon 300 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,324 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 5894
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Oct 01, 2018 13:47 |  #3

The 2X tends to be a bad fit to zooms of any sort. I'd also recommend sticking with the 1.4x


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,351 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1383
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 01, 2018 13:58 |  #4

The 2x is going to take your f/2.8 down to an f/5.6, anyway; so, if you *really* need that extra reach, you're going to be better served swapping out to the Sigma 150-600 C. If you're just trying to get a *little* more reach, the 1.4 is certainly your better option.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
duckster
Senior Member
381 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Likes: 340
Joined May 2017
     
Oct 01, 2018 22:27 |  #5

Are the games day or night games?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,398 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4905
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. (13 edits in all)
     
Oct 02, 2018 06:47 |  #6

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18720089 (external link)
The 2X tends to be a bad fit to zooms of any sort. I'd also recommend sticking with the 1.4x

Shh, my gear didn't get that message, and I don't want them to hear that. :)

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Carroll-Events/CHS-Football-and-Marching-Band-Sept-14/i-tBFMdX4/0/9eb63c73/X3/FX8A1625-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Carroll-Events/CHS-Football-and-Marching-Band-Sept-14/i-pqV7FwQ/0/a18c5927/X3/FX8A1696-X3.jpg

kevanpelt wrote in post #18720001 (external link)
I’m just a mom who enjoys taking photos of sports. Specifically my son who plays football. I shoot with a 1Ds and sometimes my 7D. I have a 70-200 f2.8 lens I use almost all the time. I shoot from the stands for the most part. I can’t decide which extender to buy.

Some points to bring up as I shoot HS football once in a while using zooms, crops and TCs.

1) One tends to shoot at high ISO for games. A 2x will raise that ISO 2 more stops, a 1.4x will raise your ISO 1 stop. Unless you like the noise or know how to deal with it well, this can be an issue.

2) A 1.4x from the stands isn't much of a gain, but it impacts your images less (noise from higher ISO and TC aberrations). The difference is much like you just moving to the front rows of the stands if you normally sit higher up.

3) A 1.4x on the 70-200 with the 1DS is pretty much like shooting the lens by itself on the 7D, you will get about the same "reach".

4) If you get a 1.4x, you don't need the Canon version, the Kenko Pro 1.4x is very, very good and more versatile with more lenses. If you get a 2x, you will have to get the Canon MKIII. This means there is a pretty significant savings in getting the 1.4x.

5) If you put a 2x on the 70-200, you are at f5.6. You might want to consider just getting a slower long lens for better results, like the Tamron 100-400. The IQ will likely be a bit better perhaps. Or find a Sigma 50-500 OS, or a Sigma 150-600... Any one of these 3 will do great if you can keep the ISO at 6400 or less, and if you go with 500mm or 600mm, you reach optical levels you cannot achieve with the 70-200 with a 2x, while at the same basic exposure penalty. If you are going to go 2x, you might as well get more reach for that effort!

The answer really depends on what your ISO levels are now on the 7D. If you are able to tell what you are normally shooting at now, it will help determine whether you can go aggressive with the 2x or stay with a 1.4x. If you decide on the 2x, then I think a new lens might better personally.

Now regarding the 1.4x decision... Newer cameras are substantially better at high ISO and resolution. If there is any way you can get a newer camera, it would be like getting a built-in 1.4x due to resolution without any penalty. For example, an 80D yields almost 40% more total resolution, but comes with a better AF system and better ISO management. If you go with a 1.4x, I wonder if a newer camera wouldn't be a better choice for a number of reasons. The 7D is pretty good in its time, I could shoot ISO 6400 all the time with it, 12800 when needed, but it required some good post processing techniques.

Here is my 7D with a Sigma 50-500 OS at ISO 6400 from the stands, to show an example of my past...

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/HS-Football/i-bLMWt8V/0/a39cc2ed/X3/IMG_9568-X3.jpg

I think this is a better result than a 70-200 with a 2x on it, but I had a Kenko 2x back then and the Canon MKIII is better now.

This was at 12800, but isn't for the faint of heart...

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/HS-Football/i-rk2h7jv/0/fa47b1f1/X3/IMG_9593-X3.jpg

I tend to stay with the older Kenko 1.4x which are harder to find, they don't have issues with lenses at all, where newer TCs might. $100 for a used one is a good deal.
https://www.amazon.com …9cbf9e5689&lang​uage=en_US (external link)

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,574 posts
Likes: 319
Joined Jan 2010
Post edited 4 months ago by John Sheehy.
     
