Canon 2x extender: I recently switched from a 70D APS-C to a full frame 5D IV. I shoot mainly portraits, sports events, and some nature and landscape photography. I also shoot dogs for...

Cheese

I recently switched from a 70D APS-C to a full frame 5D IV. I shoot mainly portraits, sports events, and some nature and landscape photography. I also shoot dogs for a local animal rescue. I currently have a 24-70 f/2.8, a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. While I still have a max effective focal length of 320mm with the 70D, I only have a max focal length of 200m when using the 5D IV. I'm considering getting either a 2x extender, or a 100-400 f/4.5 - 5.6. I have never used an extender before and am wondering if this is a viable option, since the 100-400 is about 4 times the cost of the extender. I do plan to keep the 70D, and if all else fails I could use that camera when I need the extended reach. Any advice on the pros and cons of using an extender would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hank Radt

Here's an article that lists some of the pros and cons: https://digital-photography-school.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-using-tele-converters-extenders-on-your-dslr/

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Cheese wrote:

I recently switched from a 70D APS-C to a full fra... (show quote)

The Canon extenders only work on specified lenses. The 1.4x causes very little IQ loss, the 2.0x a bit more unless used on the highest grade prime teles-and those are several thousand each.

Here is the chart for the 2.0x: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon2xExtender.html
And for the 1.4x: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/canon1_4xExtender.html

Your only lens that will work with an extender is the 70-200

Use the 1.4x III with a 100-400L mk II on a 7DII body. Your 70D will not AF with the extender on any lens slower than a f/2.8 which becomes an f/5.6 with a 1.4x. Your 5DIV will AF on f/8.0 or faster. An 80D will AF at f/8.0 and give you 24MP so if you can swing it trade the 70D to cover part of the cost of an 80D body, all your lenses will still work.

Cheese

Hank Radt wrote:

Here's an article that lists some of the pros and cons: https://digital-photography-school.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-using-tele-converters-extenders-on-your-dslr/

Thanks, Hank. Just what I was looking for. It seems, overall, the cons outweigh the pros.

Cheese

robertjerl wrote:

The Canon extenders only work on specified lenses.... (show quote)

Thanks, Robert. It looks like a converter may not be the solution. I'm now thinking that getting a 100-400 may be a more optimal solution, and would work with both cameras. I was just a bit hesitant given the almost $2,000 price tag of the 100-400. I'll do a search for 100-400 lens comparisons to see if there are any other brands that could provide a better value than the Canon.

Thanks for your help.

CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

Cheese wrote:

I recently switched from a 70D APS-C to a full fra... (show quote)

Cheese, in the photo section look for the photos taken by Regis. He uses the Canon 1.4 and 2.0 extenders and his photos are fantastic.

Greg

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Also consider the 150-600mm Tamron G2 or Sigma S and C variants. 1/2 or less of the 100-400 canon.

Another UHHer was looking to compare the 150-600 vs a cropped photo from the 70-200 on a 2x extender to see which was better....the 2x iii extender is only just under 1/2 the cost of the 150-600 sigmaC as an example or a 1/3 of the G2.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A similar question came up last week also asking about the use of a 2x extender to get to 400mm or a lens covering 100-400 that can be extended to 560mm.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-489514-1.html#8240442

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Thanks CHG_Canon....that was the link I was referencing....

Cheese

CHG_CANON wrote:

A similar question came up last week also asking about the use of a 2x extender to get to 400mm or a lens covering 100-400 that can be extended to 560mm.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-489514-1.html#8240442

Thanks so much for the link. One comment you made stood out in particular: "From a practical standpoint, if you want to shoot at 400mm, the 100-400L II is a better choice. The results will be sharper between 100 and 400 than the 70-200 extended by the 2x as well as having a wider aperture available during shorter portions of the zoom."

Everything I've read, here and elsewhere, suggests that I go with the 100-400. However, as crazydaddio pointed out, I owe it to myself to consider the 100-600 Tamron or Sigma. Looks like I have a bit more research to do.

Thanks CHG_CANON and crazydaddio.

Cheese

crazydaddio wrote:

Also consider the 150-600mm Tamron G2 or Sigma S and C variants. 1/2 or less of the 100-400 canon.

Another UHHer was looking to compare the 150-600 vs a cropped photo from the 70-200 on a 2x extender to see which was better....the 2x iii extender is only just under 1/2 the cost of the 150-600 sigmaC as an example or a 1/3 of the G2.

Seeing as you have a 5D iv and the 150-600 S, is that the lens you would recommend instead of the C or the G2? Thanks.

IDR

I just bought the 1.4 extender for my Canon 80D; I'm planning on using it with the 100-400, which will be my next purchase. For now, I'll keep in on the shelf, because I tried using it with my 70-200 2.8 II, but the results at 200/280mm were quite disappointing. Loss of sharpness, slower autofocus. My advice would be to get the 100-400 first, and if you need the extra zoom, get the 1.4 extender later - although I don't have any experience with that combination yet, I understand it's a good combo.

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

Considering what you mainly shoot, I ask the question why you need a 400 to 600 focal length in the first place. I shoot landscapes with my 70-200 in tiles with a rotator head and merge them in Photoshop for pleasing results. With a Nodal Ninja and rotator head, I shoot precision tiles 3 vertically and 10 across. The detail is phenomenal with large prints.

I have the Canon 2X extender, but I really do not need it. Purchasing it for jewelry macro photography, my 100mm macro does a better job and the detail is so sharp that it increases my edit time for removing scratches and defects. It even captures the filing marks on a diamond facet.

If on occasion I would need 400-600, I rent the new Sigma lens for the event. Otherwise, just another lens to collect dust.

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

The 100-400 I is a solid lens and can be purchased for about $750. It is a Push Pull zoom. The 100-400 II is one of Canon's best lenses for the money. It is external zoom meaning the length changes as you zoom in or out. Not ideal for tripod shooting, but manageable. My friend Tara shoots the 100-400 II a ton on her 5D3. View her photos at Black Rock Photography on FB.

The 2.0 TC will cost you 2 stops of aperture, the 1.4 will cost 1 stop. Auto focus will be pend on the body you shoot and it's focus system.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

the Sigmas and Tamrons are quite a bit heavier. I have the 100-400 II. I'd see if I could make a deal thru Greentoe

crazydaddio wrote:

Also consider the 150-600mm Tamron G2 or Sigma S and C variants. 1/2 or less of the 100-400 canon.

Another UHHer was looking to compare the 150-600 vs a cropped photo from the 70-200 on a 2x extender to see which was better....the 2x iii extender is only just under 1/2 the cost of the 150-600 sigmaC as an example or a 1/3 of the G2.