Canon Extender

Hello Keith,

I did a similar thing last year. I had the 50 - 500, and sold it, and bought a 300 f4L, and a canon extender II, giving a focal length of 420mm. It wasn't quite as powerful, but the IQ was superior, and the better IQ meant that cropping slightly for a close up was easy. I later added a 400 f5.6L, and used the extender with it as well. It metered extremely well on my IDIIn.

The Sigma is a crackerjack of a lens, especially if you can only afford one, but it really is a monster, far too heavy, and really not as good as a prime.

Interestingly, I've just bought a Tamron 28-300 VR, which is smaller than the Sigma, but the VR makes it more of a prospect for a carry round lens, even at 300mm.
 
Thanks Doug. I thought that the loss of power could be made up by the extra IQ. I only used the Sigma up to about 450mm, so I shan't lose much anyway.

Thanks Keith.
 
I'd see if you could borrow a 2x T/C before deciding.
IMO, a 2x is a "bridge too far" on the 70-200/2.8 IS.

Bob
 
Thanks Bob. I've researched on Google to find reviews, but the comparison I need is between the Sigma 170-500 and the Canon with the converter. Do you think the Sigma would be better ?

Thanks Keith.
 
I'm thinking of going down the same line. Adding a 2x to a 70 - 200 2.8 makes good sense.
 
pugwash said:
I'm thinking of going down the same line. Adding a 2x to a 70 - 200 2.8 makes good sense.
Click to expand...

Have a Google. Theres lots of reviews about it. It seems that the latest TC, designated the 2xII has been significantly improved.

Keith.
 
Does anybody know how well the IS compensates with a 2x attached, I've not got the lens or extender, I'm just curious :)
 
I posted some pictures on this thread showing the use of a Canon 1.4x EF Extender II on both a 70-200l f4 IS and a 100-400L IS.
 
I don't like the results I get from my 70-200 with a 2x. It's fine with a 1.4 but I've just bought a 400/5.6 prime to avoid needing to use the 2x on the 70-200...
 
KeithH said:
Thanks Bob. I've researched on Google to find reviews, but the comparison I need is between the Sigma 170-500 and the Canon with the converter. Do you think the Sigma would be better ?

Thanks Keith.
Click to expand...

I've got the 2XII but find things a little too soft on the 2.8 IS. This may be an unfair judgement because I'll always be making the comparison with my 400/5.6. The 1.4x is more acceptable on the zoom and is definately usable. Maybe it's a case of whether you're taking the image for the sake of the phototgraph or for the sake of the subject.

Bob
 
I agree, the 2x just doesnt cut it on the 70-200 F2.8, the 1.4x is much better although your not getting the reach
 
I also don't like the 2x extender on the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, I tried a 170-500mm sigma a few years ago and found it to be poor. The Canon Extenders have been designed around the Super Telephoto lenses 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4. This is where the extenders start performing.
 
Rent an extended from lensesforhire to try it out?
 
It might be easier if we try to find someone who would put a 2x on a zoom.

Any takers?

Bob
 
Just recieved the 2x TC II extender. Here's one I took yesterday with it on the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Sharp enough for me. It prints out great!

robinframe.jpg


Keith.
 
any crops involced in that image, any sharpening etc...
 
33L said:
any crops involced in that image, any sharpening etc...
Click to expand...

No cropping involved. The original was shot in RAW, saved as a jpeg in photomatix. It was resized and framed in PSP via one of my scripts. The result had PSP's basic sharpening applied to it.

Keith.
 
KeithH said:
Just recieved the 2x TC II extender. Here's one I took yesterday with it on the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Sharp enough for me. It prints out great!

Keith.
Click to expand...

If you're happy with the results and it gets you the shots that you want, then it's money well spent. (y)

You need to do a bit of clock setting somewhere though...the EXIF is showing the image to be 5 1/2 years old.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
If you're happy with the results and it gets you the shots that you want, then it's money well spent. (y)

You need to do a bit of clock setting somewhere though...the EXIF is showing the image to be 5 1/2 years old.

Bob
Click to expand...

Well spotted Bob! I've only had the camera 2 years! Never set anything date wise. It's a Canon 400d, I assume there's a menu for this?

Thanks Keith.

Edit. Is it the camera or the software that needs the date altering ?
 
You need to set the date and time in the camera menu by the sound of it.

I'd hang on to your Sigma if you possibly can. Enticing though the idea of sticking the 2X TC behind the 70-200 2.8 is, it's not going to match your Sigma, and don't forget you'll lose two whole stops with the converter behind the 70-200, bringing you down to f5.6 max aperture. Then factor in the fact that you'll need to stop down a stop or two to resharpen the image and you're working at f8 or f11. In all but the best light you'll struggle to get fast enough shutter speeds for wildlife shots or any subject with even moderate subject movement.

Even with a 1.4 converter I need to stop down at least a stop before my 70-200 2.8L is as sharp as my 100-400L without converter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top