Canon 2X telextender on EF 70-200 with 20D?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John A. Stovall, Feb 25, 2005.

  1. Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF 70-200 with a
    20D?

    Or for that matter the Canon telextenders on at all?


    ******************************************************************

    "The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

    _The Go-Between_
    L.P. Hartley
    1895 - 1972
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John A. Stovall

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF
    > 70-200 with a 20D?


    My wife has used this lens and converter with a 10D and a 1D Mark II,
    works fine except with the 10D (and 20D) you lose autofocus since the
    widest aperture is f/8 and those models need f/5.6 to AF with Canon
    converters (unless you want to tape over a contact).

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Feb 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John A. Stovall

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF 70-200
    >with a 20D?


    For unknown reasons I assumed you meant the f/4 in my previous answer
    .... if you're using the f/2.8 then it will hold autofocus with the 20D
    and a 2x since min aperture is still f/5.6 ... I have this lens and
    have used it with a 2x occasionally, wide open it has a bit of light
    fall-off in the corners with full frame cameras (film or the 1Ds), with
    the 20D you probably won't notice much since it's cropped already.
     
    Bill Hilton, Feb 25, 2005
    #3
  4. On 25 Feb 2005 14:06:29 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <>
    wrote:

    >> Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF 70-200
    >>with a 20D?

    >
    >For unknown reasons I assumed you meant the f/4 in my previous answer
    >... if you're using the f/2.8 then it will hold autofocus with the 20D
    >and a 2x since min aperture is still f/5.6 ... I have this lens and
    >have used it with a 2x occasionally, wide open it has a bit of light
    >fall-off in the corners with full frame cameras (film or the 1Ds), with
    >the 20D you probably won't notice much since it's cropped already.


    I'm looking at using it on the EF 70-200 F/4.0L.
    ******************************************************************

    "The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

    _The Go-Between_
    L.P. Hartley
    1895 - 1972
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 25, 2005
    #4
  5. John A. Stovall

    Don Guest

    I have used the 2x on my EF 70 - 200 F4 L on a 10D and now a 20D. You can
    forget autofocusing. Even when taping a pin as per an article that appeared
    on a net site, the autofocus is so slow as to be useless. If you are happy
    with manual focus (as I have been for certain applications) then I have not
    noticed much of a degradation in performance. However, sometimes the
    focusing is out and this is user error not the optics and people blame the
    converter.

    regards

    Don from Down Under
    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 25 Feb 2005 14:06:29 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF 70-200
    >>>with a 20D?

    >>
    >>For unknown reasons I assumed you meant the f/4 in my previous answer
    >>... if you're using the f/2.8 then it will hold autofocus with the 20D
    >>and a 2x since min aperture is still f/5.6 ... I have this lens and
    >>have used it with a 2x occasionally, wide open it has a bit of light
    >>fall-off in the corners with full frame cameras (film or the 1Ds), with
    >>the 20D you probably won't notice much since it's cropped already.

    >
    > I'm looking at using it on the EF 70-200 F/4.0L.
    > ******************************************************************
    >
    > "The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."
    >
    > _The Go-Between_
    > L.P. Hartley
    > 1895 - 1972
     
    Don, Feb 26, 2005
    #5
  6. John A. Stovall

    emski Guest

    > Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender

    I did use on 100-400 5.6 L ..no AF, IS was working slow, all over quality
    not satisfied.So went back to the store
    mark
     
    emski, Feb 26, 2005
    #6
  7. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "emski" <> wrote:

    >> Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender


    > I did use on 100-400 5.6 L ..no AF, IS was working slow, all over quality
    >not satisfied.So went back to the store


    There's nothing wrong with the quality of the Canon 2x TC, or the Kenko
    Pro 300 (or Tamron SP, which is the same). You were probably expecting
    miracles beyond the laws of physics if you were not satisfied. A TC is
    only useful when you can get enough light, and the prime optics are
    sharp, and you have sufficient shutter speed.

    For the 100-400, the f5.6 becomes f11, and you need to halve the maximum
    exposure time for hand-held shots, as well, so you lose 3 stops in low
    light. On top of that, the 100-400 is not at its sharpest at f5.6, and
    another stop or two down is needed for maximum sharpness. I only use
    the 100-400 with my 2x under very bright conditions.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 28, 2005
    #7
  8. John A. Stovall

    DM Guest

    Hi John,

    I have used both with the f2.8 70-200 (see my reply to your earlier post).
    The 1.4x is a QUALITY piece of kit and the images it captures still retain
    sharpness of the L lens. The 2x is not so hot. I does enable you to 'get
    that bit closer' but is simply not sharp enough. You get better quality by
    cropping a 1.4x image to give the same 'view' than shooting it with the 2x.

