Canon 2x extender (Page 4): It is always preferable to get the focal length in a lens, instead of trying to get that focal length with a converter. Although today's converters are...

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Cheese wrote:

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

It is always preferable to get the focal length in a lens, instead of trying to get that focal length with a converter. Although today's converters are usually of high quality and allow excellent results, they're still just a compromise!

Ted Evans Loc: Jasper, AL

I have the Canon 100-400 L II and it is great! You will never regret paying the
price for this lens with your new camera.
I have the Canon 5D III and love the
combination. Make sure that the lens is
calibrated to the camera. If you don’t know
how get someone else to do it like Canon
factory. You will not stop smiling.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

In researching on the web and viewing examples of 1.4X and 2X, I decided that there was too much trade off in IQ to go the 2X, so I bought the 1.4X. That was disappointing first from performance and second IQ. Even using f/2.8 AF wouldn't function on my 7D and 5D Mark II. The few shots I did take to test it was noticeably soft with increased chromatic aberration and unacceptable. Since then I bought a Tamron SP 150-600 Di VC (1st edition) for $700 and the results are very pleasing with the 7D and now my 5D Mark III. I tried, but I feel there's no substitute for good glass. Before you buy a Canon lens, I would advise you to do what I did in researching the performance of Tamron, Sigma, and Tokia, as they are lens specialists. Science is not subjective. There are facts to consider. I sold all my Canon lenses and now have one Tokina 16-28 and three Tammies; 24-70, 70-200, 150-600 and I'm challenged by such good gear. Nothing nicer when shooting than the confidence that I'll nail it. Good Luck, but like LIFE, mostly hard work. Why not have the best tools we can afford?

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

In my experience, my Canon 24 - 70 f/2.8 II and 70 - 200 f/2.8 II are superior lenses. I would not trade them for any other. I'm sure Tamron, Sigma & Tokia manufacture fine lenses too, but my choice will always be Canon L. They are expensive, but hold their values for resale. I had the I versions, and sold them for $1100 & $1050 after using them for almost 8 years. They were in mint condition.
Mark

papa wrote:

In researching on the web and viewing examples of ... (show quote)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

markngolf wrote:

In my experience, my Canon 24 - 70 f/2.8 II and 70 - 200 f/2.8 II are superior lenses. I would not trade them for any other. I'm sure Tamron, Sigma & Tokia manufacture fine lenses too, but my choice will always be Canon L. They are expensive, but hold their values for resale. I had the I versions, and sold them for $1100 & $1050 after using them for almost 8 years. They were in mint condition.
Mark

👍👍 couldn’t agree more. My “Ls” are tack sharp and rock solid - I calibrate each and wouldn’t trade them either. I am sure there are other excellent third party lenses, but my 100-400L and EX1.4 on a FF look just fine to my old eyes.

Jesu S

papa wrote:

In researching on the web and viewing examples of ... (show quote)

Did you sell the Canon lenses because you thought the others were superior?

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Exactly, yes.
Mark

Jesu S wrote:

Did you sell the Canon lenses because you thought the others were superior?

whitewolfowner

Canon's seconde generation (or latest version) from what I have seen and heard from those that own it is beyond a winner. Seems every serious Canon user should have this lens in their bag. If I had Canon gear, one would be in mine.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

T/c's tend to degrade IQ, and the higher the x factor, the less IQ. If quality is a concern, go the lens route and forget the t/c.

Cheese

Cheese wrote:

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

Just wanted to close the loop and thank everyone for their insight. I ended up ordering the 100-400 based on my own research and most of the recommendations in this discussion. Based on the type of photography I do, I don't think I need a focal length >400mm; however, if I do need the extra reach, I can get an effective focal length of 640mm by pairing it with the crop sensor 70D. Again, thanks everyone.

.

Cheese

TriX wrote:

👍👍 couldn’t agree more. My “Ls” are tack sharp and rock solid - I calibrate each and wouldn’t trade them either. I am sure there are other excellent third party lenses, but my 100-400L and EX1.4 on a FF look just fine to my old eyes.

TriX, am I correct in assuming that it is the camera that I need to calibrate, and not the lens? So, if I want to use the lens with both the old 70D and the new 5Div I would need to calibrate both cameras? Thanks.

.

whitewolfowner

DeanS wrote:

T/c's tend to degrade IQ, and the higher the x factor, the less IQ. If quality is a concern, go the lens route and forget the t/c.

A good 1.4 extender on the right lenses is a very viable tool and thousands of photos have been taken using them that we see all the time in publications. The secret is to have the right teleconverter with the right lens. Not all lenses take teleconverters the same, so if you want to use one, make sure you are getting a lens that will take it and deliver the goods. The 300mm with the Nikon 1.4 converter from what have heard is a winner.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Cheese wrote:

TriX, am I correct in assuming that it is the camera that I need to calibrate, and not the lens? So, if I want to use the lens with both the old 70D and the new 5Div I would need to calibrate both cameras? Thanks..

Answer for Trix - yes. The calibration process is for the body and is body specific.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

whitewolfowner wrote:

A good 1.4 extender on the right lenses is a very viable tool and thousands of photos have been taken using them that we see all the time in publications. The secret is to have the right teleconverter with the right lens. Not all lenses take teleconverters the same, so if you want to use one, make sure you are getting a lens that will take it and deliver the goods. The 300mm with the Nikon 1.4 converter from what have heard is a winner.

AGREED. And said another way in the context of DeanS - if you are concerned about quality and use of a TC, use only the appropriate and most recent Nikon or Canon models. Use the TC with the sharpest prime lenses, and with Canon, also with the 100-400L II and 70-200 f/2.8L II. Rather than lines on charts and cartoon pictures, I've posted real-life examples to this thread and others showing Canon TCs in practice. The image below went up yesterday in the photo gallery along with other images mixing the native 135L, the 24-70 f/2.8L II and the 135L extended with the 1.4x. Is this image "10% less" sharp / luminous / contrasty than any other image? Does the result exhibit any quality characteristics indicating the use of a Extender EF 1.4x III?

(Apologies for those not using a large screen monitor. This linked image size fills, but does not exceed my monitor on this page. If you need to scroll on your equipment, you can probably "see" the details even more. You also can click the link and launch an image size from Flickr that is "sized" to your monitor.)

Caribbean flamingo by Paul Sager, on Flickrhttp://farm5.staticflickr.com/4513/37753597582_255c2c4747_h.jpg

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

CHG_CANON wrote:

Answer for Trix - yes. The calibration process is for the body and is body specific.

👍👍. I use Reiken’s Focal system and find it very accurate and effective.