Telephoto Extenders.....question

I have the Canon 2.0 extender and have used it on my 70-200 mm, Canon L series, f2.8 lense.

I'm just not happy with the results I'm getting. I cannot get the sharpness or ease of focusing on in flight bird shots that I can with the 100-400 mm, f5.6, L series lense. When I compare the results of these two lenses, the 100-400 really seems to produce highter quality pictures than the 70-200 (with 2X extender). According to the sales people at the camera shop.....I shouldn't really be able to see much of a difference between the two.

I have seen pics posted on the Bird Forum that were shot with a Canon 300 mm L series lense that really looked great. They were shot with a 2X extender. Do the extenders produce considerably better results with prime lenses (rather than zoom lenses)? If so, is there a particular lense that seems to consistantly produce the best results with the Canon tele-extenders? I can't help but wonder if the lack of sharpness is due to something I'm doing wrong?

The general concensus around here seems to be to stick with the 1.4x extenders. The 2x seems to degrade image quality too much.

Not a good combo and will render slow AF and so-so IQ.

This is no surprise, really.

Again, no surprise.

They lied.

Probably the 300f2.8IS. This is one of the few lenses that can take a 2xTC and deliver very good IQ. But of course, you pay for it.

See answer right above. Few lenses can take a 2xTC very well. And these lenses cost a "lotta dolla bill".

Don't be so hard on yourself. It's probably the TC doin' it to you.

Lame-Duck wrote in post #2010138
I have the Canon 2.0 extender and have used it on my 70-200 mm, Canon L series, f2.8 lense.

I'm just not happy with the results I'm getting. I cannot get the sharpness or ease of focusing on in flight bird shots that I can with the 100-400 mm, f5.6, L series lense. When I compare the results of these two lenses, the 100-400 really seems to produce highter quality pictures than the 70-200 (with 2X extender). According to the sales people at the camera shop.....I shouldn't really be able to see much of a difference between the two.

I have seen pics posted on the Bird Forum that were shot with a Canon 300 mm L series lense that really looked great. They were shot with a 2X extender. Do the extenders produce considerably better results with prime lenses (rather than zoom lenses)? If so, is there a particular lense that seems to consistantly produce the best results with the Canon tele-extenders? I can't help but wonder if the lack of sharpness is due to something I'm doing wrong?

As a general rule limit yourself to 1.4XTC on lenses such as the 70-200. The 300 2.8 takes the 2XTC the best and the 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4 take it ok.

Lame-Duck wrote in post #2010138
When I compare the results of these two lenses, the 100-400 really seems to produce highter quality pictures than the 70-200 (with 2X extender).

I find the 70-200 2.8 to be about the same quality as the 100-400 with the 1.4XTC. So from 70-280mm it's the ticket. From 280mm-400mm the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 2.8 with 2XTC

Here are a few good reviews of teleconverters.

100-400 vs 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x converter:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

Other teleconverter reviews and facts:
http://photo.net/learn​/optics/tc2/index.html

http://www.bobatkins.c​om/photography/reviews​/tcs.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Teleconverter-Review.aspx

You people have really provided me with excellent information. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions. Your responses are greatly appreciated.

One last question.....Is the 300 mm f 2.8 Canon lense hand holdable, or is that pretty much out of the question? I'm in my 60's and no longer a contestant for "Mr America." I do a lot of in flight shots of birds and they are all hand held.

Lame-Duck wrote in post #2010138
I'm just not happy with the results I'm getting. I cannot get the sharpness or ease of focusing on in flight bird shots that I can with the 100-400 mm, f5.6, L series lense. When I compare the results of these two lenses, the 100-400 really seems to produce highter quality pictures than the 70-200 (with 2X extender). According to the sales people at the camera shop.....I shouldn't really be able to see much of a difference between the two.

Think about what you jsut said

Lame-Duck wrote in post #2011035
You people have really provided me with excellent information. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions. Your responses are greatly appreciated.

One last question.....Is the 300 mm f 2.8 Canon lense hand holdable, or is that pretty much out of the question? I'm in my 60's and no longer a contestant for "Mr America." I do a lot of in flight shots of birds and they are all hand held.

It's handholdable after a fashion, i find it draining after a while, i couldn't hold it up for more than about 10 mins without needing a breaklol.

Lame-Duck wrote in post #2011035
One last question.....Is the 300 mm f 2.8 Canon lense hand holdable, or is that pretty much out of the question? I'm in my 60's and no longer a contestant for "Mr America." I do a lot of in flight shots of birds and they are all hand held.

The 300 f2.8 weighs 2.5Kg
The 70-200 f2.8 is 1.6Kg

NordieBoy wrote in post #2011091
The 300 f2.8 weighs 2.5Kg
The 70-200 f2.8 is 1.6Kg

Kinda takes the fun out of hand holding.

Hi, you can have a look to my post:

http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=217985

How is the IQ and sharpness of my combo (Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG + 2xTC) compared to yours ?

It is possible to hand hold it, not for too long, but possible

Hand holding lenses that long while actually moving the lens is also going to give you less than the sharpest results anyway. Even at very high shutter speeds, you would likely notice an increase in sharpness from shooting tripod mounted on a gimbal head. Wouldn't help that much with a 2x TC, but with a 1.4x, or on your longer lenses, it will help a lot.

Does anyone have any experience with the EF 200 F/2.8L and TC's? I know it's a stellar lens without TC and it seems fine with the 1.4xTC. Looking through pbase I've noticed alot of people using a 2x TC with this lens and the results seem pretty darn good to my eyes (mostly for wildlife/birding and such). Anybody here have anything to share? Thanks.