Does anyone know anything about a Canon 1.4x (L) Teleconverter EF to use with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens?
The pros and cons?
I see that the results can get a bit ‘soft’ if you go for a 2x.
?
Additional..
Assuming I have the readies (and I am expecting a small windfall within 18 months) apart weight considerations, should I just go for one of these babies.
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
Ian said:
Additional..Assuming I have the readies (and I am expecting a small windfall within 18 months) apart weight considerations, should I just go for one of these babies.
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
I always say, if you can afford it, why not? I used a 400 mm lens with 2x and 3x teleconverters quite a lot when I was much younger. A friend left his camera gear with me to care for because he was living rough at the time.
Thanks roughy
This too be very tasty but a tad exy.
Canon EF 600mm F/4L IS II USM Lens A4323
Ian, what are you looking to be shooting with a telephoto lens?
Ian said:
Does anyone know anything about a Canon 1.4x (L) Teleconverter EF to use with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens?The pros and cons?
I see that the results can get a bit ‘soft’ if you go for a 2x.
?
From my experience with teleconverters a lot does depend on which lens you put them behind. They degrade the image resolution slightly but increase the usefulness of all lenses. The downsides are something that the photographer is able to work on to improve. The upsides are a given, the instant one fits the teleconverter. The teleconverter doesn’t simply double the focal length of a lens, it also doubles the depth of field. In my youth I found this extremely useful while walking the bush looking for terrestrial orchids to photograph. A 50 mm lens, a set of extension tubes and a teleconverter are more easily carried and offer quite a degree of versatilty.
I also used the 2x and 3x converters behind a 400 mm lens for those dramatic sunrises and sunsets with the large glowing suns and moons that I enjoyed shooting.
I still use a teleconverter today occasionally, though most of my work with them was done prior to 1985. This from 1983:
I shot this just last week with a Nikkor 80-200 mm lens and Nikkor 2x converter. It got me twice as close to the birds without changing position.
I’m still using the same lenses and teleconverters that I have used since the mid 1970’s
roughbarked said:
The teleconverter doesn’t simply double the focal length of a lens, it also doubles the depth of field.
Nice photos, but how the heck would a teleconverter double the depth of field?
(Unless you mean it reduces the effective aperture, but you can do that without a teleconverter).
roughbarked said:
I still use a teleconverter today occasionally, though most of my work with them was done prior to 1985. This from 1983:
nice
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The teleconverter doesn’t simply double the focal length of a lens, it also doubles the depth of field.Nice photos, but how the heck would a teleconverter double the depth of field?
(Unless you mean it reduces the effective aperture, but you can do that without a teleconverter).
OK.. In attempt to explain. Say you have the lens aperture set at ƒ11 and add a teleconverter. The lens will still say ƒ11 but the image will effectively be @ ƒ22. Which will be evident on the attainable shutter speeds as well.
roughbarked said:
OK.. In attempt to explain. Say you have the lens aperture set at ƒ11 and add a teleconverter. The lens will still say ƒ11 but the image will effectively be @ ƒ22. Which will be evident on the attainable shutter speeds as well.
OK, but that’s not an advantage of the teleconverter, with the equivalent lens you can just stop down to f22.
In fact it’s the main disadvantage of a teleconverter, you lose two f stops on the maximum aperture (with a 2 x converter).
stan101 said:
Ian, what are you looking to be shooting with a telephoto lens?
Stuff a little further away than I can reach with a 200mm.
Specifically, horses in a show area imaged to pro standards. That’s why I ask about the extra degradation by going up to a 2x.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:OK.. In attempt to explain. Say you have the lens aperture set at ƒ11 and add a teleconverter. The lens will still say ƒ11 but the image will effectively be @ ƒ22. Which will be evident on the attainable shutter speeds as well.
OK, but that’s not an advantage of the teleconverter, with the equivalent lens you can just stop down to f22.
In fact it’s the main disadvantage of a teleconverter, you lose two f stops on the maximum aperture (with a 2 x converter).
Yes. it is a disadvantage. However, with shorter focal length lenses in macro-photography via extension tubes or bellows, it becomes an advantage to the equipment being used.
a good read:
The Cons of Tele-converters/Extenders
So why wouldn’t you rush out and buy a teleconverter?
There are a couple of costs (in addition to the monetary one) associated with them.
