Do you have to.....

Uncle buck

Uncle buck

Messages
815
Name
Ade
Edit My Images
No
Sorry if this has been asked before, but do you have to use a genuine Canon teleconverter with a Canon 70-200 F4 L or can you use a 3rd party and if so are there any drawbacks or pitfalls I should be aware of???

Cheers
 
No you don't have to use a canon one.
Opinions vary, but the general view is that the 3rd generation canon 2x has a better image quality than 3rd party 2x converters.
If you're looking at a 1.4x (or older 2x) the quality of the top end kenkos seems to be considered on a par with the canon- though some have noted the canons fit slightly better, and may be sharper at the edges on a full frame camera.
The mk ii and iii canons also have some weather sealing, and are beige! I don't think your lens is weather sealed.
Downside of the canons are price and limited lens compatability. Your 70 200 lens will fit though.

I've just picked up a 2nd hand canon 1.4ex mk ii for my 300 f4. Seems to work well and fit well.
 
I used a Kenko 1.4x convertor on a Canon 70-300L with no issues. Of course with 2x convertors you'll have to manual focus.
 
I have a x2 kenko that I used with my old sigma 70-300 and now my 70-200 F4. It works, but it's soft(er than I'd like). I'm actually replacing both with a x2 canon mkIII and the 70-200 2.8mkII on Friday.

I've used the x2 for a few years (on and off) and as I say it's okay but the results on using it with the F4, leave it a bit too soft and it's difficult to get the sharpness back in post processing. It gives the image quality a drop that looks like you've stepped down to an entry level 70-300 from the L lens.

Oops, forgot to add that I've read that the Kenko 1.4 is better, sharpness wise. I've never used one though, so can't say either way.
 
Last edited:
The 70-300L gets good reviews. I nearly opted for that to save a bit of cash, but decided that as most of my photography is in poor light at gigs, and the fact I've got a swim meet to photograph and some outdoor car event, I thought I'd only be annoyed when the light is too poor.
 
Uncle buck said:
I am trying to eek out a bit more distance but still have a decent medium length lens, not got a huge budget so trying to keep the cost down a bit. Might even take a look at the 100-400mm L second hand
Click to expand...
As I mentioned on your other thread, the 100-400 would seem to suit what your doing. While a converter will give you more length, the downside is the drop in IQ, and with a 1.4 you loose a stop, and a 2x you loose 2 stops, plus the AF is slower in most cases, and once you get above f/5.6 you loose AF. Going for an 'L' lens would always be preferable for speed and IQ, and the 100-400 would work for your bird photography and also the 100mm end would be useful for when you take the camera on your fishing trips.
 
Trev4 said:
As I mentioned on your other thread, the 100-400 would seem to suit what your doing. While a converter will give you more length, the downside is the drop in IQ, and with a 1.4 you loose a stop, and a 2x you loose 2 stops, plus the AF is slower in most cases, and once you get above f/5.6 you loose AF. Going for an 'L' lens would always be preferable for speed and IQ, and the 100-400 would work for your bird photography and also the 100mm end would be useful for when you take the camera on your fishing trips.
Click to expand...
Thats just nailed it on the head best of both worlds , Credit card brace yourself
 
Uncle buck said:
Thats just nailed it on the head best of both worlds , Credit card brace yourself
Click to expand...
I don't think you will regret it at all, I've had mine for 4 years now, and many birders who I know use them too, its a lens I wont be parting with any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top