70-200 2.8 Is + Tc

[forno]

OK guys, what TC's are you using with you 70-200 and why?

[cwphoto]

I used the 2x at the airshow late last year:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25138&highlight=richmond

I took this combo because I had my boys and didn't want to take anything bigger (ie; 300/2.8 IS) and I don't own a 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS.

It was a compromise in the IQ and focus-speed dept but overall it worked OK.

I use the 1.4x more regularly (better IQ and speed than the 2x) and it was a great combo for soccer on a little field (which is what my two eldest sons play), giving me a little more reach (ie; 100-300/4 approx):
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19448&highlight=70-200mm+f%2F2.8+Extender+1.4x

At the time, I found this to be a better performer than my 300/4 IS. :confused:

[DonSchap]

I have a TAMRON SP 1.4x T/C, which seems to do the job ... but the TAMRON SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD has the IQ edge over this combination, so it gets the call for the over 200mmm stuff.

Besides ... it's a lighter combo. Canon (56oz.) vs TAMRON (43 oz.)

Have lens, will travel. LOL :D

[forno]

Cheers Ceedub,

So the 1.4 appears to be the go IQ/focus wise

Anyone using a 1.7 Soligor or similar

[RichNY]

This is the niche that the 100-400 fills-Better image quality and focusing than a TC on a 70-200. It's not a 300 or 400 f/2.8 prime but it is the perfect lens when the alternative is a 2x TC.

CW- I think the 100-400 would be a nice offering for your lens rental business as it will appeal to a large audience.

[coldrain]

As you know by now I use the 1.7x TC from Soligor on my 70-200 f4 L USM.
Why the 1.7x Soligor? Because it performs a lot better than the 2x extender and 2x TCs out there, the resolution loss is less. And yet it provides more reach than the 1.4x TCs.

So I find it to be a nice go-between, with still very passable results IQ wise.
One person on here did have some AF problems with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS and the 1.7x TC. All other lenses were fine.
I think this may have to do with that the 70-200 f2.8 IS' AF algorythms are a bit funny and may react a bit odd when the light intensity/contrast is diminished a bit, and that Canon extenders make the AF sequence behave a bit different so that that will not show up with a Canon extender.

But then again, it was the only time I have heard of a 70-200 f2.8 IS having trouble with a TC, so most likely it was just that particular 70-200 f2.8 IS sample. Even my 70-200 f4 does AF in daylight still, and the TC pushes it over f5.6 in light efficiency...

All in all, I think the 1.7x TC is the best compromise between IQ and reach.

[Dcoggs]

I've been using the Kenko pro 1.4 tc with my 70-200 F/4 L IS. So far, I really like it, and there doesn't seem to be any image degredation. Really helps with the reach also. Some people on that other forum swore this was better than Canon's TC except no weather sealing. THe price is good too.

[jamison55]

Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC here because it was cheap on EBay and works great when I want to turn my 70-200 into a 300 f4 IS!

[cdifoto]

Unless I priced myself out of the gig, I may be doing a softball championship series in early May.

Does anyone have reason to believe the 70-200 2.8L IS + EF 1.4x on a 1D/1D II N would be insufficient for a paid job?

[cwphoto]

Unless I priced myself out of the gig, I may be doing a softball championship series in early May.

Does anyone have reason to believe the 70-200 2.8L IS + EF 1.4x on a 1D/1D II N would be insufficient for a paid job?

I have found that combination to be very acceptable. My recommendation would be to stick at f/4 or below unless you have to go higher but it works quite well.

[cdifoto]

I have found that combination to be very acceptable. My recommendation would be to stick at f/4 or below unless you have to go higher but it works quite well.

Is it enough reach or should I suck up the extra light loss and get a 2x? I've never shot softball before so I don't really know how much reach is needed in reality. I can probably get dugout access.

[cwphoto]

Hmmm, I dunno - never done softball.

You should be OK - I presume you want full lengths? 280m plus 1.25x from the 1D should be enough. :confused:

If you are going to buy a 2x I'd rent a 300/2.8 IS instead.