    Regards

    DM

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender on the EF 70-200 with a
    > 20D?
    >
    > Or for that matter the Canon telextenders on at all?
    >
    >
    > ******************************************************************
    >
    > "The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."
    >
    > _The Go-Between_
    > L.P. Hartley
    > 1895 - 1972
     
    DM, Mar 5, 2005
    #8
  9. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    DM wrote:
    > I have used both with the f2.8 70-200 (see my reply to your earlier

    post).
    > The 1.4x is a QUALITY piece of kit and the images it captures still

    retain
    > sharpness of the L lens. The 2x is not so hot. I does enable you to

    'get
    > that bit closer' but is simply not sharp enough. You get better

    quality by
    > cropping a 1.4x image to give the same 'view' than shooting it with

    the 2x.

    It's not because that the 2x is not sharp, but the 70-200 zoom is not
    sharp enough to be used with a 2x. 200/2.8 prime + 2x is sharp, much
    sharper than cropping.
     
    , Mar 7, 2005
    #9
  10. John A. Stovall

    Tony Guest

    Teh Tamron SP is the same are teh Kenko MC series. The Pro 300 series is
    not.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > "emski" <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Has anyone here used a Canon 2X telextender

    >
    > > I did use on 100-400 5.6 L ..no AF, IS was working slow, all over

    quality
    > >not satisfied.So went back to the store

    >
    > There's nothing wrong with the quality of the Canon 2x TC, or the Kenko
    > Pro 300 (or Tamron SP, which is the same). You were probably expecting
    > miracles beyond the laws of physics if you were not satisfied. A TC is
    > only useful when you can get enough light, and the prime optics are
    > sharp, and you have sufficient shutter speed.
    >
    > For the 100-400, the f5.6 becomes f11, and you need to halve the maximum
    > exposure time for hand-held shots, as well, so you lose 3 stops in low
    > light. On top of that, the 100-400 is not at its sharpest at f5.6, and
    > another stop or two down is needed for maximum sharpness. I only use
    > the 100-400 with my 2x under very bright conditions.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    Tony, Mar 8, 2005
    #10
  11. John A. Stovall

    DM Guest

    Can you back that up with a sequence of shots of the same subject first with
    a 1.4x Extender & then the 2x? (Because I can)

    The lack of sharpness has nothing to do with the f/2.8 70-200 as you state.
    The difference is between the 2 teleconvertors.

    And if you think it's my imagination, this is a similar point of view from
    www.the-digital-picture.com/

    "There is noticeable degradation in image quality when using the 2x -
    noticeably more than with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. Sharpness and
    contrast suffer noticeably. The best results will be made using a very sharp
    lens such as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens."

    Regards

    DM

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > DM wrote:
    >> I have used both with the f2.8 70-200 (see my reply to your earlier

    > post).
    >> The 1.4x is a QUALITY piece of kit and the images it captures still

    > retain
    >> sharpness of the L lens. The 2x is not so hot. I does enable you to

    > 'get
    >> that bit closer' but is simply not sharp enough. You get better

    > quality by
    >> cropping a 1.4x image to give the same 'view' than shooting it with

    > the 2x.
    >
    > It's not because that the 2x is not sharp, but the 70-200 zoom is not
    > sharp enough to be used with a 2x. 200/2.8 prime + 2x is sharp, much
    > sharper than cropping.
    >
     
    DM, Mar 8, 2005
    #11
  12. John A. Stovall

    roadwarrior Guest

    There is indeed "some" halation when using a 2.0xII teleconverter on ANY
    Canon compatible lens with the possible exception of some primes. With
    the zooms and all the elements involved it seems indeed there is a price
    to be paid in contrast/sharpness and as I mentioned a phenomena called
    "halation" which appears as a ghosting of the image. The 100-400L for
    example @400 is superior to the 70-200 2.8L IS and 2.0xII teleconverter
    combo. It is "usable" but NOT optimal.....I'll leave it at that......
     
    roadwarrior, Mar 8, 2005
    #12
  13. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    roadwarrior wrote:
    > There is indeed "some" halation when using a 2.0xII teleconverter on

    ANY
    > Canon compatible lens with the possible exception of some primes.

    With
    > the zooms and all the elements involved it seems indeed there is a

    price
    > to be paid in contrast/sharpness and as I mentioned a phenomena

    called
    > "halation" which appears as a ghosting of the image. The 100-400L for


    > example @400 is superior to the 70-200 2.8L IS and 2.0xII

    teleconverter
    > combo. It is "usable" but NOT optimal.....I'll leave it at that......


    And 200/2.8 prime + 2x is sharper than the 100-400, which according to
    the above is sharper than 70-200/2.8 + 2x.
     
    , Mar 9, 2005
    #13
  14. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >And 200/2.8 prime + 2x is sharper than the 100-400,


    If that is true, it is probably only true wide-open (f/5.6 on both).
    Once stopped down, the 100-400 gets pretty sharp.

    > which according to
    >the above is sharper than 70-200/2.8 + 2x.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Mar 9, 2005
    #14
    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. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,722
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  2. Rick Miller

    add on Telextender for Olympus 5050

    Rick Miller, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
    Rick Miller
    Jul 19, 2004
  3. Giulia

    Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

    Giulia, Apr 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,038
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,653
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Max

    Canon 1.4X telextender

    Max, May 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    495
    charles
    May 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page