anyone using an ef extender with your 10d ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by IRISH1EAR, Aug 8, 2003.

  1. IRISH1EAR

    IRISH1EAR Guest

    i use an lseries 70-200 f4 lense mostly for sports on my 10 d and would like to
    be able to get even closer .

    instead of laying out alot of $ for a longer lseries lense i thought maybe the
    extender might do the trick ?.

    is anyone using the 2x or 1x4 extender , if so what kind of results or perhaps
    suggestionsof name brand lenses or extender etc .

    thanks
    irish1ear
    IRISH1EAR, Aug 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste of
    money?
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. IRISH1EAR

    dslr Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste of
    > money?


    Really?
    What leads you to that conclusion?

    --
    regards,
    dslr
    dslr, Aug 8, 2003
    #3
  4. IRISH1EAR

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Randall Ainsworth

    >When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste of
    >money?


    Maybe you're using cheap lenses to start with and the extenders just magnify
    your problems, but if you have really good glass like fixed focal length Canon
    "L" lenses then the image quality with the 1.4x is pretty much
    indistinguishable from the lens without the converter, and the 2x on a really
    super chunk of glass like the 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 (which I own) still gives
    excellent results.

    I agree that on something like the 75-300 the t/c image quality is suspect, and
    even with my 100-400 "L" I don't like to use a t/c, but on the best zooms like
    the 70-200 "L" (either f/2.8 or f/4) the 1.4 works well, and on the super
    tele's both converters work well because the optics of the lens are so good to
    begin with. I've even stacked the 1.4x and 2x on the 500 f/4 L IS to get
    1,400 mm at f/11 with surprisingly good results.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 8, 2003
    #4
  5. IRISH1EAR

    Scott Ranger Guest

    > is anyone using the 2x or 1x4 extender , if so what kind of results or
    perhaps
    > suggestionsof name brand lenses or extender etc .
    >
    > thanks
    > irish1ear


    I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the EF 2x II to take on my trip to Africa
    in June. What a great decision to make! The lens by itself is *incredible*
    and the photos with the extender are great. When I zoom in with Photoshop,
    *my* eyes find it difficult to discern an *appreciable* difference in
    quality between the zoom alone and the zoom with the extender. Some of you
    have the eyes of a hawk and can split pixels at 500 yards. Mine aren't that
    good. The photos I print out at 11 x 17 on my Epson 1270 get serious *wows!*
    from nearly every viewer. And I like them a great deal.

    All that being said, the advice to stay away from the 2x and the f/4 lens is
    a good one.

    Scott
    Scott Ranger, Aug 8, 2003
    #5
  6. > > When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste of
    > > money?

    >
    > Really?
    > What leads you to that conclusion?


    They turn a great lens into a fuzzy piece of crap while losing a few
    stops in the bargain.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 8, 2003
    #6
  7. > And your basis for this *strong* conclusion is.....
    > > > > When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste of
    > > > > money?


    Experience. You're telling me that extenders do not degrade any lens'
    performance and that you don't sacrifice a few stops (depending on the
    multiplier)?


    > > > Really?
    > > > What leads you to that conclusion?

    > >
    > > They turn a great lens into a fuzzy piece of crap while losing a few
    > > stops in the bargain.

    >
    >
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 9, 2003
    #7
  8. IRISH1EAR

    Scott Ranger Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:080820031624218645%...
    > > And your basis for this *strong* conclusion is.....
    > > > > > When are people going to learn that extenders are a total waste

    of
    > > > > > money?

    >
    > Experience. You're telling me that extenders do not degrade any lens'
    > performance and that you don't sacrifice a few stops (depending on the
    > multiplier)?
    >

    *What* experience? Can you show a comparison of shots you've made with and
    without the extender on a quality lens that will demonstrate what your
    *strong* conclusion says?

