1.4X on 70-200 pics?

Hi everyone.
im thinking of buying the 1.4TC to attach it to my 70-200 F4.
Can someone show me a picture at 200mm whith and whitout the 1.4Xtc?
i dont know if the 1.4X is woth it. i want to see the difference in range.

Thanks in advance

No one can show me the difference?
send it to my mail if you whant to urban330@yahoo.es

Thanks a lot.

What do you want to shoot with the TC?

I've used the combo, but don't have any examples of with and without.

urbandancer wrote in post #2096310
Hi everyone.
im thinking of buying the 1.4TC to attach it to my 70-200 F4.
Can someone show me a picture at 200mm whith and whitout the 1.4Xtc?
i dont know if the 1.4X is woth it. i want to see the difference in range.

Thanks in advance

It absolutely is worth it! The extra range is amazing and there is no noticable loss in IQ either. I was hessitant when I bought a 1.4x TC for my 70-200 f4 but after about 2 minutes of shooting with it on, it became a whole new lens! I would recommend the Canon version though if you can. It works the best with a Canon lens, and should you find yourself wanting to sell it, you'll be able to get close to what you paid for it if in good condition.

cjm wrote in post #2096973
It absolutely is worth it! The extra range is amazing and there is no noticable loss in IQ either. I was hessitant when I bought a 1.4x TC for my 70-200 f4 but after about 2 minutes of shooting with it on, it became a whole new lens! I would recommend the Canon version though if you can. It works the best with a Canon lens, and should you find yourself wanting to sell it, you'll be able to get close to what you paid for it if in good condition.

Do you have any trouble with it in low light (I have the 100-400L f.4 and am wondering if it slows it down intolerably)?

I have seen a number of people use the combo, but have not seen a comparison with the two...it would be interesting to see!

Permagrin wrote in post #2096985
Do you have any trouble with it in low light (I have the 100-400L f.4 and am wondering if it slows it down intolerably)?

Not really. It doesnt seem to slow the AF down much at all. Say with out the TC it takes 1 second to focus, with the TC it probably takes about 1.2 seconds to focus. Barely a difference.

In low light it also seems to work well, but mind you at f5.6 its not the best aperture for the light conditions if shooting handheld.

urbandancer wrote in post #2096310
Hi everyone.
im thinking of buying the 1.4TC to attach it to my 70-200 F4.
Can someone show me a picture at 200mm whith and whitout the 1.4Xtc?
i dont know if the 1.4X is woth it. i want to see the difference in range.

Thanks in advance

Just used a Field of View calculator, assuming 1.6 crop format frame and 100' distance to subject...

200mm gives 11'3" x 7'6" subject area
280mm gives 8'4" x 5'4" subject area.

cjm wrote in post #2097025
Not really. It doesnt seem to slow the AF down much at all. Say with out the TC it takes 1 second to focus, with the TC it probably takes about 1.2 seconds to focus. Barely a difference.

In low light it also seems to work well, but mind you at f5.6 its not the best aperture for the light conditions if shooting handheld.

I shoot handheld a lot...in the woods where lighting isn't always great. (and usually moving animals...) But I try to keep the aperture down and the focus accurate (as possible) so I'm debating on whether a TC is a viable option for me as well.

It's a good point (re: the comparisons w/the tc), maybe someone will do it!

I used a Sigma 1.4x on my 70-200F2.8 at the Reno Air Races and was very pleased with the results. A very small loss of sharpness of course, but nothing that couldnt be fixed in RAW

Permagrin wrote in post #2097062
It's a good point (re: the comparisons w/the tc), maybe someone will do it!

Fine! I will go do it right now.

I just bought the cheapo Tamron 1.4x from another member here to use with my EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It arrived this morning and initial tests look like no loss of AF speed, and that was using it indoors. Image quality seems to be on par with the lens naked. Definately worth the money so far.

OK here are examples. Not the best pictures but they demonstrate distance difference. The truck is about 1 city block away. Hope this helps.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks for posting that comparison up Chris, I'm always amazed to see how much difference (or lack there-of) there is between different focal lengths. On the wide end the differences always blow me away, not so much on the telephoto end of things. Seems like you need ALOT of reach to make a big impact.

Well with the TC on the 70 becomes 98mm and the 200 becoms 280mm! Then if you factor in the crop factor the lens seems like a 156-448mm lens on a film body. Which in the film days was simply out of sight for most people. It does work very well and it works MUCH MUCH better then most of the 70/5-300mm zoom lens that end off at f5.6