Oct 02, 2018 08:18 |  #7

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18720638 (external link)
Shh, my gear didn't get that message, and I don't want them to hear that. :)

At only f/5.6, I think that the potential can be there. One would have to give the AF a test drive in limited light to see what the AF potential is with the OP's camera. In my outlook, AF ability is the main factor in deciding whether or not a TC is useful.

Some points to bring up as I shoot HS football once in a while using zooms, crops and TCs.

1) One tends to shoot at high ISO for games. A 2x will raise that ISO 2 more stops, a 1.4x will raise your ISO 1 stop. Unless you like the noise or know how to deal with it well, this can be an issue.

It's not an issue at all, IMO, provided that you are using the TC to avoid cropping. A higher ISO due to higher magnification is not an increase in subject-level noise, and likely an improvement in noise character. IMO, the higher ISO argument against TCs is myth, provided you are using the TC in lieu of cropping. If you back the 70-200 out to 200mm ("100mm" on the lens barrel) with the 2x TC on instead of using 200mm without the TC, then you are actually losing subject-level SNR, as you would also do if you stepped further back to fit something in the frame instead of removing the TC. In any given light and distance from the subject, it's really about the size of your entrance pupil (the max is unchanged by a TC, but drastically reduced when zooming out), and the shutter speed.

The answer really depends on what your ISO levels are now on the 7D. If you are able to tell what you are normally shooting at now, it will help determine whether you can go aggressive with the 2x or stay with a 1.4x. If you decide on the 2x, then I think a new lens might better personally.

Again, I would disagree here. Higher ISO due to higher magnification is actually neutral to beneficial, at the subject level. It is certainly damaging to 100% pixel views of bokeh, but that is not practically relevant.

Now regarding the 1.4x decision... Newer cameras are substantially better at high ISO and resolution. If there is any way you can get a newer camera, it would be like getting a built-in 1.4x due to resolution without any penalty. For example, an 80D yields almost 40% more total resolution,

That's only 1.158x the linear resolution; a bit short of a 1.4x TC.

but comes with a better AF system and better ISO management. If you go with a 1.4x, I wonder if a newer camera wouldn't be a better choice for a number of reasons. The 7D is pretty good in its time, I could shoot ISO 6400 all the time with it, 12800 when needed, but it required some good post processing techniques.

As long as the 7D is what is used, it is still AF ability alone, IMO, which should determine TC usability. I never worried about ISO going up on my 7D because of a TC, or any camera. As much as it is hard to believe looking at 100% pixel views, the higher ISO and magnification gives a better subject-normalized capture.

People need to stop thinking about increased ISO due to TCs in terms similar to raising the ISO while lowering the light levels, or unnecessarily doubling shutter speed. The light is *NOT* lost with a TC; it is just spread wider on the sensor plane. Higher ISOs generally add *less* noise than lower ones to a given amount of subject light, and higher magnification makes the AA filter and CFA patterns *finer* and less intrusive on subject-normalized detail.

Again, loss of AF is the *only* reason I would choose cropping over a TC. A quality TC, of course, with minimal haloing and added veiling glare.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,398 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4905
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited 4 months ago by TeamSpeed. (21 edits in all)
     
Oct 02, 2018 08:55 as a reply to  @ John Sheehy's post |  #8

All great technical info, but let's step down from the engineering podium for a minute, and let's consider the audience. I am a parent of a child playing football. My gear gives kids playing around on a field and my son is barely recognizable. I want more reach. Therefore, I can go with 2 different types of TCs. I probably rarely crop out and cut my photos down because the results are most likely already not great when I do that, I don't have time to do that, or I don't know how to do that the best way. Either the 1DS with its lack of resolution or the 7D's very aggressive AA filter that obliterates detail, especially with something like the 70-200 MKI version, aren't giving me what I desire.

If I ask which TC to go with, it would be nice to know that either my shutter speed drops 1 stop for the 1.4x or ISO goes up 1 stop for the 1.4x, and 2 for the 2x. If I don't like my current ISO performance (because there is a huge copy variance with the 7D, and not all know how to combat the noise), then I likely would like to know if the IQ is going to suffer and by how much. Also the 70-200 MKI (assuming the MKI given the age of the other gear and lack of notation in the OP), adding a 1.4x or 2x will likely make the image visually worse too.

I, as a parent, would like to know what the possibilities are to make a better assessment. So my results could suffer a bit for 2 reasons when I get a TC. Either shutter speeds drop and I get motion blur, or I raise the ISO, with possible impacts that come with that. Yes, I get a nicely magnified result, but that doesn't always equate to "better", sometimes it might. The other reason is that an okay 70-200 f2.8 lens is likely going to look worse with either of these options, again the intensity depends on the magnification and brand and version of TC used.

