Anyone use 2X on a 100mm macro with good results?

Just curious if it would work well. Trying to cut down on camera bag weight when hiking.

I've used it, but not much. Image quality suffered a bit. Better off using extenion tubes. Lighter, too.

vision35,
I like troypiggo have used it and image sharpness does suffer and its better (for me) to use a full set of Kenko extension tubes. Then to top it off to use the Canon 2xTC I needed to use a 12mm extension tube just to get it to fit on the lens.

However I have gotten many photos using it
Here is some that come to mind

A Quarter Underside the Brain

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m …arter_underside​_brain.htm

IMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/macro/brown_drop.htm

I've been wondering this as well. I am planning to purchase a 70-200mm L f4 IS from a coworker, and might be able to get a 2x converter as well. I have a 100mm Canon 2.8 on the way also, and was thinking of getting the 2x for that. However, after doing some research it seems people recommend extension tubes over the converter.

The issue is that the 2x TC adds glass between you sensor and the subject, degrading the image. Extension tubes don't.

Also keep in mind that a 2x TC on your f/4 lens means you'll lose autofocus because it drops your lens' light gathering ability by 2 stops, and you lose AF over f/5.6.

John_B wrote in post #7196738
vision35,
I like troypiggo have used it and image sharpness does suffer and its better (for me) to use a full set of Kenko extension tubes. Then to top it off to use the Canon 2xTC I needed to use a 12mm extension tube just to get it to fit on the lens.

However I have gotten many photos using it
Here is some that come to mind

A Quarter Underside the Brain

click for specsIMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m …arter_underside​_brain.htm

[CENTER]A Brown Drop

click for specsIMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/macro/brown_drop.htm

always hard to tell how good your images are by the size you post them.any reason why u post them so small?wow that last image is full of colour noise!im sure the orignal isnt like that!

RileyLewis wrote in post #7198147
I've been wondering this as well. I am planning to purchase a 70-200mm L f4 IS from a coworker, and might be able to get a 2x converter as well. I have a 100mm Canon 2.8 on the way also, and was thinking of getting the 2x for that. However, after doing some research it seems people recommend extension tubes over the converter.

yer but 2x tele converter gives u more working distance..iv seen images with 2 x tele convert that look great.me and brian was talking about this yesterday..if i remember rightly he was saying u have a 20% lose in detail..

macro junkie wrote in post #7211248
always hard to tell how good your images are by the size you post them.any reason why u post them so small?wow that last image is full of colour noise!im sure the orignal isnt like that!

macro junkie,
Sorry it isn't big enough for you.

I post this size for a number of reasons, one its about the size of a 4 x 6" print on my screen (like was the standard in the film days), another reason the small size makes it less likely to be used without my OK, also not everyone has very fast internet so download times are kept low. This is why the noise, very heavy compression which is why its only 29K in size. So yes you are right, thank goodness the original isn't like that

John_B wrote in post #7212015
. So yes you are right, thank goodness the original isn't like that

ah thought so

As other I have used it, quality suffers.

Also NB that whatever converter is used it will effectively be non-reporting, that is the aperture you set will actually be 2 stops smaller than indicated. So to avoid diffraction softening open the lens up two stops over the amount you use normally (set f5.6 at a push f8).