[cdifoto]

Hmmm, I dunno - never done softball.

You should be OK - I presume you want full lengths? 280m plus 1.25x from the 1D should be enough. :confused:

If you are going to buy a 2x I'd rent a 300/2.8 IS instead.

Yeah I was thinkin' about renting but the timeframe is rather scrunched...less than a Month from gameday and it was just this morning that I was asked if I could do it. :rolleyes: By the time they get back to me with a yay or nay it might be too close to rent. No local shops where I can just walk in and grab one, so it'd be online only.

I've quoted a bit of a premium (as far as they're concerned anyways) so they probably won't even hire me for it. I could use the cash though. It would all but pay for the II N :D

[DonSchap]

Look, I don't know how much IQ means to you ... but, I did a quick shoot comparing the:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 140mm w/ 1.4x (Eff. 200mm)
TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD @ 250mm (because of minimum focusing distance = 8ft., I had to back up.)


Obviously, adding a T/C does reduce the IQ of this marvelous lens quite a bit. The image is flat-looking and contrast is lost.




Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm
23034

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 140mm w/ 1.4x (Eff. 200mm)
23035

TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD @ 250mm
23036


Believe me, I'd rather it were a different story, considering the cost of these puppies,
but it's just not getting it done with a T/C ... it's a band-aid, not a real solution. You
need the real glass to "get 'er done" right. ;)

I dare say the IQ of the TAMRON is exceptionally close to that of the Canon. It always impressed me.

[cdifoto]

Look, I don't know how much IQ means to you ... but, I did a quick shoot comparing the:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 140mm w/ 1.4x (Eff. 200mm)
TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD @ 250mm (because of minimum focusing distance = 8ft., I had to back up.)Obviously, adding a T/C does reduce the IQ of this marvelous lens quite a bit. The image is flat-looking and contrast is lost.




70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 200mm
23034

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 140mm w/ 1.4x (Eff. 200mm)
23035

TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD @ 250mm
23036


Believe me, I'd rather it were a different story, considering the cost of these puppies,
but it's just not getting it done with a T/C ... it's a band-aid, not a real solution. You
need the real glass to "get 'er done" right. ;)

Looks to me like you didn't compensate for the stop of light loss. Looks like a bit of misfocus to me as well but I can't be certain. Overall not too bad really. That's a Tamron Tcon though too isn't it?

I'm NOT going to run out and buy a Tamron 200-500 for one job (hell it probably wouldn't AF fast enough anyway), and I don't think I'll have enough time to rent the 300 2.8 IS either although I may try.

[DonSchap]

That's not mis-focus ... the 70-200mm rarely does that. That's softening due to the
extra glass the light is passing through to get from the 70-200mm to the sensor.

Believe me, it ticked me off the first time I saw it ... and it does to this day. I suppose
I could try a Canon T/C to see if it improves, but to tell ya the truth ...
I'm not that interested.

If you need long glass, the TAMRON is a great and lightweight wonder.
It's tack sharp and isn't that expensive. True, there is no Image Stability with it ...
on a Canon-mount. Hmmm ... that's a sore spot with me ... okay, whatever.

My intent was to show the dramatic effect these darn T/Cs have on IQ.

[cdifoto]

That's not mis-focus ... the 70-200mm rarely does that. That's softening due to the
extra glass the light is passing through to get from the 70-200mm to the sensor.

Believe me, it ticked me off the first time I saw it ... and it does to this day. I suppose
I could try a Canon T/C to see if it improves, but to tell ya the truth ...
I'm not that interested.

If you need long glass, the TAMRON is a great and lightweight wonder.
It's tack sharp and isn't that expensive. True, there is no Image Stability with it ...
on a Canon-mount. Hmmm ... that's a sore spot with me ... okay, whatever.

My intent was to show the dramatic effect these darn T/Cs have on IQ.

No, as always your intent was to plug tamron. I'm not interested and this isn't what the thread is about.

[forno]

trolls are looking for dinner:D :D

[DonSchap]

No, as always your intent was to plug tamron. I'm not interested and this isn't what the thread is about.

