70-200mm f2.8 users...

[Phil Young]

Does anyone have any experience of a good 2x tele converter plus either of the following 70-200mm lenses:

Nikon VR1/2
Canon IS 1/2
Sigma OS
Tamron VC/non VC.

Having owned various zooms going up to 400mm I am now interested in the above combination.

Obviously I wouldn't use a Canon but the above lenses are all in the same league optically so happy to make a decision based on any of the above!

Mainly interested in sharpness wide open and f8 as I can sort out most other things in PP.

Anything else that is relevant would be nice to hear and also any sample images would be amazing!

Cheers folks.

 

[Cagey75]

Not got the TCx2, but do have the 1.7x, tried it on the 70-200 VRII -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/8183683698/in/photostream/

I haven't given it a good go, as the weather just got real crap here since I got it, and I've been busy with home improvements ... but I would say it reduces quality a bit. That shot, only one I put on flickr using the TC, I think, could have been much sharper I feel. Though it was a fairly dull evening, I was at ISO 2500, f/8 and shutter speed of 1/200 - should have pushed more maybe but VR was on.

 

[TonyNI]

I don't use any TC's on my 70-200 but they most certainly impact image quality ranging from a small amount(the nikon TC series, to alot, the sigma TC series)

Also if you plan on printing large I would imagine you would notice a significant difference in IQ compared to say posting a picture on facebook

 

[matt83]

I tried the Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2x mk II & III with my 70-200 2.8 vr. In the end I settled on the 1.7. The 1.4 has little effect on IQ but then it doesnt add much to the lenses reach either. The 2x mk II isnt great with the mk III a bit better (this one shines on primes). The 1.7 gives the best compramise with length and IQ plus loss of light. Stop it down to f8 and I doubt many could even tell you were using a tc.

 

[specialman]

I've just got the 2x TC-EIII for my 70-200mm VR1..... not impressed by the quality. It's fine at closer range but focussing near or on infinity it's just not great IMO

 

[HoppyUK]

I tested nine TCs, with the 70-200/2.8 Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS lenses, in Advanced Photographer magazine, for both sharpness and AF performance, over 1000 images. Nov 2012 issue, if you want a back-number (from their website).

I was not at all surprised to find that sharpness is decided by the quality of the mother lens - Canon and Nikon neck and neck, Sigma OS very close indeed. But I was surprised that the difference between Canon/Nikon and Sigma and Kenko TCs was virtually invisible. Only sometimes at the edges, very slightly.

1.4x is better than 1.7x which is better than 2x, but with lenses of this quality the difference is not much at all. Very acceptable indeed.

I was most surprised by the AF performance, shooting a car coming head-on at 50mph with a Canon 5D3 and Nikon D700. With or without TCs, all combos nailed it at max frame rate very reliably indeed, right up to a few metres from the camera, the TC made no difference. Most impressive. Maybe shooting at 10fps, or in bad light, it would have been different.

Bottom line: 95% of what you get depends on the lens. TCs really stretch sharpness performance, and newer lenses seem to have a bit more in reserve than older ones, presumably designed with TCs and higher resolution sensors in mind.

 

[Phil Young]

Thanks all for taking the time to reply.

I tested nine TCs, with the 70-200/2.8 Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS lenses, in Advanced Photographer magazine, for both sharpness and AF performance, over 1000 images. Nov 2012 issue, if you want a back-number (from their website).

I was not at all surprised to find that sharpness is decided by the quality of the mother lens - Canon and Nikon neck and neck, Sigma OS very close indeed. But I was surprised that the difference between Canon/Nikon and Sigma and Kenko TCs was virtually invisible. Only sometimes at the edges, very slightly.

1.4x is better than 1.7x which is better than 2x, but with lenses of this quality the difference is not much at all. Very acceptable indeed.

I was most surprised by the AF performance, shooting a car coming head-on at 50mph with a Canon 5D3 and Nikon D700. With or without TCs, all combos nailed it at max frame rate very reliably indeed, right up to a few metres from the camera, the TC made no difference. Most impressive. Maybe shooting at 10fps, or in bad light, it would have been different.

