Is a 1.4X Extender useless on a 30D?

[RichNY]

More specifically, for use with my lenses: 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 100-400 IS.

I can't imagine using a 1.4 extender with the 70-200- It would just seem to make more sense to use the 100-400 and have the faster focusing, although loosing one stop at the short end and two at the long end.

With the 100-400 I'd loose autofocus which will make shooting fast moving sports (the reason for the lens) very challenging. It would make a give me the length for capturing birding shots but to me that's about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Am I mistaken in my understanding or with these lenses does it not make sense to purchase an extender unless I go to a 1d body and then use is strictly with the 100-400?

[coldrain]

If you buy a cheap Kenko or Tamron 1.4/1.5x you may still keep AF depending on the light.
Even the 1.7x Soligor just may, but that will be very ticky with f5.6.

[snap]

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I have the 30D and have used the 1.4x with both the 70-200 2.8 and 300 4L. I find that there is a very slight degradation of IQ with the 70-200, but not so with the 300. I have used the 300 for both sports and birds. Even with the 1.4x it focuses quickly. For my needs, the 1.4x is useful, even with my crop camera. I like the extra reach.

[RichNY]

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I have the 30D and have used the 1.4x with both the 70-200 2.8 and 300 4L. I find that there is a very slight degradation of IQ with the 70-200, but not so with the 300. I have used the 300 for both sports and birds. Even with the 1.4x it focuses quickly. For my needs, the 1.4x is useful, even with my crop camera. I like the extra reach.

The point I was making about the 70-200 is that would you bother with the 1.4x if you also had a 100-400 to put on instead. If I didn't own that lens I'd see the benefit of the 1.4 on the 70-200 immediately.

[cwphoto]

The point I was making about the 70-200 is that would you bother with the 1.4x if you also had a 100-400 to put on instead. If I didn't own that lens I'd see the benefit of the 1.4 on the 70-200 immediately.

I agree with this sentiment. The 70-200/2.8 IS & 1.4x II combo is pretty good.

[adam75south]

although loosing one stop at the short end and two at the long end.
i didn't realize you lost two stops at the long end. i thought it was a constant 1 stop loss.

i'm with you rich, i don't see any reason for you to have it.

[coldrain]

i didn't realize you lost two stops at the long end. i thought it was a constant 1 stop loss.

i'm with you rich, i don't see any reason for you to have it.
To clarify (you probably already understood it, but it is not totally clear from your post) Rich means the 100-400 is a f4-5.6 lens, losing 1 and 2 stops respectivily compared to the 70-200 f2.8.

The TC will lose you one stop of light, regardless of what aperture or lens.

[DonSchap]

My experience is that the 1.4x works great with the fixed primes - 300, 400, 500mm. It offers some flexibility to a relatively inflexible lens.

I figure, if you can spring for the zoom lens, why not get it instead? Personally, I do most my long shooting with the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD... and no extenders. Yes, no IS either, but it gives me a reason to use my monopod or tripod. I found that T/Cs effective remove any chance of infinity focus, when added. THey also remove the pleasure of Autofocus, too. Since I am shooting infinity, with long glass, usually, across a river ... BUZZ! Forget the T/C on the zoom.

Occasionally, I may slap the TAMRON SP 1.4x on my TAMRON SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD ... giving me just a little more reach with a "single lens" carry. It's about 20 oz. lighter than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (52 oz)

T/C Usage:
Effective focal lengths of the 28-105mm f/2.8 with:

(1.4x) -> 39-147mm f/4

(2x) -> 56-210mm f/5.6


In conclusion:
One zoom (32 oz), 2 T/Cs (4 oz) and the 20D (15 oz) ...

is about the same as just the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens (52 oz) all by itself. :eek:

Ok, time for a walk! LOL :D

Just some reflections from a light toter, because T/Cs can save you a carload of lens luggage.

[adam75south]

To clarify (you probably already understood it, but it is not totally clear from your post) Rich means the 100-400 is a f4-5.6 lens, losing 1 and 2 stops respectivily compared to the 70-200 f2.8.

The TC will lose you one stop of light, regardless of what aperture or lens.

oops, i misread. i thought he was talking about the extender, didn't realize he meant the 100-400.

i was kinda thinkin about getting a 1.4 for the 70-200 for the time being. does anyone see much of a difference from the kenko pro 300's and the canon since it is a significant price drop?

[coldrain]

Here a comparison of many TC's.
Informative but I am not sure how to interpret the "findings" yet.

I do know that the Soligor I have is sharper than what their test samples show.

