The old crop body vs extender debate

Would you add a 2x and/or 1.4x (all Mk3) to a 5d3 + 200L 2.0 combo or rather get a used crop body and get a 1.4x only? This is one area where I am not very experienced and need some help. I just need reach, but I don't need it uber super sharp top quality. I am not going to use this combo in wild life, it will be just for shooting for fun, planes, helicopters, buildings, things far away, nothing too exciting (mostly stuff for my little one). I obviously don't want the pictures to look like iphone pictures and a few hundred dollars here and there is not a concern. As the next best thing for me is 10 grand (400 2.8), I thought the extenders and/or crop body would give me a decent result using my 200 2.0 prime.

I did try both 1.4x and 2.0x extenders with this prime and the 1.4x was just phenomenal, it would focus instantly and produce very sharp images. 2.0x was also quite impressive, focus was very fast (WAY more than enough for what I am trying to do) and image quality was also pretty (shockingly) good.

If I don't get a crop body, I don't see myself ever getting the 1.4x because 280mm isn't really that much more than 200mm (at least not worth the trouble for putting the extender on), I would most likely get the 2x only.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16055799
Would you add a 2x and/or 1.4x (all Mk3) to a 5d3 + 200L 2.0 combo or rather get a used crop body and get a 1.4x only? This is one area where I am not very experienced and need some help. I just need reach, but I don't need it uber super sharp top quality. I am not going to use this combo in wild life, it will be just for shooting for fun, planes, helicopters, buildings, things far away, nothing too exciting (mostly stuff for my little one). I obviously don't want the pictures to look like iphone pictures and a few hundred dollars here and there is not a concern. As the next best thing for me is 10 grand (400 2.8), I thought the extenders and/or crop body would give me a decent result using my 200 2.0 prime.

I did try both 1.4x and 2.0x extenders with this prime and the 1.4x was just phenomenal, it would focus instantly and produce very sharp images. 2.0x was also quite impressive, focus was very fast (WAY more than enough for what I am trying to do) and image quality was also pretty (shockingly) good.

If I don't get a crop body, I don't see myself ever getting the 1.4x because 280mm isn't really that much more than 200mm (at least not worth the trouble for putting the extender on), I would most likely get the 2x only.

You want to use your 200 f/2 for fun? You're stronger than I am, lol.

Seriously, if you want to get a versatile lens that will amaze your little one, get the 300 f/4 IS and a 1.4xTC III. The 300 f/4 IS is small and light (fits in a pouch on your belt), has 2 stop IS (Surprisingly effective), built in hood, focuses very close (esp with tc), takes a tc well for a 420 f/5.6 and has very, very good IQ. It does have some PF at or near wide open when in high contrast lighting. I use it for my hummingbirds and am resolving feather detail at 30x45, so the IQ is more than fine for what you're describing.

Best of luck in your decision...

twoshadows wrote in post #16055840
You want to use your 200 f/2 for fun? You're stronger than I am, lol.

Seriously, if you want to get a versatile lens that will amaze your little one, get the 300 f/4 IS and a 1.4xTC III. The 300 f/4 IS is small and light (fits in a pouch on your belt), has 2 stop IS (Surprisingly effective), built in hood, focuses very close (esp with tc), takes a tc well for a 420 f/5.6 and has very, very good IQ. It does have some PF at or near wide open when in high contrast lighting. I use it for my hummingbirds and am resolving feather detail at 30x45, so the IQ is more than fine for what you're describing.

Best of luck in your decision...

That's a little expensive Whether I buy a used crop or an extender, I "could" use them with my other lenses (especially the crop), the 300 F/4 is just one lens alone AND it still requires a 1.4x converter, so that's around $1800!

In that case, yeah, a 1.4xTC (you could get away with a used mkII) for what, $300(?) and a 7d for around, what, $850? Either way, it sounds like you've already got a good idea of what you want...

twoshadows wrote in post #16055896
In that case, yeah, a 1.4xTC (you could get away with a used mkII) for what, $300(?) and a 7d for around, what, $850? Either way, it sounds like you've already got a good idea of what you want...

I don't. I am actually quite keen on 2x III. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, it's $450 only (vs $1000 like you said) and the focus/IQ was quite decent for me (and I get to use my 5d3).

Hmm...I'm all for spending less when possible. If the 2xIII is good enough for what you're doing, and it sounds like it is, then I say go for it. It would definitely simplify things. (You're corresponding with a guy who sometimes uses a decade old, $160 zoom lens professionally, lol. ) I definitely understand there are times when superior IQ and AF are not necessary, esp when you're spending quality time with the wee one.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16055799
Would you add a 2x and/or 1.4x (all Mk3) to a 5d3 + 200L 2.0 combo or rather get a used crop body and get a 1.4x only? This is one area where I am not very experienced and need some help. I just need reach, but I don't need it uber super sharp top quality. I am not going to use this combo in wild life, it will be just for shooting for fun, planes, helicopters, buildings, things far away, nothing too exciting (mostly stuff for my little one). I obviously don't want the pictures to look like iphone pictures and a few hundred dollars here and there is not a concern. As the next best thing for me is 10 grand (400 2.8), I thought the extenders and/or crop body would give me a decent result using my 200 2.0 prime.

I did try both 1.4x and 2.0x extenders with this prime and the 1.4x was just phenomenal, it would focus instantly and produce very sharp images. 2.0x was also quite impressive, focus was very fast (WAY more than enough for what I am trying to do) and image quality was also pretty (shockingly) good.

