Canon 2x extender

saffronsnapper

saffronsnapper

Messages
287
Edit My Images
No
I've just bought an extender and tried it out on my 70-200 mk2 2.8. Everything I've read suggests that the minimum aperture is f5.6 but it seems very soft. Is this a common observation or have I just landed a soft copy?
 
I use a Canon x2ii a lot on my 70-200 and it is still very sharp I have used it on things including dragonflies in flight, Motorsport and football, My Kenko x2 is the same.

Try it on a test chart supported to eliminate shake. Then check if it is a back or front focus issue depending on your camera you could dial this out.

Once tested you will have proof to take back as well

Just one thought is mine does not work well will a CP filter so try without a filter as well
 
saffronsnapper said:
I've just bought an extender and tried it out on my 70-200 mk2 2.8. Everything I've read suggests that the minimum aperture is f5.6 but it seems very soft. Is this a common observation or have I just landed a soft copy?
Click to expand...

Which 2x converter ?

Is it a Canon one ?

Which version if it's a Canon one is it - 1, 2 or 3 ?
 
Oh and I presume your lens is lovely and sharp without the converter on ?
 
It's a Canon mk2 extender and seems sharp from about f8 and up.
The lens is sharp without the converter.
 
saffronsnapper said:
It's a Canon mk2 extender and seems sharp from about f8 and up.
The lens is sharp without the converter.
Click to expand...

Thats what I found on the 70-200mm and in fact near enough any lens I have used the 2x converter on, you have a stop it down a entire stop before you can see decent IQ, If you are set up for a very static subject with a good shutter speed and careful focus you may get away with f/5.6 at times but on avrage you want to keep to f/8 to be assured of the images IQ.
 
I don't ever think of stopping down with mine. I think every football match I have taken this season has been at 5.6 with no issues. I have had a look through some of my dragonfly photos for f5.6 picture but I usually do stop down a bit to get them all in focus but here is one at f5.6 it is larger on flickr so you can click on it and magnify it. It is also a crop I guess by 50% it does not seem soft to me.


1D4_0817 by Martin Billard, on Flickr

and one at f6.3

Migrant in flight by Martin Billard, on Flickr

What body are you using and can you post a picture or two. If you can't use it at f5.6 it can't be right imo
 
I'm shooting on a Canon 5D mk3. I'll try to get something posted tonight to show you.
It was my first attempt at wildlife at Carsington Water over the weekend so you'll have to excuse the quality of the work.

It's curious that you've both found such a difference in your examples of the converter, where Joe has to stop it down and Martin can shoot happily at f5.6.
 
I have the same gear, 5D3, 70-200 2.8 II and 2x extender, although mine is a Mk3 extender, and I've got numerous shots at f5.6 that I'm fairly happy with including this one. Hope you get yours sorted out.

Seagull by stuart goodwin, on Flickr
 
I did note that Martin is shooting 1/1000. I had presumed a stationary sheep would be ok at 1/125 but I suppose the movement when hand holding is more exaggerated at 400mm.
 
saffronsnapper said:
I did note that Martin is shooting 1/1000. I had presumed a stationary sheep would be ok at 1/125 but I suppose the movement when hand holding is more exaggerated at 400mm.
Click to expand...

Given the 400mm and the sheep was most likely moving even if it was just slightly those factors alone would warrant a much greater shutter speed than 1/125
 
If i use any lens mostly zoom that is longer than 100mm then i try not use a shutter speed less than 1/200, and if using an extender than i try to go minimum with 1/400 or 1/500.

You can't confirm about if your lens is sharp or your extender is fine or sharp until you test it in different apertures and different shutter speed, i got some not sharp shots using my 70-200 II without extender, but that is due to shutter speed or aperture most of the time.
 
I have had the mkii and now have the markiii on my 5D mark 3 with a 70-200 lens. I found the mkii very good and got some lovely photos even at f5.6 but I agree the mkiii is much better.

I would strongly support keeping the shutter speed at 1/400 or higher if using an extender. Push the ISO up a bit as necessary the 5D mark 3 is excellent at higher ISO's
 
Thank you all for the benefit of your experience and wisdom, It was indeed user error on my part so I'm glad I asked.
I've tried it out this morning and even on a murky, wet morning in Leeds with the ISO cranked up to 6400 and 1/400 shutter it looked much sharper at f5.6. It was grainy due to the ISO but I can resolve that.
Hopefully I'll get some better wildlife shots as a result and put them on TP.

@Cheffievrs I can imagine the mk3 being much better but I need to get used to this one first before I decide to take the plunge.

Thanks again guys!
 
I forgot to say that i had mkii before but i sold it and bought mkiii, also i have 1.4x mkii and mkiii, i couldn't sell 1.4 mkii so i kept it for a while until i find someone to buy it locally.
 
I've been looking at getting one today... now I'm wondering if it's worth bothering with
 
Interesting video which goes against my experiences with both extenders. When he was comparing sharpness he went to 200x zoom he also did not show what a click to the sharpness slider would do.

I would not have been put off by a YouTube video where a bloke needs a calculator to do 200x1.4 whilst testing a 1.4 (ex).

I would add that I do notice a drop in quality with my 300mmf4 and x2 extender more but I have only tried it hand held and 600mm is quite shaky to hold and the IS on the 300f4 is antiquated compared to the 70-200f2.8ii.
 
Always happy to use extenders when the circumstance dictates the use for one. Mk3 versions on Mk2 lenses are great

Personally I wouldn't listen to that video. I accept not all people are good at math but when he had the extender mounted to the camera body first before attaching to the lens, I just switched off. You'd think he'd read the manual first.
 
I carry the 1.4 mkii and mkiii & 2x mkii extenders, they are an invaluable addition to my kit bag. I call them my Heinekens as they reach the parts that a bare lens can't reach!
The 2x is more hit and miss, I tend to use it supported rather than hand held as I get more keepers this way with my Canon 300 f2.8 lens. Also stacked 2x with a 1.4 is very good in some situations.
 
Before the mk2 100-400 came out, I used a 1.4 mk3 with a 70-200 mk2 2.8 and the real life results were indistinguishable from the bare lens.

I also have no qualms whatsoever about using it with a super tele prime, and the mk2 lenses with the mk 3 extenders I've found to be excellent.......I think you'll agree, Joe, from the shots you saw?

George.
 
A rule of thumb is that the SLOWEST speed you should attempt to use to get a sharp picture is the reciprocal of the EFFECTIVE focal length.

So the minimum speed on a 200mm lens fitted with a 2x extender would be at least 1/400 sec and if you had a 1.6 crop camera (Canon 7dII etc) then it would be 200x2x1.6=640 therefore the slowest speed would be 1/640 sec.

I have also found with extenders that the IS seems to decrease quite markedly in some cases also, although why this is I'm not certain, and it happens in quite bright light too so doesn't seem to be anything to do with the camera failing to lock on to the subject.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top