    What I am saying, is that *my* eyes have a difficult time discerning an
    *appreciable* difference in the quality of a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with
    and without the EF 2x II extender. Is there a difference? Yes. Does the
    extender degrade the performance of the primary lens? Yes. Does it degrade
    the lens to the point where it is "a total waste of money?" Well, for me,
    no. It was a *wonderful* addition to my arsenal of lenses on safari in
    Africa this past June. It allowed me shots that I otherwise would not have
    been able to make. For example, I don't have two cameras around my neck with
    long and longer lenses on at all times while bouncing around on the dirt
    roads of Chobe National Park in Botswana. I got some shots of red-billed
    oxpeckers on the back of reticulated giraffes that if you looked at them by
    themselves you'd *never* say they were taken with a 2x extender.

    All of life if full of compromises. If you have the money to not have to
    deal with compromises, I envy you. I don't, and the combination of the great
    Canon lens and great Canon extender helped me accomplish what I wanted. Are
    they perfect? Of course not! Galen Rowell seemed to *never* consider a
    picture perfect. He *always* complained about his shots. Oh, that mine were
    as nice.

    My advice to all: know the limitations of your own vision first, and then
    your equipment. We're *all* limited. Those of us that know, or can find out,
    our limitations are way ahead of the rest.

    Scott
    Scott Ranger, Aug 9, 2003
    #8
  9. > *What* experience? Can you show a comparison of shots you've made with and
    > without the extender on a quality lens that will demonstrate what your
    > *strong* conclusion says?


    How about 37 years of experience doing various types of photography?
    I have not personally wasted my money on such gadgets.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 9, 2003
    #9
  10. IRISH1EAR

    dslr Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > > *What* experience? Can you show a comparison of shots you've made with and
    > > without the extender on a quality lens that will demonstrate what your
    > > *strong* conclusion says?

    >
    > How about 37 years of experience doing various types of photography?
    > I have not personally wasted my money on such gadgets.


    So, therefore, you have no experience or, even, knowledge of Canon
    extenders that were designed as part of the overall optical system when
    used with specific lenses in Canon's range. What an excellent basis for
    such a blanket statement?

    I don't deny that there are extenders/teleconverters that are indeed
    crap, but the OP wasn't asking about them.

    --
    regards,
    dslr
    dslr, Aug 9, 2003
    #10
  11. IRISH1EAR

    David Grandy Guest

    I'd have no fear in adding a 1.4 TC to my stock. As a matter of fact it's
    probably going to be my next purchase. That would give me a 100 to 280
    optical reach with my 70-200 f2.8L. Then when you add the compensation for
    the 10D's smaller CMOS it'd make an effective 160 to 400 f4.

    Everything I've ever read about the Canon multipliers have been very
    positive. I've used a Nikkor TC201 for well over a decade with both a
    Nikkor 180 and a Nikkor 300 f2.8. That TC isn't even supposed to be used
    with the 300 - the TC301 is - but I've never had any problems with sharpness
    or vignetteing at all. I would only expect the Canon to be as good.

    One of the things that makes Multipliers/TC's unsharp is a design flaw. The
    flaw isn't in the lens/TC or even the camera body. The flaw is that the
    user refuses to use a tripod or even a monopod to support the camera! Funny
    but this lack of sharpness is also directly proportional to the focal length
    of the lens. A friend of mine once bitterly complained about how soft his
    new Nikkor 180 ED was. I stuck it and a camera body onto a tripod and did
    some shots which of course were tack sharp. He hadn't used a lens of this
    length before and was handholding it at relatively slow shutterspeeds.
    Those shutterspeeds were OK when he was using his 105 but weren't enough for
    the longer 180. The fix for him was using faster shutterspeeds when he was
    handholding it and a tripod/monopod whenever he could. So before you
    believe anyone tells you that a Multiplier/TC is soft ask them what
    shutterspeed they were using and whether the tripod was sturdy.
    David Grandy, Aug 9, 2003
    #11
  12. IRISH1EAR

    Don Coon Guest

    Oops, make that an 1150x767 crop. Damn IE6 resizes the image to fit the
    display.


    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:pE7Za.71564$Oz4.17442@rwcrnsc54...
    > Here's a shot taken with a Tamron 1.4 extender on a Canon EF 75-300mm.

