Anyone ever used a teleconverter?

[sdshutterbug]

I have no experience with teleconverters but I was thinking a 2x teleconverter might come in handy at a relatively low price to turn a 50 1.4 into a 100 2.8 or in a pinch, a 100-300 f/4-5.6 into a very slow 200-600, without having to pay for a whole other lens. I am mainly interested in it for the former though, especially since it would still autofocus. The Canon 2x is quite pricey but gets rave reviews, while Kenko has a number of less expensive models. I don't expect the 50 1.4 + 2x to deliver the same image quality as a 100 2.8 lens itself, but is the IQ reduction really bad?

Thanks for your advice, as always!

 

[C&B Young]

Never used one, but have been looking into getting one. Apparently a 2x one degrades your image quality substantially, a 1.4x one isn't so bad though. There's a good FAQ on the Canon forums I visit here.

 

[Groucho]

I've got an old cheap Vivitar 2x converter for M42 lenses which I have used once or twice. I would assume the quality loss would vary amongst the different TCs, but I didn't find it to be totally horrendous, but I wouldn't spend too much. I've been sorta thinking about a good-quality 1.4x TC one of these days...

Here's a few shots taken with my 2x TC and a Komine-built Vivitar 200mm F3.5 M42 lens (actually quite a good lens like many Komines are, and available for dirt cheap) - so 400mm, or 600mm equivalent on my camera. That is a lotta range!

The last two are more typical... a bit soft, and of course at 400mm you need to be very steady and nail the focus just right if manually-focusing, as I was. The first one shows that you can get, IMHO, pretty solid results - but I rarely use it. When I need that extra reach, though, I'll give it a shot.

 

[rtphokie]

I rented a 2x Canon teleconverter and was unimpressed. Tried it on my 200 and 300 lenses as well as a rented 600mm lens with L glass. The amount of light lost vs. the zoom it provides just isn't worth it to me.

It sucks up a surprising amount of photons

 

[AndrewWG]

The Canon TC's cannot be used with just any lens from what I have seen. I can only use mine on my L lenses. I love the 1.4x. Use it all the time for baseball shots on my 70-200 f2.8. Don't find the quality to suffer much at all.

 

[Docsknotinn]

You really need to post more information about what body you have. The 2X is not a very useful TC on any of the lenses you listed. Maybe on a 300 2.8. Other brands may or may not autofocus or report. Even with a Canon the 100-400IS will not AF with a XXD series unless you tape the pins. It's easy to do and you can google that for instructions if you wish. The 1.4x is a better choice and far more popular. I rarely see any one using the 2x. If you have a one series body they will AF/report with more lens's than the XXD series etc. Here is a shot I took with the 70-200F4IS at 280mm. FWIW I don't believe the EF-S lenses will work with a TC but you can ask at Fred Miranda or the Canon forums.

 

[saturndb]

You really need to post more information about what body you have. The 2X is not a very useful TC on any of the lenses you listed. Maybe on a 300 2.8. Other brands may or may not autofocus or report. Even with a Canon the 100-400IS will not AF with a XXD series unless you tape the pins. It's easy to do and you can google that for instructions if you wish. The 1.4x is a better choice and far more popular. I rarely see any one using the 2x. If you have a one series body they will AF/report with more lens's than the XXD series etc. Here is a shot I took with the 70-200F4IS at 280mm. FWIW I don't believe the EF-S lenses will work with a TC but you can ask at Fred Miranda or the Canon forums.

That is a beautiful shot! If I may ask, was your IS turned on or was it off


Dave

 

[Docsknotinn]

Thank you. Yes I always have the IS with the 70-200 f4 turned on. Unlike the older generation IS (100-400) there is no reason to turn it off even when using a tri-pod. This shot was hand held.

 

[saturndb]

Thank you. Yes I always have the IS with the 70-200 f4 turned on. Unlike the older generation IS (100-400) there is no reason to turn it off even when using a tri-pod. This shot was hand held.

So do you feel the IS is worth the extra few hundred dollars. The reason I ask, I am looking at geting either a canon 70-200 f/4 with or without the IS. The cost difernece is about $400.00 from what I see and I am not sure it is worth the extra $$$. I am not a pro and would not be using it for sports, mainly landscape, nature, taking it to Disney and portrait type work.

Also I see you took that shot at the Detroit Zoo! I live in Novi, what area are you from?

Dave

 

[AndrewWG]

Dave,

My opinion on to IS or not to IS would be to certainly spend the money and get the IS. I have quite stable hands and still can not turn off the IS on my 70-200 and get a decent shot most of the time. The shutter speeds have to be quite fast for that to happen.