Lens Speed – The first thing to consider when using a teleconverter is the impact it has upon how much light gets into your camera.
Using teleconverters means less light gets in which means your maximum aperture will be decreased. When using a 1.4x converter this means you’ll lose one stop and when using a 2x converter you’ll lose two stops (It was for this reason that I went for a 1.4x teleconverter instead of the 2x one as I didn’t want to slow my lens down any further than f/5.6).
So last year at the tennis, instead of being able to shoot at f/4 with my camera I had a maximum aperture of f/5.6.
I was lucky that the weather was excellent on the day and there was plenty of light so this didn’t really impact my shots too much – however if you’re shooting in low light or indoors you’ll notice the impact of this more.
Camera Shake – As you extend the focal length of a lens – any movement of your camera will become more noticeable.
Using a teleconverter magnifies both your subject and any movement in your camera so you’ll want to think carefully about how to reduce it, either by increasing your shutter speed and/or using a tripod/monopod or some other technique to secure your camera.
Focusing Speed – Another consideration with tele-converters is that they slow down the speed at which your camera will focus. This will vary from lens to lens but is particularly an issue in lower light. Some lower end DSLRs will not be able to use Auto focusing at all with some teleconverters at certain aperture settings (or at all) – so do check your camera’s compatibility before buying. To get around slow focusing switch to manual focus mode and learn how to use it – you’ll be surprised how quickly you get the hang of doing it yourself – it’s a useful skill to have.
Image Degradation – Extenders multiply not only the focal length but also any aberrations of the lens you pair it with. As a result you’ll notice on many lenses that image quality suffers – I’m told this is particularly the case with longer extenders (x2) where sharpness and contrast suffer – particularly when shooting into light (where flare and ghosting can be a problem). Using the best quality lens possible will help keep such degradation to a minimum.
Overall Verdict
Using extenders/tele-converters is a more affordable way to extend your focal length than to purchase a longer lens – however the cost can be to your image quality and camera performance if you are not working with a high quality lens in decent light.
I think they are well worth using if you need the extra reach but wouldn’t use them for every shot. I definitely travel with my 1.4x extender at all times when shooting with my 70-200mm lens.
When using one try not to use them at the maximum aperture that your camera will allow – but stop it down at least one stop and you’ll find the results are significantly better. Also keep in mind that longer focal lengths will leave you with less depth of field to play with – so your focusing needs to be spot on!
comes from here: http://digital-photography-school.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-using-tele-converters-extenders-on-your-dslr
>>The downsides are something that the photographer is able to work on to improve.
Can you elaborate on this roughy?
Ian said:
>>The downsides are something that the photographer is able to work on to improve.Can you elaborate on this roughy?
Well, put as simply as I can;
• Your shutter speeds will be affected so you need to take steps to reduce these effects.
• The light quality in the image will be affected so steps will need to be taken to improve the quality of the light that falls on the image.
Ian I have the 1×4 and the 400 prime.
I stopped using the 1×4 because it was just more glass and quality went south, not a great deal but I could detect it.
I also lost auto focus but got around that with some electrical tape but then the focus would hunt a bit.
headsie said:
Ian I have the 1×4 and the 400 prime.I stopped using the 1×4 because it was just more glass and quality went south, not a great deal but I could detect it.
I also lost auto focus but got around that with some electrical tape but then the focus would hunt a bit.
As matter of course, the teleconverter reduction of image quality will be less noticeable, the longer the prime lens, more noticeable on shorter lenses. However if one is unable to either afford to replace a 400 mm lens with a 800 mm lens or unable to be carrying such extra equipment then the difference is that one will still be able to get the shot if there is a teleconverter available when the shot could be missed otherwise.
The effect of a teleconverter will sometimes be altered by the fact that an image my have more light available if narrowed to a smaller portion via the increased virtual focal length.
Anyway, there is no better than to experience the changes and to see how they actually fit or don’t fit into the type of photography one does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rjkKd9JK7c
My thoughts on the 400L5.6
Best lens I have ever used, fast focussing, light and easy to handhold, can take a bit of rough treatment.
I never take if off my camera, but I only shoot birds and wildlife.
If I try to use it at soccer matches I have to stand 70 meters away to get the players in the shot so not very good for sporting events.
headsie said:
My thoughts on the 400L5.6Best lens I have ever used, fast focussing, light and easy to handhold, can take a bit of rough treatment.