Bottom line: 95% of what you get depends on the lens. TCs really stretch sharpness performance, and newer lenses seem to have a bit more in reserve than older ones, presumably designed with TCs and higher resolution sensors in mind.

Richard, I'd welcome your opinion on the below as you have tested so extensively.

I'll most likely make my decision based on your advice...

If I buy a Sigma 70-200mm OS with a sigma 2x teleconverter, will I be able to match the sharpness of the below image going up to a maximum aperture of f8? Cheers.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks all for taking the time to reply.



Richard, I'd welcome your opinion on the below as you have tested so extensively.

I'll most likely make my decision based on your advice...

If I buy a Sigma 70-200mm OS with a sigma 2x teleconverter, will I be able to match the sharpness of the below image going up to a maximum aperture of f8? Cheers.

<snip>

Impossible to say Phil. On the basis of that low-res image no more than A4 on my monitor, of a low-contrast subject, I'd say no problem at all, but I'm not sure that's the answer you need.

I can tell you that if you looked at a pile of prints from a Nikon 70-200 with Nikon 2x mixed up with a load from a Sigma/Sigma combo, the only thing you may be able to spot might be the Sigma's at max aperture. But that's the lens, not the TC, and that Sigma is bloody good and excellent for the money, OS an' all.

There are so many factors at play - the lens, the light, the focus (camera), the shutter speed, the processing.

Edit: The Nikon's CA is also notably different, more yellow/mauve than red/green, but processing software has a big effect on that, if it's a problem around the edges, though it doesn't show up much in B&W

 

[faddius]

If I buy a Sigma 70-200mm OS with a sigma 2x teleconverter, will I be able to match the sharpness of the below image going up to a maximum aperture of f8? Cheers.

Hi Phil,

I have the sigma non OS version (hsm mkii) and I've got a 2x sigma tc to pair up with it last week. I haven't actually had time to get out with the tc yet and give it a run. If I get the chance tomorrow I'll get out and give it a go, if the weather forecast lives up to its promise of relatively good light & dry weather. May even be able to get to wollaton park and try to find some deer so you can have as closer like for like comparison as possible

Don't consider the jessops tc, it's awful, especially build quality, it was like factory seconds. I was trying to be cheap and it wasn't a good choice, luckily I got a full refund for it.

 

[HoppyUK]

That's a kind offer Alex, but the OS version is a completely different lens, for example it's got four more elements.

 

[faddius]

That's a kind offer Alex, but the OS version is a completely different lens, for example it's got four more elements.

Ah, I didn't realise that, I thought they were essentially the same except one had OS shoved into it

 

[Phil Young]

Hi Phil,

I have the sigma non OS version (hsm mkii) and I've got a 2x sigma tc to pair up with it last week. I haven't actually had time to get out with the tc yet and give it a run. If I get the chance tomorrow I'll get out and give it a go, if the weather forecast lives up to its promise of relatively good light & dry weather. May even be able to get to wollaton park and try to find some deer so you can have as closer like for like comparison as possible

Don't consider the jessops tc, it's awful, especially build quality, it was like factory seconds. I was trying to be cheap and it wasn't a good choice, luckily I got a full refund for it.

Cheers mate but the OS is superior- I wouldn't expect the mk2 to be a great performer with a 2x

 

[Phil Young]

Impossible to say Phil. On the basis of that low-res image no more than A4 on my monitor, of a low-contrast subject, I'd say no problem at all, but I'm not sure that's the answer you need.

I can tell you that if you looked at a pile of prints from a Nikon 70-200 with Nikon 2x mixed up with a load from a Sigma/Sigma combo, the only thing you may be able to spot might be the Sigma's at max aperture. But that's the lens, not the TC, and that Sigma is bloody good and excellent for the money, OS an' all.

There are so many factors at play - the lens, the light, the focus (camera), the shutter speed, the processing.

Edit: The Nikon's CA is also notably different, more yellow/mauve than red/green, but processing software has a big effect on that, if it's a problem around the edges, though it doesn't show up much in B&W

Do you have any examples of any of the above combos in that case??

 

[HoppyUK]

Do you have any examples of any of the above combos in that case??