 

[Docsknotinn]

I'm in Rochester Hills! It really is a small world!
People debate back and forth on the IS vs cost all the time. I can't tell you if IS will be worth the price to every one but I will offer this, All of the Canon 70-200 lenses are pretty spectacular.
IS or not.
I love the 70-200 f4 IS as a travel lens. However for roughly the same $ if you are into portraits or candids you may want to consider the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS. You will get faster Shutter speeds with that lens and it is very sharp. Remember a faster SS can trump IS!
However it is heavy for travel.
If you can afford IS and by that I mean not charge it or put yourself in a spot where you know you are spending more than you should then the IS is worth every penny.
I believe Canon may put these on instant rebate in October. One other thought. Canon L lenses continue to rise in price and hold their value VERY well. Chances are if you take care of it you could sell it in a few years for almost as much as you paid for it (if you are ever willing to part with it).
For me the perfect travel kit is the 17-55 f2.8IS and the 70-200 f4IS.
Hope that helps.

 

[VVFF]

I'm in Rochester Hills! It really is a small world!
People debate back and forth on the IS vs cost all the time. I can't tell you is or is not worth the price to every one but I will offer this, All of the Canon 70-200 lenses are pretty spectacular.
IS or not.
I love the 70-200 f4 IS as a travel lens. However for roughly the same $ if you are into portraits or candids you may want to consider the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS. You will get faster Shutter speeds with that lens and it is very sharp. Remember a faster SS can trump IS!
However it is heavy for travel.
If you can afford IS and by that I mean not charge it or put yourself in a spot where you know you are spending more than you should then the IS is worth every penny.
I believe Canon may put these on instant rebate in October. One other thought. Canon L lenses continue to rise in price and hold their value VERY well. Chances are if you take care of it you could sell it in a few years for almost as much as you paid for it (if you are ever willing to part with it).
For me the perfect travel kit is the 17-55 f2.8IS and the 70-200 f4IS.
Hope that helps.

I'm in Rochester Hills as well!

It's a small world afffttter all.

 

[sdshutterbug]

Thanks for the advice everyone...the sample pictures all look great! I realized I don't want a Canon TC because it does not accept as many lenses, specifically the 50mm. I don't have the lenses I am talking about yet because I am planning to switch from Sony to Canon in the near future. I really was planning to use the Canon 50 f/1.4 with the TC - I can't really afford a fast telephoto so I thought this might be a cheaper solution, since I already plan to buy the 50 for a mid-range fast prime and then with the TC it would be the equivalent of 100 2.8. There is a pro version of the Kenko TC that's about $225, and if it works really well I think it might be worth it. I don't think 1.4x is enough magnification given my lens is already on the wide end to begin with.

 

[VVFF]

Thanks for the advice everyone...the sample pictures all look great! I realized I don't want a Canon TC because it does not accept as many lenses, specifically the 50mm. I don't have the lenses I am talking about yet because I am planning to switch from Sony to Canon in the near future. I really was planning to use the Canon 50 f/1.4 with the TC - I can't really afford a fast telephoto so I thought this might be a cheaper solution, since I already plan to buy the 50 for a mid-range fast prime and then with the TC it would be the equivalent of 100 2.8. There is a pro version of the Kenko TC that's about $225, and if it works really well I think it might be worth it. I don't think 1.4x is enough magnification given my lens is already on the wide end to begin with.

Shutterbug,

Refer to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF

Simply put, what you're saying will not work. Only a select group of lenses is compatible with the teleconverter. You can't just attach it to anything.

 

[sdshutterbug]

I guess I forgot to mention I am looking at the Kenko version now, which accepts 50mm.

 

[Docsknotinn]

Unless you are using very high end glass you will lose significant IQ with a 2.0 TC. Even then many find the results un-acceptable. By the time you purchase the 50 1.4 and the TC you will be spending enough to get a better lens. IMO this is not a solid plan for the glass you are talking about.
Best of luck either way with the new toys.

 

[sdshutterbug]

Thanks Docksnottin - after hunting around on ebay I found that I could get a Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 for about the same price as a high end 2x TC from Kenko so I'm leaning more towards that...I still want the 50 as well though, can't beat 1.4! (unless it's 1.2 but that's beyond my budget!)

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's teleconverters are very good, the 1.4x loses very little image quality with a good lens. I tested it with a 70-200 and could see no significant difference. Focus speed and accuracy are still very good.

This photo is with a 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x (no IS, a monopod costs a lot less).