Help with 70-200

f/4 L USM can someone recommend a teleconverter for this?

I have the Canon 1.4 teleconverter ver 2 and it works quite well with the 70-200.

cwcanon wrote in post #16888206
I have the Canon 1.4 teleconverter ver 2 and it works quite well with the 70-200.

Thank you that helps

I've read that the 1.4 works well with the f4, but the 2.0 does not

Because you lose a stop with a 1.4 and 2 stops with the 2x the 1.4 makes more sense. You can retain autofocus with non 1 series bodies with the 1.4, but add the 2x and you lose the ability to autofocus. (unless you tape the pins). You also take a hit in IQ. I have and enjoy the 1.4 II canon, but I hear good things about the Kenko Pro.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16888405
Because you lose a stop with a 1.4 and 2 stops with the 2x the 1.4 makes more sense. You can retain autofocus with non 1 series bodies with the 1.4, but add the 2x and you lose the ability to autofocus. (unless you tape the pins). You also take a hit in IQ. I have and enjoy the 1.4 II canon, but I hear good things about the Kenko Pro.

I've been reading about that doing research today. I'm leaning strongly with that Kenko Pro. Thanks......

cwcanon wrote in post #16888206
I have the Canon 1.4 teleconverter ver 2 and it works quite well with the 70-200.

I do also. While it only takes it up to 280mm, the image quality doesn't appear to lose anything. On a crop body, it gives the equivalent reach of 448 mm, and that's not bad for most uses. The f5.6 is a bit limiting, but with the good IS it's still okay for most daylight use.

Preeb wrote in post #16888740
The f5.6 is a bit limiting, but with the good IS it's still okay for most daylight use.

At 448mm f5.6 with the 70-200 + 1.4x converter still OK (on Crop), How about the 100-400L at 400mm being f5.6 or the prime 400 f5.6. It seems each option shows the same specs (400mm f5.6), it would be interesting to see an actual comparison of shots from these systems.

I would assume the 400 f5.6 would win out; with the 100-400L still a bit ahead of the 1.4x converter on the 70-200. My 70-200 f4 IS will be in tomorrow, I imagine I should acquire a 1.4x converter and try it out!

Lumens wrote in post #16888809
At 448mm f5.6 with the 70-200 + 1.4x converter still OK (on Crop), How about the 100-400L at 400mm being f5.6 or the prime 400 f5.6. It seems each option shows the same specs (400mm f5.6), it would be interesting to see an actual comparison of shots from these systems.

I would assume the 400 f5.6 would win out; with the 100-400L still a bit ahead of the 1.4x converter on the 70-200. My 70-200 f4 IS will be in tomorrow, I imagine I should acquire a 1.4x converter and try it out!

If you want to get the occasional bit of reach a converter is nice. But if you need more on a regular basis get the lens that goes there in its native format. I have the 70-200F4 IS and the 1.4 and it was nice, but its nowhere near the results I get from the 100-400. And also, forget the crop/FF length comparisons. The crop doesnt make the 200 and the 1.4 448. it makes it 280. The only time you add the crop factor into the equation is if you are comparing it to a full frame camera.

"but I hear good things about the Kenko Pro."

The 1.4 works fine for me.

"The only time you add the crop factor into the equation is if you are comparing it to a full frame camera."

As I understand it, it's field of view that's compared

hrblaine wrote in post #16888921
"The only time you add the crop factor into the equation is if you are comparing it to a full frame camera."

As I understand it, it's field of view that's compared

Yes focal length is Constant field of view is what changes but you risk being a pedantic schmuck if you point it out without adding anything else useful.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16889010
Yes focal length is Constant field of view is what changes but you risk being a pedantic schmuck if you point it out without adding anything else useful.

However you do gain "reach" with the crop format over the same lens on FF. It's for that reason that the comparison is so often included in these discussions. One of the first things a person discovers when going from crop to FF is that he has to have a lot more lens for wildlife. This is in part why so many wildlife and sports photographers use the 7D. Nothing changes in the optics, but the subject is going to fill more of the sensor.

Marco315 wrote in post #16888126
f/4 L USM can someone recommend a teleconverter for this?

Heya,

For cost, and the image quality, the Kenko PRO 300 series, 1.4x. You will retain autofocus. If you use a 2.0x, you lose autofocus and image quality takes another hit.

But you're only gaining 80mm on the long end.

What are you shooting?

Very best,

Preeb wrote in post #16889468
However you do gain "reach" with the crop format over the same lens on FF. It's for that reason that the comparison is so often included in these discussions. One of the first things a person discovers when going from crop to FF is that he has to have a lot more lens for wildlife. This is in part why so many wildlife and sports photographers use the 7D. Nothing changes in the optics, but the subject is going to fill more of the sensor.

Yes, and thats been beaten to death. But in this discussion there was no talk of FF but someone decided to add the crop factor to make a lens seem even longer when the FF equivalent didnt matter as the body was a crop.