Yes, lots, but they belong to the magazine. And they were all shot of full-frame while you're on crop format, which in terms of what the lens is being asked to do is like adding another 1.5x TC.

The best advice I can give is really what I posted above re Nikon/Nikon vs Sigma/Sigma. You need to try it.

 

[fracster]

Phil just for your info, I shot this with the 1.7 on my 70-200 vr2.

I use the combo a lot in my hide, not the best example, but does give you a general idea. I can e-mail the full size one if you want.



coal tit, harsh light by Fracster, on Flickr

 

[Phil Young]

Phil just for your info, I shot this with the 1.7 on my 70-200 vr2.

I use the combo a lot in my hide, not the best example, but does give you a general idea. I can e-mail the full size one if you want.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fracster/8109253760/
coal tit, harsh light by Fracster, on Flickr

Excellent thanks - what version TC was this??
I really want 400mm as a minimum and the digital picture sharpness test shows that all of them at f8 is very close to what I'm happy with, these real world examples are a good confirmation though!

 

[specialman]

Phil just for your info, I shot this with the 1.7 on my 70-200 vr2.

I use the combo a lot in my hide, not the best example, but does give you a general idea. I can e-mail the full size one if you want.

/SNIP/

Fracster, what kind of distances away are the birds? 10-15ft? Do you shoot anything larger at further distances closer to infinity? I've no problem on my 2x at closer range but once you start pushing the glass, it looks a bit pap. Thinking of changing to the 1.7x TC

 

[Cagey75]

I may well have a 1.7 for sale in classified soon. Just don't get to use it.

 

[fracster]

Phil, Pat, I'll have look and see if I have better examples. I think I have some of the deer shot with this combo. The coal tit is pretty much uncropped iirc. Distance is about six feet I think.

 

[Phil Young]

Phil, Pat, I'll have look and see if I have better examples. I think I have some of the deer shot with this combo. The coal tit is pretty much uncropped iirc. Distance is about six feet I think.

Cheers.

Pat: is it like that at f8? I'm just thinking because the 50mm 1.8 has a soft infinity focus at further distances until about f2.8

 

[gembobs]

I have the tamron non VC and also a Kenko pro 300 DG 2x tc.

I haven't used the combo a lot as there is some IQ loss (the 1.4x tc has negligible IQ loss IMO, so I use that more), but here are some samples:

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/500, ISO 1000, elbows resting on shelf in WWT hide, taken around noon on a bright October day, cropped

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/800, ISO 400, monopod, taken late afternoon on a bright day, full frame

Unfortunately, I don't have the original files to hand (moved recently and external HDD still packed away) so can't pass them on to you. Generally, I find the 2x tc needs good light to keep the shutter speed high enough to use (useable high ISO will help with that), and the IQ and AF speed do take a hit. I have never used it stopped down as when I have tried to use it, I have tended to be hand held and have struggled with shutter speeds.

 

[HoppyUK]

Phil, if you're happy with Gembobs pics with the Tamron, that's a good lens but not up to the same standard as the Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS 70-200 2.8 zooms. The new Tamron VC looks promising though

 

[gembobs]

Phil, if you're happy with Gembobs pics with the Tamron, that's a good lens but not up to the same standard as the Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS 70-200 2.8 zooms. The new Tamron VC looks promising though

I have to agree in terms of AF, but the IQ of the bare lens is pretty close to the others from what I have read / seen on the net (and when I bought it, it was £50 cheaper new than the Canon 70-200 f4 non IS, which made it an easy decision for me! )

 

[Phil Young]

Phil, if you're happy with Gembobs pics with the Tamron, that's a good lens but not up to the same standard as the Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS 70-200 2.8 zooms. The new Tamron VC looks promising though

Disagree Richard. The sharpness is very close between all the above.

Af isn't.

 

[HoppyUK]

Disagree Richard. The sharpness is very close between all the above.

Af isn't.

What are you disagreeing with? I thought that's what I said. But it's definitely not optically as good as the Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS lenses, as you might expect for the price, and the AF is poor by comparison. If you want to call that 'very close' I wouldn't argue.

I reviewed all four of them in the edition before the one I metioned above.

