Extenders

Hi Guys,

Just a quick one really.

I shoot with a 70-200 f4 Non IS. Before the racing season starts again I'm looking at an extender on a budget which leaves me looking at the Kenko 1.4 Pro 300.

Do anyone use this? I how does it perform in fast moving action? I'm choosing the 1.4 purely so I can keep the AF.

Thanks

The Kenko is poor compared to the Canon—been there, done that. I know there's a big price difference, but sometimes the II-series can be had on ebay for less than half the price of the III-series, and the difference between the two Canons is negligible compared to the difference between the Canons and the Kenko.

On the other hand, the Kenko Extension Tubes are outstanding. But they don't have any glass.

Buy the Canon model. Reading test, the 1.4 has pretty good IQ over the 2.0..... I had a 2.0 and while I had fun with it.....the IQ wasn't the best on my 28-300L, wide open in daylight.

Definitely go for the 1.4X TC from Canon. It will be worth it. Although I own one I would skip the 2X TC as the lose of contrast, saturation and IQ is simply not worth it.

Thanks chaps,

Looks like ill have to save an extra few pennies and just muscle my way in closer to the track for now...

Do yourself a favor, don't use extenders. They will soften your images. If you have a compelling need for one, buy a Canon unit, and not a grey market one.

lusospeed wrote in post #15475420
Do yourself a favor, don't use extenders. They will soften your images. If you have a compelling need for one, buy a Canon unit, and not a grey market one.

I would say never use a 2X unless you are desperate and really need the reach. The loss of IQ, Contrast and Saturation is just not worth it. However a 1.4X TC with say a 300mm f/2.8L or 400 f/2.8L is an awesome combo. Most would never be able to tell the difference.

I sold both my 1.4x and 2.0x II Canon extenders a long time ago. The 1.4x extender was better than the 2.0x but even with the 1.4x image quality did suffer in a number of ways regardless of whether it was on a 70-200 f/2.8, a 600mm f/4.0, or something in between. In many circumstances the average person would not see any degradation of the images shot with the 1.4x II converter but in my experience there was always some quality loss. I'm not saying that an extender shouldn't be used in any circumstances. If you need the extra reach and can't afford longer lenses then buy the Canon extender. If you can afford a longer lens that is always a better way to go.

Agreed. General popular wouldn't be able to tell. I think it is worth it as I cannot afford a 400 and 500 just yet but need the reach from time to time so I carry the 1.4x with me.

If you do this for a living, one of the key things should be the quality of your images. Anything that degrades the quality of your images, degrades the quality of your work. If you know that something weakens your ability to do the best absolute work, in my opinion, it is pointless to continue using it. Beyond that, I can't recommend the use of extenders when someone asks based on previous experiences. You can't expect a piece that costs a few hundreds bucks to do as good a job as something that costs a few thousand. If they did, we would all be using them. I understand the economics involved, and not everyone is able to drop money on the best equipment as it rolls out, however, as I mentioned before, if you do this for a living, you understand the importance of the gear, and its limitations.

I shoot motorsports, yet rarely need anything longer than my 70-200. I'm not going to spend thousands on a lens I'll use maybe four or five times a year. So yeah, while extenders are not the best solution, they do have their place.

Tessa wrote in post #15477927
I shoot motorsports, yet rarely need anything longer than my 70-200. I'm not going to spend thousands on a lens I'll use maybe four or five times a year. So yeah, while extenders are not the best solution, they do have their place.

Where are you shooting? At more than half the tracks in the US, and most of them on the Grand-Am/ALMS, schedule you need something else. 300, 400 or 500mm. There is a stop at COTA this year for both series. 500mm is going to be required.

I have a Canon 1.4x, it works great for me. Sure, you lose some image quality, but I find it's much better than trying to crop when you're a little on the short end of the spectrum. It does suck if you're shooting past dusk, and I tend to remove the extender during those times, but luckily, that's usually towards the end of the events.

I would NOT suggest going cheap with lenses or extenders. I have had some Sigma lenses in the past, and while they worked alright on lower end bodies, as my photography progressed and I upgraded to higher quality bodies, the flaws became more and more apparent. I now have all Canon gear, and am much happier with the final product.

Tessa wrote in post #15477927
I shoot motorsports, yet rarely need anything longer than my 70-200. I'm not going to spend thousands on a lens I'll use maybe four or five times a year. So yeah, while extenders are not the best solution, they do have their place.

I shoot 10 or so events a year, and I'd say I use my extender at 6 of the 10.

dinanm3atl wrote in post #15483213
Where are you shooting? At more than half the tracks in the US, and most of them on the Grand-Am/ALMS, schedule you need something else. 300, 400 or 500mm. There is a stop at COTA this year for both series. 500mm is going to be required.

I rarely shoot track racing - that's the only place I need something longer. I mostly shoot rally, rallycross, go-karts and other similar events, where 70-200 is perfect. For track stuff, yes, at least 400 mm is usually needed.

JacobPhoto wrote in post #15483259
I shoot 10 or so events a year, and I'd say I use my extender at 6 of the 10.

I go to about 45 events per year, with about 5 needing the extender.

That makes sense. Access and close proximity in those events mean you might not need the reach. I will say however the compression from a longer lens adds something to photos.