Extenders

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gordon MacPherson, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Hi,
    I am thinking of buying the Canon 70-200 L IS and an extender. Are there
    reasons not to go for the 2X rather than the 1.4X?

    Thanks,

    Gordon
    Gordon MacPherson, Mar 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordon MacPherson

    Skip Guest

    "Gordon MacPherson" <> wrote in message
    news:es8uvi$7ud$...
    > Hi,
    > I am thinking of buying the Canon 70-200 L IS and an extender. Are there
    > reasons not to go for the 2X rather than the 1.4X?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Gordon
    >

    Which 70-200 L IS? There's an f2.8 and an f4 version. If you use the 2x on
    the f4 version, AF may be affected. Which extender were you looking at,
    Kenko, Canon, or a different one?
    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Mar 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon MacPherson

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Gordon MacPherson" <> wrote in message
    news:es8uvi$7ud$...
    > Hi,
    > I am thinking of buying the Canon 70-200 L IS and an extender. Are there
    > reasons not to go for the 2X rather than the 1.4X?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Gordon

    With the 2x, you will take a hit with sharpness and contrast. On the f/4
    version of the lens you may lose AF (will lose AF with the Canon version).
    The 1.4x is a much better option. If you find yourself needing the reach of
    your lens plus 2x often, then it is time for a longer lens.

    Another cheap option is the Promaster 1.7x I still get AF with my 70-200 f/4
    non IS. Sharpness is better than I expected from the $100 converter, but due
    to field curvature, the corners are softer.
    John
    JohnR66, Mar 2, 2007
    #3
  4. On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:29:13 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "JohnR66"
    <> wrote:

    >With the 2x, you will take a hit with sharpness and contrast. On the f/4
    >version of the lens you may lose AF (will lose AF with the Canon version).
    >The 1.4x is a much better option. If you find yourself needing the reach of
    >your lens plus 2x often, then it is time for a longer lens.


    Not necessarily. if you add a 2x to a 70-200mm f/2.8 to get to 400mm you
    still have the shorter faster lens as well. Put together I still find this
    combo something I can easily walk around with. That is not the case with my
    200-400mm f/4. All depends what one needs to do with it.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Mar 2, 2007
    #4
    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. Paul & Leni

    Range extenders for network?

    Paul & Leni, Oct 8, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,800
    Simon Willcox
    Oct 11, 2005
  2. Brian Bergin

    802.11b/g extenders

    Brian Bergin, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    430
    Brian Bergin
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. bhaskar
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,611
    Joseph Meehan
    Aug 4, 2003
  4. =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=

    Xbox 360+Media Center PC and 2 Xbox extenders

    =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=, Feb 19, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    925
    =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=
    Feb 19, 2007
  5. =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=

    Wireless Xbox 360+Media Center PC and 2 Xbox extenders

    =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=, Feb 19, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    931
    =?Utf-8?B?anVsaWVfYmFrZXJAaG90bWFpbC5jb20=?=
    Feb 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page