canon extender

[Bootsy]

i've been looking at extenders as a way of getting a bit more reach when at air shows or car rallyes.i use a 70-200 F4 so i know the canon extenders are ok to use with this lens.but which one EF 1.4x or EF 2x.i've been looking at reviews online for both.the EF 1.4x seems to have slightly better reviews but i find it just depends on which reviews site i look at.or would i be better off going for a longer zoom len
if i had the money i'd go for a canon 100-400.or should i look at the 70-300 IS USM.

[Geoff F]

Go on, Paul, get another large lens. I do love spending other people's money - Yippeee buy, buy, buy!

I'm not sure about a x2 on that lens, would you lose autofocus? The 1.4x would certainly be no problem.

But which 70-200 do you have? If it isn't the IS version, would you possibly have problems with hand holding in poor light when using the converter?

And which version of the 70-300 are you considering? Go on, get the new L model.

But I suppose the most important question is how close will you be to the action, so what lens length would you need?

I assume you will need a reasonable shutter speed for the car rallies.

I do have the 'ordinary' 70-300 IS which has worked well but I have recently mostly replaced it with a Canon 70-200 IS F4 and a Sigma 150-500 OS. The later option, I find, works well but we are really talking about F8 or F11 for optimum performance, and it is a bit heavy; but I have been surprised at how well it worked when handheld.

ps. Large aircraft landing at 'Malborough International Airport' taken handheld with the Sigma 150-500.



And from our Regatta Air Show a couple of years ago taken with the 70-300. I used too high a shutter speed so the propellors froze and I had to blur them. All my shots at the 1/200 setting weren't sharp enough while 1/000 worked fine apart from the propellors.

[Bootsy]

lol i'd love to buy a new lens.but as we're moving abroad.the wife's not to keen on me doing that.i have the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS.i happy with the picture quality of it i just wont a bit more reach.this is the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM Lens i was looking at.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...-lens/p1010309 as i might be able to do a swap of sort.i've not had chance to have a go with one yet.would the picture quality match my Canon 70-200 F4

[Geoff F]

Would the picture quality match my Canon 70-200 F4

There is a 2 letter answer - No. That is why I purchased the 70-200 IS L.

Having said that, the quality isn't too bad for a lens which is half the price of what I purchased as a replacement. But I am comparing it to the 70-200 IS model so I can't really comment on your lens.

But if you have the non IS model you will obviously need a fairly high shutter speed when adding a converter/extender. So under those conditions, the 70-300 IS may well become the better bet, particularly under poorer light.

[Colin Southern]

If you're shooting with an EF70-200 F4.0L USM and you add a 2.0x TC, you'll lose auto-focus unless you're shooting with a 1D series camera. With a 1.4x TC AF will be OK - and image quality will be fine too (especially if you get one of the new version 3 teleconverters).

[Jim B.]

I shot my 1st airshow with a DSLR using the 70-300IS.It's a nice lens,but as Geoff said image quality isn't up to the 70-200.Build is another issue.Can't compare to the 70-200.
This might help.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[Bill Yeung]

I am using 70-200m L F2.8, IS II, also tempted to buy 2x extender.
The price of the extender is really tempting in comparing with the 400mm lens!!!!!!!
Seeing all the reviews on lossing some light, some function, I quit.
I see no point in getting further object while lossing the quality of the 70-200mm L!! I know that getting a further blurred plane, bird still will not satify me as I already got the quality mindset of the 70-200mm!! I called it being poisoned!!
Then, I told myself, there is no cheap "Pro" or cheap "quality".
I wrote down 2 things: Dream about another good L long focal length lens, save money for it.
I am doing the frist one already and not even starting the second one!
it is purely my own experience.
I am living happily with the l Lens I got now, tried the plane with 200mm and of course it doesn't work.
so, back to "normal life". do what the 70-200mm "supposed" to do and have fun with it.

[Colin Southern]

I am using 20-200m L F2.8, IS II, also tempted to buy 2x extender. [snip] Seeing all the reviews on lossing some light, some function, I quit.
I see no point in getting further object while lossing the quality of the 70-200mm L!!

