2x teleconverter? (Page 2): Regis shoots almost exclusively with a 400mm + 2x, handheld. Here is a link to one image. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-508921-1.html Here is a link to his...

Bill_de Loc: US

Regis shoots almost exclusively with a 400mm + 2x, handheld.

Here is a link to one image.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-508921-1.html

Here is a link to his topics.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-topic-list?usernum=38916

I think you'll find that a 2x converter can work very well.

--

--

odonnellake

Wow. Thanks.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I can also recommend - if you have a high pixel density sensor - is use your best shorter lens , maximize it's image quality (especially lower ISO's) and CROP - and if making larger size prints use well applied pixel enlargement software to retain your total required pixel count. I use Sony's Clear Image Zoom with my A77II and it works very well !

..

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

odonnellake wrote:

I am strictly a hobbyist and am looking for an aff... (show quote)

A 2X extender is going to require 2 more stops of light, but for best image quality you'll need to stop the lens down another 1-2 stops, which is not a game stopper. But you will also lose between 25% and 30% of your sharpness and contrast, and your autofocus will be a lot slower and in less than excellent light it will hunt. I believe that would be enough to not want to use one. Any lens flaws, particularly chromatic aberration, coma and other undesirable things will be amplified. In short, a 2X can be used, but only on the very sharpest F2.8 or faster telephoto or telephoto zooms. The 70-200 F2.8 will work ok.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

Sony, Canon, and Nikon make hi-quality lenses and tc's. when matched properly the images are fantastic, even with the 2x tc.

alphonso49uk

I owned a 6d, 70-200 f2.8 and used it with a 2x extender. It worked a treat and I never noticed any major IQ degridation.

alphonso49uk

Sotty..I should have said the extender was a Kenko

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mas24 wrote:

That's a very sharp photo of the Cranes from a Canon 2X Extender. I own a Kenko Brand 1.4X teleconverter for a Nikon DSLR. I don't use it often. I almost bought a 2X, but didn't, because many on this forum advised against using a 2X. Canon's Extenders are obviously quality. Just as their "L" Series lenses are.

I think what you are seeing is the incredible sharpness of the 300mm F2.8 L. It is so sharp that even with a 25% loss in sharpness, it is still as good than many cheaper lenses without using a TC.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

odonnellake wrote:

I am strictly a hobbyist and am looking for an aff... (show quote)

First of all NO teleconverter improves Image Quality. Generally speaking, the more powerful the converter, the worse the IQ, and focusing speed. A 2.0 could take you into the regions that exceeds your auto focus capabilities, ie. your camera and lens combo will not focus with a 2.0 on the lens. Some lenses cannot take the 2.0 converter.
If it was me, and it is not, I would go with the Canon 100-400 version II, forget about the 2.0, nothing good will come from it.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

mas24 wrote:

That's a very sharp photo of the Cranes from a Canon 2X Extender. I own a Kenko Brand 1.4X teleconverter for a Nikon DSLR. I don't use it often. I almost bought a 2X, but didn't, because many on this forum advised against using a 2X. Canon's Extenders are obviously quality. Just as their "L" Series lenses are.

Usually matched TCs from the same maker are much more preferable and provide much better results over a generic version.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

You can possibly find a nice version of the Canon 100-400 I in the $750 price range. That is almost double the Canon 2x III which will likely run you $375-$430 depending on new or used. If you are unsure I would buy from a place like B&H where you have a 30 day return option. The 2x will lose you 2 stops of light.

TriX wrote:

I’d tend to be a bit more conservative and choose ... (show quote)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

You can possibly find a nice version of the Canon 100-400 I in the $750 price range. That is almost double the Canon 2x III which will likely run you $375-$430 depending on new or used. If you are unsure I would buy from a place like B&H where you have a 30 day return option. The 2x will lose you 2 stops of light.

Completely agree. While the 100-400L MKII is an exceptional (and expensive) lens, the MKI version is no slouch, and by careful shopping, they can be had for under $1,000.

b roll wanabee

I have both the 2x and 1.4x. You can put them together. But unless you are on a tripod and the subject is still it is useless. At that focal length I can actually see the moon move.
Forget autofocus. And forget action.
I have canon 100-400mm.
I loved experimenting with these combinations and I learned a great deal about zoom capabilities. The extenders don't loose much value and I rarely use them. But I love having them.
The 100-400 requires a lot of light. Add the 2x and no auto focus the setup is not practical for walking around.
Don't use the extenders much but learned so much from them.

agillot

if you dont mine manual mode , look for a older quality tele lens .for birds 600 mm is a good start .ebay or stores are loaded with them .

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

odonnellake wrote:

I am strictly a hobbyist and am looking for an aff... (show quote)

The 2x will only work with your Canon 70-200 f/2.8 lens. It will give you 400mm focal length. With the crop factor you will appear to be 640mm focal length. Yes, it will slightly degrade the image quality. When using the lens wide open, you'll have an f/stop of f/5.6 which is acceptable. You will get decent shots but you need to know your limitations with this setup. This doesn't mean that you can shoot small animals twice as far away and blow them up in post. It means that you can capture that shot at the same distances as before and get the subject to fill more of the frame with good detail. Don't expect to get small birds a football field away.