    It's
    > an 850x567 crop from a shot of the moon. Made levels adjustment but no
    > sharpening. The extender cost me all of $60 and seems to work just fine.
    > This gave me 672mm -- 300x1.6x1.4.
    >
    > http://coondwc.home.comcast.net/IMG_3179.jpg
    >
    >
    > "dslr" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > *What* experience? Can you show a comparison of shots you've made

    with
    > and
    > > > > without the extender on a quality lens that will demonstrate what

    your
    > > > > *strong* conclusion says?
    > > >
    > > > How about 37 years of experience doing various types of photography?
    > > > I have not personally wasted my money on such gadgets.

    > >
    > > So, therefore, you have no experience or, even, knowledge of Canon
    > > extenders that were designed as part of the overall optical system when
    > > used with specific lenses in Canon's range. What an excellent basis for
    > > such a blanket statement?
    > >
    > > I don't deny that there are extenders/teleconverters that are indeed
    > > crap, but the OP wasn't asking about them.
    > >
    > > --
    > > regards,
    > > dslr

    >
    >
    Don Coon, Aug 9, 2003
    #12
  13. IRISH1EAR

    Kenny Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:080820032044474088%...
    > > *What* experience? Can you show a comparison of shots you've made

    with and
    > > without the extender on a quality lens that will demonstrate what

    your
    > > *strong* conclusion says?

    >
    > How about 37 years of experience doing various types of photography?
    > I have not personally wasted my money on such gadgets.


    I equal you Randal in the number of years with photography, but I don't
    regard numbers of years as a measure of expertise (as you prove). The
    extenders are not gadgets. They were designed by Canon specifically for
    use with the L series lenses. I could pass your comments to all the pros
    at my next motorsport shoot (Sunday) and let them know that you think
    they have wasted their money on extender gadgets. I am sure they will be
    as amused as I am. But there again, your opinion doesn't matter to them,
    or to me, in this respect.

    I use the x1.4 or x2.0 with my 500L but tend only to use the x1.4 with
    my 100-400L. 90% of my work is outdoors at motor racing circuits,
    usually with decent light, so losing a couple of stops isn't a big
    worry. You can of course push the ISO to at least 400 which helps. The
    x1.4 also goes really well with the Sigma 70-200 or their 50-500, both
    of which are at the better end of non-Canon lenses. The biggest issue
    can be the loss of AF, but we all know how to manually focus - yes?
    IS will work however, and that is worth its weight in gold if you have
    to hand-hold the lens with a TC.

    My recommendation is to keep a x1.4 in your kit bag, but remember it
    will not fit all lenses due to it protruding into the bottom of the
    lens. You could do serious damage to say a 75-300IS when the rear
    element crashes down onto the extender. You could of course use Kenko or
    Tamron extenders without the protrusion, but the quality is not as good
    as the Canon versions.

    Kenny
    Kenny, Aug 9, 2003
    #13
  14. IRISH1EAR

    Scott Ranger Guest

    Thanks Kenny, for the superb response. I knew if I asked the right question,
    he'd hang himself on his own rope.
    Scott
    Scott Ranger, Aug 9, 2003
    #14
  15. > Thanks Kenny, for the superb response. I knew if I asked the right question,
    > he'd hang himself on his own rope.


    You boys can go right ahead and spend your money on whatever you
    want. I choose not to spend mine on tele-extenders by any
    manufacturer.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 9, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JJ
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    754
    Warren Jones
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. Shiperton Henethe

    Anyone found a 2x adaptor/extender for Swarovski 10x32 EL?

    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    393
  3. Shiperton Henethe

    Re: Anyone found a 2x adaptor/extender for Swarovski 10x32 EL?

    Shiperton Henethe, Aug 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    Shiperton Henethe
    Aug 15, 2003
  4. Gino

    Using Canon X2 Extender With 300mm 2.8

    Gino, Jul 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,409
    Jay B
    Jul 19, 2007
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    586
Loading...

Share This Page