Okay, get a SIGMA 170-500mm f/5-6.3 DG from your favorite dealer and do the same thing.
Whether you use the TAMRON or (let's say the SIGMA delivers the same results, just for argument's
sake), it's obvious that the T/C is going to screw with your shot, so why bother? It's pretty
obvious, Don ... we could screw up shot after shot ... just use a T/C on your prize lens. Personally,
I won't do that. I know that it's a bad move and I went and paid the extra coin to avoid it with
REAL glass.

The point is, I just threw in the "200-500mm" shot to show the difference ... or actually the IMAGE
QUALITY you can expect when you use a REAL lens and not this ... this "add-on."

I just happen to have a whole lot of TAMRON-glass laying around for just this kind of real life
demonstration. Do as you wish ... but know, you now have a bit more knowledge going forward to
make your decisions with ... at no additional cost.

[cwphoto]

CDI, somewhere earlier in this thread is a link I posted to some real world sports/action shots with this combo. Don's cub-scout samples are about as far from reality as I can imagine. :cool:

[forno]

CDI, somewhere earlier in this thread is a link I posted to some real world sports/action shots with this combo. Don's cub-scout samples are about as far from reality as I can imagine. :cool:


True :p

[cdifoto]

CDI, somewhere earlier in this thread is a link I posted to some real world sports/action shots with this combo. Don's cub-scout samples are about as far from reality as I can imagine. :cool:

Ahh yes. The midget soccer. I remember checking those out. Thanks! :)

[DonSchap]

CDI, somewhere earlier in this thread is a link I posted to some real world sports/action shots with this combo. Don's cub-scout samples are about as far from reality as I can imagine. :cool:

Real-lens-swap isn't good enough for ya, eh? (rubbing chin)

Do a thread count ... the idea was texture ... sharpness ... highlights. It's just as good as anything else.

I didn't check focus speed, but as I recall, there is a definite hit adding the T/C.

[forno]

Real-lens-swap isn't good enough for ya, eh? (rubbing chin)

Do a thread count ... the idea was texture ... sharpness ... highlights. It's just as good as anything else.

I didn't check focus speed, but as I recall, there is a definite hit adding the T/C.

A Tamron TC, which cdifoto is not talking about

[cwphoto]

Real-lens-swap isn't good enough for ya, eh? (rubbing chin)

Do a thread count ... the idea was texture ... sharpness ... highlights. It's just as good as anything else.

I didn't check focus speed, but as I recall, there is a definite hit adding the T/C.

Don no-ones suggesting that there is a 'hit' in IQ and other issues with the TC. It's just that in my experience (and that being using the said combination under similar conditions to that which CDI is considering) the 'hit' is acceptable.

As admirable as your samples are they:
a) don't use the same combination of equipment, and
b) aren't in the same environment/useage.

[coldrain]

Real-lens-swap isn't good enough for ya, eh? (rubbing chin)

Do a thread count ... the idea was texture ... sharpness ... highlights. It's just as good as anything else.

I didn't check focus speed, but as I recall, there is a definite hit adding the T/C.
You do not really have to check focus speed... The hit AF speed will take with a 200-500 from Tamron compared to a 70-200 f2.8 IS USM from Canon will be very big all on its own.

And if you don't like how your Tamron TC performs, you might want to check out a 1.5x TC from Kenko or 1.7x TC from Soligor. You will be pleasantly surprised.

And btw... the IQ loss (when you don't use a TAMRON TC that is :p) is not about "extra glass" but more about cropping the actual lens, and thus limitting the resolving power of the actual lens.

[DonSchap]

Personally, I don't like T/Cs. Every time I have used one, the resultant shots are not on par with what I want. So much so, the fact is that I carry them for an emergency use, only. Since I filled the bag with enough glass to cover the focal range from 11-500mm ... they are effectively out of work. ;)

Once again ... it was a quick shoot to demonstrate the IQ-loss I experienced on a routine basis, using these items.

Knowledge is power ...

experience is powerful ...

experience without knowledge can be powerfully rough! :D