Question about 1.4 vs 2.0 extenders

So I recently got myself a used 1d3, which I am using to upgrade from my 50d. Loving it so far but I do notice the lack of reach when shooting baseball. I need to get a longer lens (I have 70-200) but I've got to save my pennies for that first.

In the mean time, I'm looking at extenders. I've heard some people say the IQ from the 1.4 is superior to the IQ out of the 2.0. Is this totally accurate? I've seen great images produced with BOTH. I realize I lose a little more light (1 stop?) going to the 2.0 over the 1.4 but I'm thinking it may be worth it for the little extra reach.

Just checking the thoughts of others who have experience with them since I have none.

Thanks.

Every comparison I've seen between 1.4x and 2.0x tele-extenders has shown that the image quality is superior with the 1.4x.

The 1.4 generally has very little loss, especially used with a lens like the 70-200. But what you've heard about the 2x is true, you begin to lose some IQ plus you lose two stops of light with the 2x as opposed to the 1.4. Luckily with the 1 series body you can still maintain autofocus with the 2x where most of us lose it.

If you're going with the 1.4, the non-Canon ones (Kenko, primarily) are generally rated higher in IQ than the branded one. For 2x, the Canon one is nearly always rated higher.

Just to clarify....

You lose one stop of light when you use a 1.4X... If your lens is an f2.8, it will effectively behave as an f4 with the 1.4X teleconverter on it.

You lose two stops of light when you use a 2X... The same f2.8 lens will effectively act as an f5.6 with a 2X TC on it. Or, if you put it on an f4 lens, that would act as an f8.

Your old 50D is technically unable to focus with less than f5.6 (and then only the center AF point is supposed to work). Your 1DIII is rated to work with f8, center AF point only. Only the 1D series (and old 1V and EOS-3 film cameras) are rated for f8.

There are some workarounds... some third party teleconverters don't "report" to the camera... it doesn't know the TC is there, so it still tries to focus, and sometimes in good light can do so pretty well. Also, it's possible to tape up a couple of the electronic contacts on a teleconverter to fool the camera into trying to focus.

The less light reaching the AF point array in the camera, the slower it will focus and the more it will struggle to focus. So a 2X teleconverter also might slow focus more than a 1.4X, but both will cost a bit of focus performance, too.

Just think of teleconverters as fancy magnifiers. Higher magnification (2X) means more loss of image quality than lower magnification (1.4X).

Just how much IQ is lost depends upon lens and teleconverter. In general, prime telephotos work better with teleconverters, than zooms do. Canon recommends 135/2 and longer lenses with teleconverters, as well as their 70-200 zooms (the f4 zooms will be limited to 1.4X on most cameras). Particular combinations work better or worse.

With my 70-200/2.8 IS (Mark I), I'll use a Canon 1.4X II on it without much concern... but I won't use a 2X II... there's too much loss of IQ for my tastes. The new 70-200 Mark II and 2X Mark III are a better combo... A lot more people find the images acceptible and usable.

I really don't use the 70-200 + 1.4X much, though... since I have a couple 300mm lenses that I'd rather use since they generally give better results.

I use 1.4X II on EF 300/4 IS a lot more often. I use both 1.4X and 2X II on 300/2.8 and the 1.4X on 500/4. On rare occasions, I've used 2X on the 500mm... IQ is good, but AF dosn't work on a lot of cameras and it's damned hard to get a steady shot with what is effectively a 1000mm lens, even with IS.

There are some good third party teleconverters, too. Most who have used it and compared think the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X rivals the Canon 1.4X TCs for sharpness and image quality. The DG version slows focus more, while the latest DGX version improves on that a bit. Kenko also makes a less expensive 1.4X that doesn't offer as good image quality.

Hmm, all great info thanks!

I plan to get a longer lens (at least 300mm) but it'll take me a while to save the money. I don't make much money off shooting sports so it's hard to justify dipping into the reserves to pick something up.

I'm just looking for something which will give me a little more reach for my sons' baseball season.

Thanks again!