Hi Bill,

The EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II works really well with the EF1.4x II and EF2.0x II teleconverters (and presumably even better with the new EF1.4x III and EF 2.0x III Teleconverters) (see samples below). Yes, you do lose 1 or 2 stops of light, but you lose that with lenses like the EF100-400mm F3.5-5.6L USM anyway.

EF1.4x II ...




EF2.0x II ...

[Bill Yeung]

Colin:
you are right, we loss 1 to 2 light stop and we remember that the biggest apature of every lens not necessary good indeed. (Every lens report is saying stepping down 1 to 2 stops will get to the best photo quality) I guess outdoor should be ok,
That's why I always mention my case: INDOOR, ice-rink. I cannot afford to loss the F 2.8
and psychologically, I am still skeptical about putting 7-9 more pieces of glasses in front of my 70-200mm ...
also 100-400mm is 3.5-5.6, I know, that's while I post another thread here about DREAMING about the 400mm f 2.8
and I haven't see photo of indoor ice rink make up from 100-400 f 3.5- 5.6 yet
While not many replies on that thread, may be Colin can also response on the 400mm F2.8 in indoor ice-rink, no flash....
Do the CAD 7000!!! worth it?
I think we are still talking the same subject, - getting a 400mm with different gears
thanks

Bill

[Colin Southern]

you are right, we loss 1 to 2 light stop and we remember that the biggest apature of every lens not necessary good indeed. (Every lens report is saying stepping down 1 to 2 stops will get to the best photo quality) I guess outdoor should be ok,
That's why I always mention my case: INDOOR, ice-rink. I cannot afford to loss the F 2.8
and psychologically, I am still skeptical about putting 7-9 more pieces of glasses in front of my 70-200mm ...
also 100-400mm is 3.5-5.6, I know, that's while I post another thread here about DREAMING about the 400mm f 2.8
and I haven't see photo of indoor ice rink make up from 100-400 f 3.5- 5.6 yet
While not many replies on that thread, may be Colin can also response on the 400mm F2.8 in indoor ice-rink, no flash....
Do the CAD 7000!!! worth it?
I think we are still talking the same subject, - getting a 400mm with different gears
thanks

Hi Bill,

There's always a compromise somewhere; if you go for an EF400/2.8L you get the speed, but you loose the zoom -- and that can be a BIG problem.

With regards to losing F2.8 capability shooting - can you not simply increase your ISO to compensate?

With regards to EF400/2.8L being worth CAD 7000 - short answer is "I'm sure it's worth every cent to those who need it and can afford it", but that's a very subjective answer I'm afraid.

In your situation I'd put an EF2.0x III onto an EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II - max out my ISO - and go shooting!


Cheers,

Colin

[Bill Yeung]

Colin:

If you suggested two extender to the 70-200mm. for sure it worth a look on it.
I already push my ISO to 1250 with f2.8 when shooting ice rink now. Acceptable. that's why I afraid losing the f2.8 and going higher ISO.
May be I should try higher ISO first and see how the image will be affected.
Extender is not that expensive, it is just don't want to buy it and later put it aside or re-sell it if it cannot serve my 100% purpose.

hoping some people will response too.
Fun to be here.

thanks,

Bill

[Colin Southern]

Colin:

If you suggested two extender to the 70-200mm. for sure it worth a look on it.
I already push my ISO to 1250 with f2.8 when shooting ice rink now. Acceptable. that's why I afraid losing the f2.8 and going higher ISO.
May be I should try higher ISO first and see how the image will be affected.
Extender is not that expensive, it is just don't want to buy it and later put it aside or re-sell it if it cannot serve my 100% purpose.

hoping some people will response too.
Fun to be here.

thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill,

I think you'll be surprised when you try higher ISOs. The two cardinal rules of high ISO shooting are:

1. Don't under-expose the shot, and

2. Don't crop the shot excessively

Apart from that - although you'll see lots of noise at high ISO settings when looking at the image at 100% magnification on your screen, you WON'T see much (if any) noise when looking at the entire image (the noise is too small for the eye to resolve).