 

[Phil Young]

I have the tamron non VC and also a Kenko pro 300 DG 2x tc.

I haven't used the combo a lot as there is some IQ loss (the 1.4x tc has negligible IQ loss IMO, so I use that more), but here are some samples:

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/500, ISO 1000, elbows resting on shelf in WWT hide, taken around noon on a bright October day, cropped

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/800, ISO 400, monopod, taken late afternoon on a bright day, full frame

Unfortunately, I don't have the original files to hand (moved recently and external HDD still packed away) so can't pass them on to you. Generally, I find the 2x tc needs good light to keep the shutter speed high enough to use (useable high ISO will help with that), and the IQ and AF speed do take a hit. I have never used it stopped down as when I have tried to use it, I have tended to be hand held and have struggled with shutter speeds.

Thanks for the reply- I'll have a look later on my laptop

 

[Phil Young]

What are you disagreeing with? I thought that's what I said. But it's definitely not optically as good as the Canon, Nikon and Sigma OS lenses, as you might expect for the price, and the AF is poor by comparison. If you want to call that 'very close' I wouldn't argue.

I reviewed all four of them in the edition before the one I metioned above.

I thought you said it wasn't up to the same standard? I thought they were all pretty much identical in terms of sharpness at 200mm??

Anyway, whatever the difference big or small I'll have a look later and see what they are like - I don't expect them to perform wide open but stopped down to F8, if they can match the 18-55 wide open I'd be happy!

Will check back in later tonight.

 

[john_e]

A few examples from a Canon 70-200 f.8 L IS MkII with a 2x MkIII (both at f5.6). Have done a 100% crop of them both too, these have had no PP and are straight RAW conversions.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[modchild]

This was taken on my 5D3 with Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII and a 2x MkIII converter at 400mm and wide open at f5.6. The only PP is a crop, other than that it's SOOC. I took about 400 photos that day using just the lens, with a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x and the Canon MkIII 2x and there is degradation in the 2x, but not enough to stop me using it. There's less with the 1.4x but there's not too much difference.

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Spiritflier]

Along with Stuart and John, I'm also using the 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII and the 2x MKIII converter and I've been incredibly impressed with the set-up... I did a couple of side-by-side tests against my daughter's 100-400mm L and couldn't determine any real difference in sharpness.

The 2x MKIII converter gets used regularly with my 300mm f/2.8 and even though there's a slight drop in IQ, it's not enough for me to start binning images. If I stop down slightly (f/7.1 to f/8), the IQ improves considerably and even though it's a serious drop in the amount of light coming in, the ISO performance of the 5DMKIII makes up for it.

 

[Canon Bob]

I think it's important to know what you're trying to achieve by using an extender/teleconverter when assessing the results.

This might sound a little obvious but read on....

If you're trying to double the size of the subject in the frame then the results can be quite comparable with the output from the naked lens. Yes, there is inevitably a little degradation but not hugely so.
If on the other you're trying to frame the same shot from double the distance then things will probably look much softer.
The increased distance allows environmental factors to kick in...heat haze in my case but it could just as easily be the relatively high humidity that some areas of the UK see from time to time!

These two factors (and I'm sure there are others) have quite an impact of perceived image sharpness. My 600/4+2x is used frequently during the winter months for small birds but it's pointless during the summer heat and the only solution is to ditch the converter and get closer.

Bob

 

[Phil Young]

I think it's important to know what you're trying to achieve by using an extender/teleconverter when assessing the results.

This might sound a little obvious but read on....

If you're trying to double the size of the subject in the frame then the results can be quite comparable with the output from the naked lens. Yes, there is inevitably a little degradation but not hugely so.
If on the other you're trying to frame the same shot from double the distance then things will probably look much softer.
The increased distance allows environmental factors to kick in...heat haze in my case but it could just as easily be the relatively high humidity that some areas of the UK see from time to time!

These two factors (and I'm sure there are others) have quite an impact of perceived image sharpness. My 600/4+2x is used frequently during the winter months for small birds but it's pointless during the summer heat and the only solution is to ditch the converter and get closer.