Another thought:
Depending on what you have (f4 or 2.8) take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f4.
It is not expensive it is very sharp and takes TC very well.

juanpafer wrote in post #15611287
Another thought:
Depending on what you have (f4 or 2.8) take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f4.
It is not expensive it is very sharp and takes TC very well.

I have f2.8. I want as large an aperture as I can get (which is still useable that is) since I shoot some baseball at night on not-so-well lit fields and have been shooting some basketball (again, not well-lit gyms). The TC is more for the outdoor sports. When shooting during the day, I'm not as concerned as there is plenty of light although the larger apertures help with my DOF.

amfoto1 wrote in post #15610690
Your old 50D is technically unable to focus with less than f/5.6 (and then only the center AF point is supposed to work).

Not at all. The 50D supports cross-type focusing with all of its nine AF points from f/5.6. That's something the 1D Mark III does not do. It will give linear focus points only at f/5.6 (at 19 selectable points in One-Shot AF), and one cross-type (center) at f/4. But then half of the center point is of high accuracy type, the other half standard.

The 1D Mark III supports this with half the center point (linear only). The new 1DX supports f/8 with five points. The same will come in the 5D Mark III later in 2013.

As a general remark, a tele-extender magnifies the image as well as all faults the lens has. Thus a 2x extender will blow up imperfections in the lens more than what a 1.4x version does. It takes a better base lens to give acceptable results when it's magnified twice.

I've got and use both the TC1.4 and TC2. They both have an effect on image quality and autofocus speed, but depending on what you are trying to do it can get good results. I've also used them "stacked" to be an effective 2.8x, but only did that on a 400 2.8 and 1D3 and used LiveView to focus. The TC2 is definitely going to have more effect on things than the TC1.4, although the TC2 III is pretty good.

What I see is that a lot of people have both, and generally use the 1.4 way more than the 2, so I'd start with the 1.4.

The 1.4x seems to really add value to the Canon eco-system; for example the 500mm/f4 + 1.4x combination is a workhorse for professional wildlife photographers. On the right lenses (L, not f5.6), it sweems to provide both a user experience and results that are equal to the best of lenses.

By comparison, I'm not sure I've ever seen the 2x discussions recieve unqualified praise. It's always a "yes but".

amfoto1 wrote in post #15610690
Just to clarify....

With my 70-200/2.8 IS (Mark I), I'll use a Canon 1.4X II on it without much concern... but I won't use a 2X II... there's too much loss of IQ for my tastes. The new 70-200 Mark II and 2X Mark III are a better combo... A lot more people find the images acceptable and usable.

I didn't find the 2x III images acceptable. I would recommend the 1.4x II or 1.4x III

I bought the 2x III for my 70-200 2.8 IS II and was not overly impressed with it. The Image degradation is still noticeable and I found that I could crop a 200mm image to match the 400mm image and get similar results.

I sold the 2x III and bought a 1.4x II and see almost no image degradation. The 1.4x II 280mm images are better than the cropped 200mm images.

Check out the The-Digital-Image.com tests for the 1.4x II vs the 2x III : http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=2

One other minor point.... The new 1.4x III and 2x III don't match the color of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II or any other lens made before 2011.

msowsun wrote in post #15612762
I didn't find the 2x III images acceptable. I would recommend the 1.4x II or 1.4x III

I bought the 2x III for my 70-200 2.8 IS II and was not overly impressed with it. The Image degradation is still noticeable and I found that I could crop a 200mm image to match the 400mm image and get similar results.

I sold the 2x III and bought a 1.4x II and see almost no image degradation. The 1.4x II 280mm images are better than the cropped 200mm images.

Check out the The-Digital-Image.com tests for the 1.4x II vs the 2x III : http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=2

One other minor point.... The new 1.4x III and 2x III don't match the color of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II or any other lens made before 2011.

Thanks. Good info to know and I'm checking out the link.

If you really want a 2x extender, get the one that comes with the 200-400 attached!

The 200-400 comes with a 1.4x not a 2x