All in all it is safe to go for any Kenko.

http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2.php

[adam75south]

i'm thinkin i MIGHT get one since they are only 135 shipped on ebay. then again, i'm really not sure what kind of advantage 280 f/4 is over the 200 f/2.8. it might not go to use often. does anyone have any experience with the kenko as far as autofocus? i would mainly use it for outdoor sports.

[RichNY]

So, getting back to my original question, with the two white lenses I have is it fair to say that it would make sense to use the 100-400 rather than using an extender on the 70-200 and that using the extender on the 100-400 I'd have to use the lens in manual focus mode on a 30D and I could only get autofocus with that combination by going to a 1D type camera?

[adam75south]

So, getting back to my original question, with the two white lenses I have is it fair to say that it would make sense to use the 100-400 rather than using an extender on the 70-200 and that using the extender on the 100-400 I'd have to use the lens in manual focus mode on a 30D and I could only get autofocus with that combination by going to a 1D type camera?

you should do some comparisons to see the difference in image quality and then find out if it is worth it to keep...and post them up so we can see.

personally i'd use the 100-400 for what it is made for as it SHOULD give better image quality than the 1.4x and 70-200 combo.

[DonSchap]

You know, Rich ... there is always the "SIDE by SIDE" target test. Control the lighting and watch for distortion.

Sounds like you could easily borrow one of these puppies and shoot the heck out of it. Give us something to inspect, from your end, rather than asking from our end. Work that shutter release! :p

Edit: Sorry Adam, good call!

[Sungrazer]

Yeah, I noticed no one was really answering your original question. I guess if I were you I'd do as Adam and Don suggested and get a hold of an extender and do some IQ tests. Another alternative is the 70-200 + 1.4x for up to 280 and the 300 f/4 + 1.4x for up to 420. Or the 400/5.6 if you didn't need the 300-400 range.

Courtesy of ReF, who gave me advice some time back:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

[coldrain]

So, getting back to my original question, with the two white lenses I have is it fair to say that it would make sense to use the 100-400 rather than using an extender on the 70-200 and that using the extender on the 100-400 I'd have to use the lens in manual focus mode on a 30D and I could only get autofocus with that combination by going to a 1D type camera?
Only when you get a Canon 1.4x extender you will lose the AF. With a cheap 1.4x TC from Kenko or Tamron (or the 1.7x Soligor) you will still get AF (of course with less light getting in, so light conditions and contrast of the subject are important).

The Canon TC tells the body the lens has a lower f-stop number, most others do not. The body refuses to AF with a max aperture smaller than f5.6. But if you do not tell the body that, it will keep on trying to use AF. And in good light conditions it will be ok!

On my EOS 350D my 70-200 f4 L AF's still with 1.7x Soligor. The amount of light passing through is comparable with f6.3 or so. So, since a cheap 1.5x (in reality 1.4x?) Kenko TC will probably let you still AF outdoors, and it costs so little ($100?) that you will be a "fool" not to try it :D .

$100... 400mm -> 560mm... with IS... so what if AF performance would be a bit lower :cool:

[RichNY]

The 400 f/5.6 looks like a great lens but I don't see myself handholding it for stopping sports action and the focal lenght isn't going to be right for all the types of shooting I need.

How many stops do you lose with the 1.7x?

I see two Kenkos and two Tamron TCs- which one are you suggesting?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=7298&A=details&Q=&sku=371025&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=7298&A=details&Q=&sku=389038&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6975&A=details&Q=&sku=53109&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6975&A=details&Q=&sku=185148&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[ReF]

i'm assuming that you'd be using the 100-400 for that horse stuff since the range and getting the shot is most important, and that this question about the 70-200 + 1.4x vs 100-400 is mostly about a matter of IQ, AF speed, and convenience (how much you'd want to carry around).

i have not seen any crops from testing where the 100-400 is impressively sharp at 400mm, where many say it's soft. i've only seen downsized pics (where you can't tell the difference) or obviously over sharpened samples.

the rest of that len's range i haven't heard complaints of, so i'm guessing it might actually be pretty good. since no one here seems to have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 + a 1.4x TC, you might be better off trying it out for yourself. i'll just say that the 70-200 with canon 1.4x is really sharp and may prove difficult to top. i can't tell the IQ difference when the 1.4x is used on the 70-200 and when it's not. AF is still good enough for fast action.

the 1.4x should still AF with the 100-400 at 400, as long as you tape off the three extra contacts that affect AF. it works well enough on my xti + 400 f5.6 + 1.4x, so i'm thinking it wouldn't be much different with a 30d + 100-400. it's really slow to AF though, so it's only really suitable for fairly slow moving subjects.