Bob

I appreciate your input...but I know what I'm after- just trying to find the best, most effective and cost effective solution

 

[Phil Young]

I have the tamron non VC and also a Kenko pro 300 DG 2x tc.

I haven't used the combo a lot as there is some IQ loss (the 1.4x tc has negligible IQ loss IMO, so I use that more), but here are some samples:

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/500, ISO 1000, elbows resting on shelf in WWT hide, taken around noon on a bright October day, cropped

40D, 70-200 + 2x @ 400mm, f5.6, 1/800, ISO 400, monopod, taken late afternoon on a bright day, full frame

Unfortunately, I don't have the original files to hand (moved recently and external HDD still packed away) so can't pass them on to you. Generally, I find the 2x tc needs good light to keep the shutter speed high enough to use (useable high ISO will help with that), and the IQ and AF speed do take a hit. I have never used it stopped down as when I have tried to use it, I have tended to be hand held and have struggled with shutter speeds.

Nice! at F8 they would be exactly what I want!

 

[Phil Young]

A few examples from a Canon 70-200 f.8 L IS MkII with a 2x MkIII (both at f5.6). Have done a 100% crop of them both too, these have had no PP and are straight RAW conversions.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Again, quite nice but a little softer than I'd like - still usable, but at F8 I would expect sharpness like I posted in the deer shot (obviously that's been processed though).

 

[HoppyUK]

F/8 is only one stop from max with a 2x, but that's where the biggest jump in sharpness is.

 

[Phil Young]

F/8 is only one stop from max with a 2x, but that's where the biggest jump in sharpness is.

....yes... that's why I am looking to use at f8 - sharp but still an ok level of light.

The D7000 is very sharp across it's ISO range so I'm not too worried about bumping that up...

 

[Soda Farl]

Does anyone have any experience of a good 2x tele converter plus either of the following 70-200mm lenses:

Nikon VR1/2
Canon IS 1/2
Sigma OS
Tamron VC/non VC.

Having owned various zooms going up to 400mm I am now interested in the above combination.

Obviously I wouldn't use a Canon but the above lenses are all in the same league optically so happy to make a decision based on any of the above!

Mainly interested in sharpness wide open and f8 as I can sort out most other things in PP.

Anything else that is relevant would be nice to hear and also any sample images would be amazing!

Cheers folks.

I can only go on my own experience with my Sigma 70-200. I have both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters.

With the 1.4x I.Q is great.

With the 2x not so much. It is still very usable which is why I have not sold it on but there is definelty a noticable drop in I.Q especially at the longer end.

Best to just save your pennys and get the 200-400 f/4

 

[Phil Young]

I can only go on my own experience with my Sigma 70-200. I have both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters.

With the 1.4x I.Q is great.

With the 2x not so much. It is still very usable which is why I have not sold it on but there is definelty a noticable drop in I.Q especially at the longer end.

Best to just save your pennys and get the 200-400 f/4

Tommy, there's a few reasons why the above would be my first choice if the IQ is ok.

Firstly, a tac sharp 70-200 f2.8 lens. I don't like primes so a decent low light zoom would serve me well.

Secondly, on the rare occasions I shoot wildlife, I like to make sure the images are good so whilst spending loads on a more expensive lens would bring me better quality, I couldn't justify the expense.

Lastly, the TC would come in very handy for macro work.

Having seen the images, I did think the combo would be ok and I'm sure I would be satisfied. Ok, it's not going to match the quality of a 500/f4, but it will be better than my old sigma 50-500 and 120-400 whilst also giving me a 70-200 f2.8

Worst case scenario would be to sell them and get something else- I'd only lose what it would cost to rent anyway...

Cheers.

 

[fracster]

Phil, I can`t find any long range stuff with the 1.7, sorry bud.

 

[Phil Young]

Phil, I can`t find any long range stuff with the 1.7, sorry bud.

Well what use are you to me then!!!!!

Lol kidding, don't worry - the 2x combo pictures above have concluded my expectations anyway it's fine.

I think I'll work towards getting the Sigma OS and a 2x.

Here's the thing though guys...

Will a Nikon 2x work fine on a Sigma? I don't see why not but thought it's best to ask...