Canon lens advice

[darrenh88]

Hi everyone, just signed up to this so bear with me, I may be slow. I've just purchased the canon 70-200 F4 L non Is. Budget is tight otherwise I would have went with a longer zoom so my other option is an extender.

Can anyone recommend if it's worth buying and extender. If so, what version?

I understand that I will lose a couple of stops but just interested to see if anyone has any experience with this setup and how it performs.

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

What are you shooting? The Canon 1.4x is good but as you said, loose a stop of light. If you are going to be shooting indoor sports or football at night, this is going to tricky at best.

Look for used equipment to help with the cost savings.

 

[runnah]

I haven't been really impressed with the converters. Their downsides outweigh the upsides.

The 1.4 extender would only give you an extra 80mm at the long end.

 

[Derrel]

I haven't been really impressed with the converters. Their downsides outweigh the upsides.

The 1.4 extender would only give you an extra 80mm at the long end.

And that is really the rub with a 1.4x on a 70-200mm lens...you need to remove the converter quite often if you want to really preserve the quality of the main lens!!! So, unless the lens is zoomed to max, you do not have to zoom back very far to get into the range that the lens alone can reach--and at that range you really should remove the converter and shoot with just the main lens!

I think that generally, the best converters are the camera maker's own brand 1.4x model. The 1.4x costs only one stop's worth of light, and doesn't hurt the overall image quality too badly. On balance, you can also crop-in at the computer, and get very good image quality today, esp. on a higher-MP count camera's captures, and at the same time, get a generally sharper capture to start with. If the majority of the image is subject matter that's mostly in the central area of the frame, like say bird in flight, or a surfer on water, the loss of corner sharpness is sometimes not hardly noticeable.

A person really needs to test out the specific lens/converter match. Some converters will work better than others, on some lenses. Some work really poorly with some lenses.

 

[runnah]

I haven't been really impressed with the converters. Their downsides outweigh the upsides.

The 1.4 extender would only give you an extra 80mm at the long end.

And that is really the rub with a 1.4x on a 70-200mm lens...you need to remove the converter quite often if you want to really preserve the quality of the main lens!!! So, unless the lens is zoomed to max, you do not have to zoom back very far to get into the range that the lens alone can reach--and at that range you really should remove the converter and shoot with just the main lens!

I think that generally, the best converters are the camera maker's own brand 1.4x model. The 1.4x costs only one stop's worth of light, and doesn't hurt the overall image quality too badly. On balance, you can also crop-in at the computer, and get very good image quality today, esp. on a higher-MP count camera's captures, and at the same time, get a generally sharper capture to start with. If the majority of the image is subject matter that's mostly in the central area of the frame, like say bird in flight, or a surfer on water, the loss of corner sharpness is sometimes not hardly noticeable.

A person really needs to test out the specific lens/converter match. Some converters will work better than others, on some lenses. Some work really poorly with some lenses.

Yup. I've read and seen people getting good results with a 2x and the 70-200 2.8, but getting even better results with the 100-400. It's a cheaper option for sure but with more drawbacks.

And considering the previous generation 100-400 are dropping in price ($800-900) and the 2x is $500, the cost savings isn't monumental compared to the quality difference.

 

[Derrel]

Well, OP, until you get either a longer lens or a converter, I'd say focus on making the best captures you can: high shutter speed, good focusing, and cropping at the computer. If you just want a long lens, look at something long to start with, like a used 300mm, or a 400mm/5.6 Canon which is optically sharp, light, and available used.

Look for teleconverters that are clean, but used, for the best deal; NEW ones can cost $500, used ones sometimes come up really affordably at brick and mortar stores. Used TC unit prices vary a LOT, especially in brick and mortar stores in secondary cities. On-line, prices are usually universally kind of high.

 

[JacaRanda]

From what I've seen, the best results when using teleconvertors are most often when they are combined with............really expensive lenses. Go figure.
The photo of the Heron a little ways down on this page is acceptable to my eyes, but he is using the 1.4tc with a $12,000.00 lens. SHEEESH
Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART

 

[darrenh88]

Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. I would be using it for wildlife and such. The main reason for this post was that I wanted a longer reach without spending mega money but still maintaining 'L' quality. Guess I'll have to start saving and put up with being as stealth as possible in the mean time. Anymore comments are greatly appreciated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk