Teleconverters with Canon 70-200mm f4 IS L USM? (Page 2): Google it as I have.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

mvetrano2 wrote:

What are MTF charts and where can I find them?

Google it as I have.

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

Buying the Kenko at $140 versus $429 for the Canon is not being cheap but not throwing money away. No TC is equal to pure glass but the issue is whether it gives you results you are happy with. You can buy the Kenko at B&H and try it first and return it if you do not like it. It is small so the cost to return is low. Or, as others have suggested, take advantage of the good glass of your 70-200 mm f/4L and crop to the equivalent size of the 1.4x image and see which is better. It may be the cropped image, despite the loss of pixels, especially if you used a tripod. But for me part of the fun is seeing what I am shooting handheld through the camera as framed which makes the 1.4x preferred in traveling situations.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_Extender_EF_1.4X_III_vs_Kenko_Teleplus_PRO_300_DGX_1.4x_AF_Teleconverter_vs_Canon_Extender_EF_2X_III/BHitems/732113-USA_674565-REG_732111-USA

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

mvetrano2 wrote:

I shoot a Canon 6D II with the 70-200 f4. Will the less expensive Kenko, Sigma or Tamron extenders degrade the image the same or more than the Canon extender?

Yes they will degrade compared to the Canon. Also keep in mind the a Canon 2x extender III will turn you 70-200mm f/4 into a 140-400mm f/8. While the Canon 6D II will AF at f/8 that will be your maximum aperture. And also keep in mind that your extreme sharpness of your wonderful lens will be compromised to varying degrees even by the Canon version of the 2X. The 1.4x extender is less of a compromise but is unfortunately priced almost as high as the 2x model.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Ronaldo wrote:

What I have read to date is that the x1.4 works fine but there are issues with x2.0 (i.e. AF does work and as mentioned above you will loose significant light).
Thus I have not bought?

You information about AF not working depends upon the capabilities of the camera it's mounted and the maximum aperture of the lens that the TC is attached to. A 2X TC effectively decreases the maximum aperture of a lens by two stops. Most cameras, especially older ones can't AF with lenses with a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6. Many newer camera can AF at f/8, but if a 2X TC is used on a slower lens, the maximum aperture may be f/11 and no current commercial DSLRs will AF lenses with a maximum aperture of f/11.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

mwsilvers wrote:

Yes they will degrade compared to the Canon. Also keep in mind the a Canon 2x extender III will turn you 70-200mm f/4 into a 140-400mm f/8. While the Canon 6D II will AF at f/8 that will be your maximum aperture. And also keep in mind that your extreme sharpness of your wonderful lens will be compromised to varying degrees even by the Canon version of the 2X. The 1.4x extender is less of a compromise but is unfortunately priced almost as high as the 2x model.

I believe they are exactly the same price and have been as long as I know of.
Have you ever use a Canon 1.4X or 2X MIII on a matched L lens?
If not how can you comment on the quality or lack thereof.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Personally, I would be looking for a used Canon, either a MKII or a MKIII (better). They are available regularly in the $200 - $250 range. I use a 1.4x with my 100-400L, and the small degradation in IQ is barely visible (and Canon’s MTF charts confirm that it is about 5% for this combination).

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Architect1776 wrote:

I believe they are exactly the same price and have been as long as I know of.
Have you ever use a Canon 1.4X or 2X MIII on a matched L lens?
If not how can you comment on the quality or lack thereof.

Yes I have tried it. You are correct about the price, they're both $429. I had forgotten they were both priced exactly the same. I incorrectly remembered the 1.4 X version as having been a bit cheaper.

I had, for a short time, the Canon 2x Extender III which I used with my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, the same lens as the OP. I used this combination on my Canon 7D Mark II. My results, both hand held and on a tripod, were not acceptable to me. Images were way to soft. I tried microfocus adjustments but after a few frustrating days and no significant improvement I returned the 2x III to B&H.

I know that the 2X Extender is supposed to work very well with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L II, but results with my f/4 version were very problematic. At the time I did an extensive search for information on the 2x III mounted on the f/4 IS version of the 70-200 but found little useful information. I suppose others might have better results than I did, or perhaps are more willing to compromise on image quality than I was. In any case, it did not work for me and I returned it. Spending $429 was way too much for the mediocre results I got. My plan now is to purchase the Canon EF 100-400mm II.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

mvetrano2 wrote:

I would like to extend the reach of my 70-200mm lens instead of the added expense of longer and more expensive lenses just to use a few times. Should I buy Canon teleconverters or will any of the less expensive brands work just as well? Is there a real difference, besides the brand name, between Canon extenders and others like those made by Kenko? Have you used extenders on this lens and are you satisfied with the results?

I have used the Tamron SP 1.4X with this lens - and it is astoundingly good ! If you have an f8 enabled body, I would definitely get the Canon 2X......II version - I do not think the III version has any real benefit for you due to the age of your lens. And, not real sure the f8 enabled body would AF with a third party 2X extender either.

The 70-200 f4 IS is NOT a "match" for the III series extenders......

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

mvetrano2 wrote:

I shoot a Canon 6D II with the 70-200 f4. Will the less expensive Kenko, Sigma or Tamron extenders degrade the image the same or more than the Canon extender?

The 1.4X and 2X third party extenders work very WELL on the all the 70-200's ! The differences either way are SMALL vs Canon extenders- the biggest difference coming with the 2X - if at all. The 2X and having good AF will be the biggest difference IMO between them.

MidnightManiac

In my experience with extenders find that a Canon extender works the best on Canon lenses and a Tamron converter works the best on Tamron lenses. I have a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 ISM VB lens and a 1.4X extender and the results are very good. Have a 70-200 F/4 L Canon lens and find the extender works with the Canon lens but the results are better using the Tamron lens. Purchased a 2X extender at the same time and returned it. Did not care for the results of the 2X. The Canon 1.4X works much better on the Canon lens. Use the 1.4X on both my 7DII and 5D with very acceptable results. I shoot a lot of sports and find the 1.4X on my 7DII to grab nice pixs...Your pictures will degrade a bit...