[ReF]

I found that T/Cs effective remove any chance of infinity focus, when added.

is this just with your 200-500 + your tamron TC? cuz i haven't heard of this before and i still have infinity focus with my TC and the two teles i have.

[coldrain]

The Kenko 1.4x teleplus pro is the best one, but more expensive.
It seems to perform even a bit better than the Canon 1.4x all in all. BUT... it corrects the aperture, like the Canon, and therefore will prohibit AF!

The Kenko 1.5x MC DG is the one I meant, it is very close in performance but very cheap. Why it is called 1.5x I do not know, as it has the same magnification factor as the other two. Very good optically still. AF performance above that of the Canon, even with f2.8 lenses.

The cheapest Tamron I think willbe quite close to the cheap kenko, I seem to remember several "reports" saying the cheap Tamron is a bit better than the expensive one. My memory can be faulty though:D

About the Soligor 1.7x, it is a nice convertor between the 2x ones that lose a lot of resolution, and the 1.4x ones.
It of course loses a little bit more resolution compared to the 1.4x ones, but is still very good. It will lose about half an f-stop more (a bit less, maybe 1 1/3?). Its AF performance still seems better than that of the Canon 1.4x Extender though (according to the test data from that german site).

[cdifoto]

The Kenko 1.5x MC DG is the one I meant, it is very close in performance but very cheap. Why it is called 1.5x I do not know, as it has the same magnification factor as the other two. Very good optically still. AF performance above that of the Canon, even with f2.8 lenses.


I don't recommend the Kenko 1.5x. That's the same Tcon that killed my AF for sports. It doesn't report aperture or any of that and IQ isn't bad but it can't focus for snot. If it was truly as good as Coldy claims I wouldn't have sold it for a pretty hefty loss. I feel really sorry for Canon Tcon users if theirs are underperforming that Kenko.

[coldrain]

I don't recommend the Kenko 1.5x. That's the same Tcon that killed my AF for sports. It doesn't report aperture or any of that and IQ isn't bad but it can't focus for snot. I sold it.He will not be using it for sports, and not all lenses behave the same with a TC on it.
If you want the extra reach and still will have AF for not too fast subjects, it is silly not to consider trying a $100 TC.
And no, TC's never focus :D

[cdifoto]

He will not be using it for sports, and not all lenses behave the same with a TC on it.
If you want the extra reach and still will have AF for not too fast subjects, it is silly not to consider trying a $100 TC.
And no, TC's never focus :D

Not this again Coldy... Who says he won't use it for sports? Are you gonna suggest he buy a cheap Tcon for flowers and then spring for another one when he wants to shoot stuff that moves?

Not all lenses behave the same with a Tcon, I agree. But your claim that the 1.5x from Kenko is just as good as, if not better than, the Canons is simply false. I have the personal experience of failed attempts to shoot soccer. I'm not sure what you have.

[adam75south]

rich, you can get the kenko pro 300 for $135 shipped on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Kenko-Pro-300-DG-1-4x-Teleconverter-fit-Canon-NEW-5K_W0QQitemZ200083700928QQihZ010QQcategoryZ4687QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[coldrain]

Because he already stated the reasons to get the lens, it is clear it is not for shooting sports. That is why I say that.
And the test I linked to (I KNOW it is in german, you still can get info from it) shows the Canon 1.4x extender to be the least reliable with focus hits of all 5 tested TC's.

So, for all his indents and purposes the TC, especially since it is so cheap, is very worth while. And if it does not work well for sports, then I guess just do not use it for sports...

[coldrain]

rich, you can get the kenko pro 300 for $135 shipped on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Kenko-Pro-300-DG-1-4x-Teleconverter-fit-Canon-NEW-5K_W0QQitemZ200083700928QQihZ010QQcategoryZ4687QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Don't get the Kenko pro 300 since it is the one that will prohibit all AF with the 100-400!

[coldrain]

This is what a TC is for... more reach with an existing lens.
AF-ed, 70-200 f4 L @ 200mm, with 1.7x TC, 100% crop.

[cdifoto]

Flowers aren't the only subject on the planet Coldy.

[coldrain]

Flowers aren't the only subject on the planet Coldy.
Sports are not either, Don.

Rich did state his reason for the 100-400 and maybe even adding a TC. And it was not meant as ultimate sports kit. He is going to be traveling, shooting nature, wildlife, birds.

And I would not be very unhappy with that... the posted pic is a 100% crop. I know the 100-400 will be a little bit less sharp, but still!

[cdifoto]

Hey Coldy. Read this:

With the 100-400 I'd loose autofocus which will make shooting fast moving sports (the reason for the lens) very challenging.