EF 1.4 or 2X converter

I fully understand the main difference between the two being a half versus a full stop of light LOSS but why go for a 1.4 converter over the 2X for anything but dull conditions. One shop has quoted the price the same for both... One other question IF I EVENTUALLY HAVE A 16-35 2.8 , 24-70 2.8, (I HAVE A NEW 70-200 2.8) A 2x CONVERTER AND MAYBE A 50MM 1.4 I WOULD HAVE COVERED EVERY AVENUE? i DO PHOTOGRAPHY FOR A LIVING (NEWLY STARTED.. SO I WANT TO GET THE EQUIPMENT (THE LEAST AMOUNT OF GREAT LENSES ) THAT WOULD COVER MOST JOB OPPORTUNTIES! ANY HELP OR SUGGESTIONS PLEASE.

The advantage of the 1.4x over the 2x if nothing else is image quality. I have both and the 1.4x has little effect on image quality, but the 2x noticeably degrads the image quality. Then there is the fact that the 2x is manual focus with almost all lenses and the 1.4 will still let you auto-focus most lenses. Add the f-stop loss and there is a very good reason to have the 1.4x. having both is even better since I found you can connect them together for even more focal length (although only one will register in the exif data).

at max range the 2x will provide more detail then the 1.4x if you magnified an object to the same scale, but the image itself will not be as good. The two together also provide more detail at even less quality. The concept if more detail, but less quality is hard to explain.

I have an example of scale, but not quality available at
http://www.longwatcher​.com/camera_test.html

As to lenses,
You will eventually need the following for EVERYTHING
- 100-400L (for that extra range zoom)
- 50mm Macro with the life size converter (for that 1:1 shot)
- 15mm fisheye (for a bit more width and fisheye when you get the FF sensor)
- 600mm Prime (for even more range)
- TS-E 45/2.8 (actually I have no clue what you use these things for except to change perspective, which I can do in photoshop now, but they have 3 different types so they must be important)
and then finish off the collection with of course the 1200mm (just to attract other photographers who will think you work for Sports Illistrated)

a reality note for a moment: You have a good set of lenses planned that will cover about 95% of the situations you will encounter (except wildlife). The only ones I might add would be the 100-400, so you can avoid the extenders more often (I also use it a lot at minimum range for flower shots) and maybe the 85/1.8.
Don't maybe the 50/1.4 though. You will need it's low light capability at some time.

Also it should be noted that I like the 28-135 for traveling. Good range, fairly good quality and best of all light.

Just my opinion,

Hi,

I bought a Soligor 2x extender last week over the internet I was planning on also buying a 1.4x extender.

I allready accounted for the 2x by choice of lenses, a Sigma 70-210 f2.8 and a Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 both will keep autofocus when using the 2x extender.

I have not bought the 1.4x extender, and will try to explain why.

When I want the extra zoom, the 2x extender almost gives me everything I want, but I would like to get even closer sometimes, the 1.4x extender was hardly anymore close on the a 200mm lens than without the extender (offcourse it's closer but not as much as I need).

My shooting varies between in and arround the house mainly a 28-105 is used and is more than enough.

Sport, the 210 will be enough in my case (we sit next to the soccer field).

Zoo's, this is were I will need MORE zoompower than the 210, the 1.4x extender will bring everything a bit closer but not enough so the 2x extender is the way to go there for me. I know of the tradeoff's in quality but with that kind of shots a little trade off in sharpness is acceptable.

I did some testing with a 25-105 Canon f3.5-4.5 and must honestly admit that when both shot from a tripod on a sunny day the 2x extender shot was on my monitor not much softer than the standard shot, a little tweak in my sharpening workflow fixed it to a very narrow margin.

Maybe if I can get a very good deal on a 1.4x extender on-line used I will add it to my case just in case, but for the moment I will go with the 2x.

I must honestly admit that with a canon EF 75-300 f4.6-5.6 it was horrible, the results were VERY VERY soft (even on tripod) and autofocus would not work on the long end.

Greetings,
Frank