If I don't get a crop body, I don't see myself ever getting the 1.4x because 280mm isn't really that much more than 200mm (at least not worth the trouble for putting the extender on), I would most likely get the 2x only.

I posted some pictures of this some years ago.

Unfortunately there is no straight answer. The Canon Mk II and Mk III extenders cost very little image quality, and the "better" FF sensor easily makes up for it. The extenders cost - to my eyes - mainly contrast. With the 2.0x extender AF speeds goes to hell. The 1.4x is OK.

The 7D/60 sensor is of course a topic on it's own. You can discuss FF versus crop without taking the current state of affairs into account, which is that you can only get high-density, high-noise sensors in 1.6 crop.

Other aspects include that you can't regularly stack extenders, so if you go with the crop solution now you can still get the extender later. Regardless of image quality and DOF, most Canons won't AF with > f/8 so that also means you can easily get greater reach with the crop while retaining AF, or in other words, FF loses AF at shorter focal lengths.

I have come to like dragging a second body around.

uOpt wrote in post #16055921
I posted some pictures of this some years ago.

Unfortunately there is no straight answer. The Canon Mk II and Mk III extenders cost very little image quality, and the "better" FF sensor easily makes up for it. The extenders cost - to my eyes - mainly contrast. With the 2.0x extender AF speeds goes to hell. The 1.4x is OK.

The 7D/60 sensor is of course a topic on it's own. You can discuss FF versus crop without taking the current state of affairs into account, which is that you can only get high-density, high-noise sensors in 1.6 crop.

Other aspects include that you can't regularly stack extenders, so if you go with the crop solution now you can still get the extender later. Regardless of image quality and DOF, most Canons won't AF with > f/8 so that also means you can easily get greater reach with the crop while retaining AF, or in other words, FF loses AF at shorter focal lengths.

I have come to like dragging a second body around.

The AF speed with 2x III was pretty good for me with 200 2.0, it's maybe because of the lens focuses extremely fast on its own. I tried going to infinity several times and it was pretty good.

So for me it's:

5d3 + 200 2.0 x 2x III = 400 F4 (Cheaper, but maybe IQ is not as good as the below combo?)
Or
7d/Rebel + 200 2.0 x 1.4x = 448 F2.8 (A lot more expensive, cannot benefit from FF camera, noise ratio goes south, etc)

the fact that your body can AF at f8 now, kind overcomes the whole crop body pixels on target advantage...you can just add a 1.4TC and nearly make up for the difference

plus the advantages of the higher ISO in the 5D III make it the choice for me...

DreDaze wrote in post #16057187
the fact that your body can AF at f8 now, kind overcomes the whole crop body pixels on target advantage...

Ah, the old story about 'pixels on target', which does not consider the LENS' (in)ability to provide detail to the sensor!!! Let's examine the belief more closely with one of the best lenses available for the Canon, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II. First the sensor advantage...

• 50D has 213 pixels/mm
  
• 5DII has 156 pixels/mm

• using 70-200mm f/2.8L II lens at 70mm f/4 having 3719 in Center, 3381 in Border area, 3247 at Extreme edge of frame when tested with 5DII FF body.
  
• using 70-200mm f/2.8L II lens at 70mm f/4 having 2530 in Center, 2457 in Border area when tested with 50D APS-C body.

• with 5DII FF we capture 3719/24 = 155 line-pairs/mm using a sensor with 156 pixels/mm, while
  
• with 50D APS-C we capture 2530/14.9 = 170 line pairs/mm using a sensor with 213 pixels/mm.

it's easier to AF on a jet plane, when it's larger in the viewfinder...

I am very confused now. I think I can find a used 7d for 700 or so. Adding a 1.4x makes that 1k. Or I could get 2x for 400. 2.5x price difference. I just dont know if IQ will be different


PLEASE remember that I am asking about 200 2.0 NOT the zoom. Sharpness, focus is extremely good in the prime not to mention 2.0 vs 2.8 makes a big difference when its amplified.

7D all the way.

I might be completely wrong about this, but here we go:

- 5d3 vs 7D, there is about 2 full stops of difference (ISO 1600 vs 6400)
- IQ is significantly better in 5d3's advantage due to FF and better technology overall
- AF is significantly better
- I guess we can say overall 5d3 is a much better camera.

So what you are saying is, 2x extender, which brings 200 2.0 to 400 F4, even stopped down to say F5.6 or 7.1 is worse than 7d + 1.4x extender + 200 2.0, which would be effectively 448 F2.8, but with 2 stops of light, I would potentially have to still step it down to 5.6, and even then will not have the IQ of 5d3. Not to mention, it will cost me $800 + $400 vs $400.

Again, I might be wrong and most likely I am, but I am just trying to understand it.

Also, I see a lot of threads where 2x III never receives any praise. I am wondering now, how can Canon sell these with so many unhappy customers? Who are they for? If there is a lens in Canon line up that can take the 2x III, it's probably 200L no? The lens is 2.0, and 2x makes it F4, step it down 1 or even 2 stops should be decent enough?

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16058229
Also, I see a lot of threads where 2x III never receives any praise. I am wondering now, how can Canon sell these with so many unhappy customers? Who are they for? If there is a lens in Canon line up that can take the 2x III, it's probably 200L no? The lens is 2.0, and 2x makes it F4, step it down 1 or even 2 stops should be decent enough?

I have the 2X III and I love it, fast, accurate, and sharp. Shooting handheld at f5.6 with the 2X takes practice though and I get much better results when stepping it down and/or use a monopod, not the extenders's fault but usually operator error. I debated about buying the 1.4X III instead, but I am glad I went with the 2X.