135mm 2.0L + 2x Tcon

Im looking to add a little more reach to my lineup.

The easiest and cheapest way for me would be to add a 2x teleconverter to the lineup.

What about the kenko 2x + 135L. On my crop that makes 430mm FOV f/4
I think the image quality will stay still very good since the 135L is a very sharp lens.

Will that work well with AF?

And will the MFD change after that?

The MFD will increase by the physical length of the teleconverter.

Whether you'll be happy with the IQ using a 2x is really down to personal acceptance.

Bob

It won't be quite as sharp as a 200mm 2.8 with a 1.4X, and sharpest of all would be the 300mm f4. As Bob said, only you can say if you'll like the results. Yes, the 135mm is a very sharp lens, but you're asking a lot from any lens when you ask it to perform well with a 2X.

What Bob said. I think you will also want to use support with that combination much of the time.

Canon Bob wrote in post #16134017
The MFD will increase by the physical length of the teleconverter.

Whether you'll be happy with the IQ using a 2x is really down to personal acceptance.

Bob

So the MM increases too, thats great

Hmm so a longer lens with 1.4 or a supertele will do better...

davidfarina wrote in post #16134049
So the MM increases too, thats great

Hmm so a longer lens with 1.4 or a supertele will do better...

I think you missed the point Bob was making on the MFD. The MFD does not change with a TC. Ok it does, by the the couple inches (the length of the TC moves the lens a couple of inches forward).

And yes it will do better with a 1.4X than a 2X, and all good super teles will do better than the 135L with a 2X TC.

jimewall wrote in post #16134128
I think you missed the point Bob was making on the MFD. The MFD does not change with a TC. Ok it does, by the the couple inches (the length of the TC moves the lens a couple of inches forward).

Yes, for clarity......
The minimum distance from the end of the lens to the subject (the working distance) remains the same. The minimum distance from the sensor plane to the subject (minimum focus distance) will increase by the physical length of the extender/teleconverter​.

Bob

Canon Bob wrote in post #16134156
Yes, for clarity......
The minimum distance from the end of the lens to the subject (the working distance) remains the same. The minimum distance from the sensor plane to the subject (minimum focus distance) will increase by the physical length of the extender/teleconverter​.

Bob

Yes i understood it still right haha

The MFD is then MFD+length of the TC because the lenses are now farer away from sensor plane.

Thought i dont need to know that then if you guys dont recommend me that ill better save up for an affordable tele

If it were me, I would just get the Kenko MC4 1.4 TC and then add a Tammy 70-300 VC. 2x TCs give up too much IQ from what I have seen. Or just save up for a 70-200L or 70-300L.

FEChariot wrote in post #16134717
If it were me, I would just get the Kenko MC4 1.4 TC and then add a Tammy 70-300 VC. 2x TCs give up too much IQ from what I have seen. Or just save up for a 70-200L or 70-300L.

Ibe heard only good things about the 100-400L despite the one touch zoom.

davidfarina wrote in post #16135349
Ibe heard only good things about the 100-400L despite the one touch zoom.

The IQ is pretty darn good. The thing I don't like is how you have to hold the lens at 400mm while still gripping the zoom ring. It puts it so far away from your body that you can't tuck your elbow into your ribs to help stabilize it like you can with most other lenses that size and smaller. That combined with the already weak 2 stop IS puts a damper on its hand holdablility. I can hold a simular sized 70-200/2.8 much more steady.

FEChariot wrote in post #16135390
The IQ is pretty darn good. The thing I don't like is how you have to hold the lens at 400mm while still gripping the zoom ring. It puts it so far away from your body that you can't tuck your elbow into your ribs to help stabilize it like you can with most other lenses that size and smaller. That combined with the already weak 2 stop IS puts a damper on its hand holdablility. I can hold a simular sized 70-200/2.8 much more steady.

Thanks for the input. I dont know its more the wannaa have factor which males me think like that. I dont think id use a long lens that much as im much more the street and people photographer. A long lens would be nice to have but anyway not affordable at the time since i bought a 50mm 1.2 :S

davidfarina wrote in post #16135565
Thanks for the input. I dont know its more the wannaa have factor which males me think like that. I dont think id use a long lens that much as im much more the street and people photographer. A long lens would be nice to have but anyway not affordable at the time since i bought a 50mm 1.2 :S

I still think the Kenko 1.4 MC4 @ $150 which would give you 189/2.8 and Tamron 70-300 VC would give you a lot of bang for the buck and still not make you feel too guilty if they only saw occasional use. I really wish I used my 70-200 more becuase the results are awesome but at an equivalent 112mm on crop, my needs are limited at least with my kids at their current ages.

FEChariot wrote in post #16135758
I still think the Kenko 1.4 MC4 @ $150 which would give you 189/2.8 and Tamron 70-300 VC would give you a lot of bang for the buck and still not make you feel too guilty if they only saw occasional use. I really wish I used my 70-200 more becuase the results are awesome but at an equivalent 112mm on crop, my needs are limited at least with my kids at their current ages.

Damn its only 400$ :O

You devil make me wanna spent all my money :P

Just joking but thanks for the recommendation ill reead some reviews and look if its my next lens maybe