I never take if off my camera, but I only shoot birds and wildlife.
If I try to use it at soccer matches I have to stand 70 meters away to get the players in the shot so not very good for sporting events.
Personally, I always wanted a 500 mm mirror lens. 400 mm was not quite good enough for birds and any bigger lenses meant that freedom of movement is severely restricted.
Ian said:
Stuff a little further away than I can reach with a 200mm.
Specifically, horses in a show area imaged to pro standards. That’s why I ask about the extra degradation by going up to a 2x.
400 should be more than enough for this, I even think it is the wrong lens and you need a zoom lens like the 100-400.
headsie said:
Ian said:Stuff a little further away than I can reach with a 200mm.
Specifically, horses in a show area imaged to pro standards. That’s why I ask about the extra degradation by going up to a 2x.
400 should be more than enough for this, I even think it is the wrong lens and you need a zoom lens like the 100-400.
I actually prefer the Tamron.
headsie said:
Ian said:Stuff a little further away than I can reach with a 200mm.
Specifically, horses in a show area imaged to pro standards. That’s why I ask about the extra degradation by going up to a 2x.
400 should be more than enough for this, I even think it is the wrong lens and you need a zoom lens like the 100-400.
Yes, 100 – 400 would ideal I think. But for now I’m inclined to get the teleconverter and see what I can do with my 70 – 200.
Thanks
Ian said:
headsie said:
Ian said:Stuff a little further away than I can reach with a 200mm.
Specifically, horses in a show area imaged to pro standards. That’s why I ask about the extra degradation by going up to a 2x.
400 should be more than enough for this, I even think it is the wrong lens and you need a zoom lens like the 100-400.
Yes, 100 – 400 would ideal I think. But for now I’m inclined to get the teleconverter and see what I can do with my 70 – 200.
Thanks
I use a 2x converter with my 70-210 lens. I also use extension tubes on it. It doesn’t matter to me that the image quality isn’t that which it could be. What matters is that I get an image at all.
roughbarked said:
Ian said:
headsie said:400 should be more than enough for this, I even think it is the wrong lens and you need a zoom lens like the 100-400.
Yes, 100 – 400 would ideal I think. But for now I’m inclined to get the teleconverter and see what I can do with my 70 – 200.
Thanks
I use a 2x converter with my 70-210 lens. I also use extension tubes on it. It doesn’t matter to me that the image quality isn’t that which it could be. What matters is that I get an image at all.
anyway, here’s a level headed look.. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc.htm
>>a Tamron 70-210 1:4.5
Yeah, a good lens. I’ve got one lying around plus teleconverter from the deep dark pre-digital era.. I must experiment with hooking up to my 5D
Testing A 1.4x Extender
To see the difference between using an extender and shooting without, take a look at the following photos. These are taken with a Canon 5D MkII and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. The extender used is a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. The ISO for all images is 1000.
70-200mm at 200mm, at f/3.5
70-200mm at 200mm with 1.4x Extender (280mm) at f/4.0
Now let’s take a look at the sharpness of these images.
roughbarked said:
Testing A 1.4x ExtenderTo see the difference between using an extender and shooting without, take a look at the following photos. These are taken with a Canon 5D MkII and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. The extender used is a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. The ISO for all images is 1000.
70-200mm at 200mm, at f/3.5
70-200mm at 200mm with 1.4x Extender (280mm) at f/4.0
Now let’s take a look at the sharpness of these images.
That’s interesting, especially as it’s the exact rig that I’m considering.
With some daylight there would be minimal discrepancy between the two I suppose.
One more question -
How does the Sigma 1.4x EX DG compare with the Canon job anyone?
Ian said:
roughbarked said:
Testing A 1.4x ExtenderTo see the difference between using an extender and shooting without, take a look at the following photos. These are taken with a Canon 5D MkII and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. The extender used is a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. The ISO for all images is 1000.
70-200mm at 200mm, at f/3.5
70-200mm at 200mm with 1.4x Extender (280mm) at f/4.0
Now let’s take a look at the sharpness of these images.
That’s interesting, especially as it’s the exact rig that I’m considering.
With some daylight there would be minimal discrepancy between the two I suppose.
Not necessarily, contrast (or lack of) is also an issue with what you are planning. It can be fixed up in post, however.
Thanks DO.
That’s answered nearly all my queries with a minimum of
fuss.
Move over POTN
:)