-=FAQ=- Teleconverter/T-Con Tele extender Discussion

Very nice topic!

Thanks!

fWord wrote in post #2052912
Was reading the first post and there was a mention that there was a complete haul over for the optics of the Canon 2X MKI TC to produce the current MKII version that allows the Canon 1.4X TC to be stacked onto it.

I've got a chance to lay my hands on a Canon 2X MKI TC and I already have a Sigma APO EX 1.4X TC, and I'm contemplating stacking the two onto a 300mm f/4 to see what effect I can achieve. I know this comes with problems such as loss of AF and reduced IQ, but can the TCs physically be stacked together in the first place?

Does anyone know if the 2X MKII is any better optically when compared to the MKI version? Thanks...hope someone can help on this.

I can answer the second part with confidence;
The MkII version of the 2X is better than the Mk1 optically. I own both, and prefer the MkII on the 500mm and 200mm f/1.8 on those lenses which will show the difference.

As for the first part, though I no longer own a Sigma 1.4X, so I can not actually test this and be 100% certain, since the Sigma and Canon 1.4X are physically very similar, I highly doubt that the Sigma 1.4X will stack with the 2X MkI.. in fact I even seem to recall trying it back when I had the Sigma. So I'm like 90% sure.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2249443
I can answer the second part with confidence;
The MkII version of the @X is better than the MkII optically. I own both, and prefer the MkII on the 500mm and 200mm f/1.8 on those lenses which will show the difference.

As for the first part, though I no longer own a Sigma 1.4X, so I can not actually test this and be 100% certain, since the Sigma and Canon 1.4X are physically very similar, I highly doubt that the Sigma 1.4X will stack with the 2X MkI.. in fact I even seem to recall trying it back when I had the Sigma. So I'm like 90% sure.

Thanks for the info. However I'm a bit confused about the comparison of optical quality between the MKI and MKII. In the first paragraph it seems like you're comparing like with like, but I'm assuming the MKII is better optically.

Also, I've read somewhere that the MKI was made to be mated with older versions of Canon lenses (eg. 600mm f/4 non-IS) and the MKII was made to be mated with newer Canon lenses. How true is this, according to your experience?

Yep,. typing error, the Mk2 is better than the Mk1 .

As to the age of the lens it's used on, I don't think this matters.
It would make sense, as the Mk1 was made prior to the IS long teles, and thus was made to work with an older generation of lenses,. But I do have one of the older lenses (the 200mm f/1.8 ) and again, on that lens, I feel the Mk2 is better.

I hope this is the right thread to ask this question:

I am trying to choose between the Canon 70-200 F/4L USM or the 70-200 F/4L IS USM.

My challenge is that I would like a lens that I can use either the 1.4 Tcon or the 2.0 Tcon.

If I read the sticky correct, it said that "neither" one of Tcon's will work on
these lenses.

Is that correct, or did I mis-read something?

I would really like to get the 70-200 F2.8 USM but do not like the weight of the lens.

Any opinions????

Tks

I think you misread - the 70-200 f/4 classic works with either per that list. Te f/4 IS only just came out; the list hasn't been updated (but then Canon hasn't updated their compatibility list for the TCs either).

Tks for the clarification Jon,
Wonder if anybody has experience with the 70-200 4 IS and the 1.4 or 2.0 Tcon?
or if there would be another Tcon that would work...............

I hate to go just by "trial and error"

Updated information that I just received from Canon support.

The Canon EF 1.4X II Tele extender "IS" compatible with the
Canon 20-200 F/4.0 IS USM.

AF is supposed to work with the 1.4 but they have told me that
if I get the 2.0 extender, AF will not work.

I have cancelled my order for a Tamron Tcon and have ordered
the Canon 1.4.

Will provide update after I try it out.

Thanks everyone for your information, tips and suggestions.

This is a great forrum.............

Sorry, typo in the last response,
I meant 70-200 F/4.0 IS USM...............

Cold fingers, it's snowing outside...........

I am on Ebay currently about to purchase a canon 1.4x teleconvertor thanks to this very informative topic, but i have just looked at my Canon lens and it is a:

Canon Zoom Lens. EF 80 – 200mm. 1: 4.5 – 5.6

Will this fit it? There is no mention of it in the listings.

If it's not listed, I wouldn't try it. It's been around long enough that if it would work it'd be listed. The lens diagram at the Canon Camera Museum doesn't look like it would, that's for sure.

Jon wrote in post #2329474
If it's not listed, I wouldn't try it. It's been around long enough that if it would work it'd be listed. The lens diagram at the Canon Camera Museum doesn't look like it would, that's for sure.

You were right, ive bought it and it doenst fit either of my lenses.

Oh well, i guess this is the point where i decide to either:

A) Buy a lens it will fit.
B) Take it back.

Any lens that will work with that teleconverter will be a lot more expensive than the lens you have now. Of course, you will need to spend a lot more on a lens anyway, if you want decent results with a teleconverter. They don't seem to work too well with cheaper lenses.

If you want to keep costs down, my suggestion would be to buy the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG macro lens and simply replace your 80-200 with that. I'd expect that to give much better results than your 80-200 with teleconverter (even if you could get the Canon one to fit!), and it would be cheaper.

gcogger wrote in post #2337733
If you want to keep costs down, my suggestion would be to buy the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG macro lens and simply replace your 80-200 with that. I'd expect that to give much better results than your 80-200 with teleconverter (even if you could get the Canon one to fit!), and it would be cheaper.

I will bear that advice in mind, thanks very much.

I am currently fighting the strong urge to keep the 1.4x and buy a canon EF 70-200 F4L USM...

I trust that would be a better decision?

Yup - that would be a very good combination