Some parents would then like to know alternatives to using a TC. The alternative is to get more modern higher resolution cameras, or get a lens that is as long, if not longer, at the same basic fstop one would be at anyways with a TC. I agree that a TC (quality one) provides more benefit than disadvantages though. Then again, perhaps a longer lens would be better just because "that" lens could produce a better quality image than the ol' 70-200 with a 2x on it.

Knowing that the cameras are a 1DS3 and a 7D, I can see the dilemma in deciding what to do. I think a longer slower lens is probably the best answer here. The 1DS3 is about 1 stop better than the 7D and better detail rendering, but doesn't have the pixels on target.

People need to stop thinking about increased ISO due to TCs in terms similar to raising the ISO while lowering the light levels, or unnecessarily doubling shutter speed. The light is *NOT* lost with a TC; it is just spread wider on the sensor plane. Higher ISOs generally add *less* noise than lower ones to a given amount of subject light, and higher magnification makes the AA filter and CFA patterns *finer* and less intrusive on subject-normalized detail.

If your exposure is lower by 1 stop with a 1.4x, where nothing was changed in the exposure triangle, then you indeed have lost 1 stop of light, regardless of the technical reason why (lost light, smaller aperture, whatever). Your comment here really confuses me. Shoot, you can even see the lower light level in the optical viewfinder. However, I never said light was lost, I simply stated there is an exposure effect that will require changing ISO to compensate which is a TRUE statement. We can argue the virtues, or deficiencies, of the raised ISO results however on a different day. :) I think we are both in agreement that a cropped image is worse than an optically enhanced image using a TC, we have shown that so many times in the crop vs FF+TC threads.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,044 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 271
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 05, 2018 14:56 |  #9

I haven't used a TC in years. In the past, the focus speed issue at high school games was a deal breaker. Not sure how much that has changed. Second question, any mtf charts out there that show how a 70-200 performs with TCs attached?

The other bigger issue is the reality of trying to get shots from the stands, with anything. It's just not ideal at all, ever. Has the original poster gone to the school to see if she can shoot for the school... and thereby getting better access and provides a service to the school as well? That's whet I do. My youngest plays ball.... I provide the school about 100 images, and they let me get great shots of my kid.

I tire of these discussion about how equipment will fix the problem. Its access to the subject. You can spend thousands on equipment but a 7D shot from the sidelines will always produce better shots. A noiseless poorly composed shot is worth less than a noisy well taken shot. Just my opinion. Invest your time, not your money.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevanpelt
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2013
     
Oct 05, 2018 15:35 |  #10

Wow, so much information. For me, it’s like reading my manual, going back and re-reading to understand. I wish I could be on the field to take pictures but from what I understand, only certain people can be on the field. I want these photos for my memories and my kids. I just want to get better and better and truly understand all this lingo and how things work. I just switched back to my 7D the other night and my pictures were way better. The lighting situation was the same as all games. I think my custom functions in the 1ds aren’t set up right. Once I get to ISO of 2000, I normally put the camera up. I don’t do any post processing other than cropping some.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JonKline
Member
Avatar
198 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Chicago and Milwaukee, USA
Post edited 4 months ago by JonKline.
     
Oct 05, 2018 15:46 as a reply to  @ kevanpelt's post |  #11

Outside the box suggestions:

You could rent a fast telephoto for a weekend. You'd get a chance to get your photo album shots and not have a lens that sits on the shelf 50 weeks of the year.

Also, bet you could get a lot closer to the action during practice/scrimmage. And there is likely to be a lot more repeated, predictable action, giving you the chance to take the "same" shot more than once, experimenting with different settings.

In general, I find two stops is a huge sacrifice to make on any lens, so the 2.0x has never been for me.


Cinematographer Chicago (external link) | Milwaukee camera, lighting & grip (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Sony FS7 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,499 posts
Gallery: 100 photos
Likes: 3190
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 07, 2018 04:06 |  #12

I think there is a much higher chance of you using the 1.4 compared to the 2X.
If you get the 1.4 you may use it a lot and wonder if you should have got the 2X. You may just use it occasionally.
If you get the 2X it is more likely you will use it infrequently or not at all.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,044 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 271
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 08, 2018 22:05 as a reply to  @ kevanpelt's post |  #13

About getting field level access - Ask... you might be surprised by the answer. Or you might be disappointed. But you will never know if you don't ask.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

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

3,284 views & 3 likes for this thread
1.4 or 2.0 Extender
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
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 phaneendra
449 guests, 411 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.