Canon 1.4x TC tests

[rpcrowe]

I shot my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS lens (at 200mm) both bare and with 1.4x TC mounted; IS was purposely left on. I also shot my EF 300mm f/4L IS lens both bare and with 1.4x TC mounted; the IS was turned off. The above shots were tripod mounted using self timer to trip shutter.

I shot my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens + 1.4x TC, hand-held, with IS turned on.

I used a Canon EOS 7D with auto focus for all shots. Exposure in all cases was aperture priority at f/8.

I opened the images in Adobe CS6 camera RAW and added an Unsharp mask at 300% at .3 Pixels. I saved the images in JPEG and saved the image at "high quality" (8) JPEG for uploading to www.smugmug.com. I sharpened the images because my workflow generally includes sharpening of DSLR images.

All the images are shown full frame...

200mm Bare ISO 160 1/500 @ f/8. Tripod mounted with self-timer shutter trip


200mm with 1.4x TC ISO 160 1/500 second. Tripod mounted with self-timer shutter trip.


300mm Bare ISO 160 1/500 @ f/8. Tripod mounted with self-timer shutter trip


300mm with 1.4x TC ISO 160 1/500 second. Tripod mounted with self-timer shutter trip.


Hand held 200mm with 1.4x TC @ ISO 640 1/2000 Second f/8 ISO 640


Hand held 200mm with 1.4x TC @ ISO 640 1/2000 Second f/8 ISO 640


Hand Held in shade 200mm with 1.4x TC @ ISO 630 1/40 Second f/8 ISO 640


BTW: My model was exceptionally patient throughout the shoot!

Link to the 1.4x TC test smugmug gallery:
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Photograp...9307&k=T24zHkQ

[Tony M]

I'm interested to know how the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens + 1.4x TC performs, but I have difficulty comparing these photos, as they're not exactly the same frame. Detailed comparison is also only possible at 1:1 viewing. Perhaps that wasn't your intention anyway.

So what do you think of the 1.4x TC?

Tony

[Bobobird]

Interesting comparison.

Which TC did you use?

[Loose Canon]

Hi Richard!

I apologize in advance, but I am not getting what it is you are after here.

In other words what was the goal of this comparison.

Is it just a magnification comparison?

I have the same glass (with the exception of the 70-200 being 2.8), and I have been carrying around these pieces recently doing some wildlife shooting. So I am interested in these pieces. But lately I have been using them on a full frame body (and I do understand the difference) trying to see what kind of distances I can cover and what kind of cropping I can expect.

I must just be a little dense (more so than normal) today!

[Geoff F]

As previously mentioned, some cropped and resized images of the shots without TC are required for a real image quality comparison.

I tried some similar tests with my 180 mm macro lens to decide if I was getting any quality loss by photographing insects with a 1.4x converter added. Also tried with an extension tube.

My results seemed to suggest that the contrast was slightly less with a converter but there was no appreciable quality loss under most conditions. And the slight contrast/saturation loss was easily fixed during editing.

Using a converter on 'cheaper' lenses did show a marked difference though. But in each case I was cheating slightly as I had to use a 12 mm tube as a spacer to get my Canon converter to physically fit.

So focus length was limited a little.

[rpcrowe]

I have not used my Canon Mark-1 TC in years since I have the telephoto focal lengths pretty well covered with three lenses: 70-200mm f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L. However, I am anticipating the possible use of the 1.4x TC to reduce my gear load on a couple of upcoming shoots at a nature preserve and at Photogrpher's Day at Santa Anita, California racetrack (I am getting on in years and any weight saving is appreciated).

I wanted to see if I could leave one lens at home, thereby reducing my load and to decide if the 300mm f/4L IS lens with 1.4x TC was an acceptable substiture for my 400mm f/5.6L. I think it was at least as per image quality. Auto-Focus capability is a total different concept. I did not test this against the 400mm f/5.6L because all I wanted to see is if the 300mm + TC produced adequate image quality for my uses.

The first four images were shot from the identical position with the camera locked on the tripod. The differences in the frame are due to the different focal lengths of the two lenses plus the 1.4x TC. IMO, there were two ways of approaching the problem:

1. shooting from the same point with the 4 combinations of lens and TC
2. adjusting my distance to frame the images from the four combinations the same

I opted to shoot from the same distance because that, IMO, would replicate normal shooting conditions more than being able to "zoom with my feet" to frame all four shots identically.

I don't think that you can ever see the differences or actually see the quality of imagery on a forum. However, by going to the smugmug site: http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Photograp...2281&k=Qf7ZcmF
you can see the images in X3 size which gives you a pretty good idea of the image quality. I was most impressed with the 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC seen in X3 size on smugmug.com.

I hand hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS on many occasions and have never felt as constrained using this lens as I did with my non-IS version. I wanted to see if hand holding the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens +1.4x TC at full zoom was an option. I think that it is. At least at a higher than my normal ISO. However, 640 is a livable ISO for the 7D...

I will, most likely, use either the 300mm f/4L IS (with or without the TC) and my 70-200mm f/4L IS (with the TC) on my monopod. I really like the pod for both shooting and for carrying a camera with long lens across my shoulder.

[Loose Canon]

Thanks for the explanation and summary Richard.

I see what you are looking for a little better now.

I'm kind of going through some similar (though less formal) evaluations myself so I was curious.

[rpcrowe]

I have decided to take the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses to the Nature Preserve tomorrow where we will photograph Raptors.