Also - if you want to minimise noise, there is research to suggest that avoiding intermediate ISO settings like 1250 is a good idea (so use 800 or 1600 instead of 1250). That's because the full ISO steps are accomplished by changing the gain on the amplifier before the signal hits the analog to digital converter, whereas as intermediate steps they under-expose the base shot and then adjust the capture digitally, which also increases noise.

[Bill Yeung]

Colin:

1. Don't under-expose the shot, and

2. Don't crop the shot excessively

That's why F 2.8 is a must to me for not under-expose. and skeptical with f 3.6, 4.5 or above.
that's why 200mm is not enough for me and I did lots of cropping!!

Also - if you want to minimise noise, there is research to suggest that avoiding intermediate ISO settings like 1250 is a good idea (so use 800 or 1600 instead of 1250). That's because the full ISO steps are accomplished by changing the gain on the amplifier before the signal hits the analog to digital converter, whereas as intermediate steps they under-expose the base shot and then adjust the capture digitally, which also increases noise.

Oh! really learn from you on this about the ISO steps
Next week, on the ice, will take pictures with ISO 1600 or higner, with smaller aperture than f 2.8. Then I can have a taste how the other longer focal length with smaller aperture looks like before I modify my dream 400mm 2.8 to other zoom 400mm.

thanks for your clear explanation and hope my first time using the quoted reply work good here.

Bill

[dake]

I agree with Colin. For shooting in an indoor arena you will want the versatility of a zoom. The 70-200f2.8 should be fine if you're close to ice level. If you are further away you can use the TCs for more reach. I just sold my 100-400 zoom and got a 70-200f2.8 II to shoot my daughters hockey games. The 100-400 wasn't fast enough. Colin indicated to me in an earlier post that IQ won't suffer using the 70-200 with 2x TC vs. the 100-400.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Bill,

That's why F 2.8 is a must to me for not under-expose. and skeptical with f 3.6, 4.5 or above.
that's why 200mm is not enough for me and I did lots of cropping!!

Using a smaller aperture shouldn't affect the exposure per sec; you just need to increase the ISO to compensate.

At the end of the day, it's always going to be a compromise - in my opinion, the best compromise is to go there armed with a EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II + both (revision 3) teleconverters - preferably on a crop-factor camera; I really can't think of a better combination at any price.

The other thing to keep in mind is that having a max aperture of F4 or F5.6 will increase you DoF ... which in turn will compensate for slower AF performance when shooting with Teleconverters.

[Markvetnz]

my opinion, the best compromise is to go there armed with a EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II + both (revision 3) teleconverters - preferably on a crop-factor camera; I really can't think of a better combination at any price.

This is exactly what I havew done. Got a 2x III extender yesterday. I'll post some pics later this week. Used it on a 100 to 400 at 400mm on a 50D. IOW a 1280 mm lens! Also took some photos last night using my 70 - 200 2.8II, I haven't had a look at them yet. It made more sense to me to do this than spend $10K on a 500mm telephoto.

[Colin Southern]

This is exactly what I havew done. Got a 2x III extender yesterday. I'll post some pics later this week. Used it on a 100 to 400 at 400mm on a 50D. IOW a 1280 mm lens! Also took some photos last night using my 70 - 200 2.8II, I haven't had a look at them yet. It made more sense to me to do this than spend $10K on a 500mm telephoto.

Look forward to seeing your results!

[Bill Yeung]

Colin and all 200mm friends - yesterday, took the folllowing pictures:

The first one: F2.8 - 1/400 @ ISO 200. Too far away right? That's why a TC is the only solution. (Of course, I can gain another 20 ft closer if I go the board of the rink. I am shooting from the top of the stand... 20 ft further more).

The second one:ISO 2000, (advised by Colin to use complete stop of ISO), aperture 4.5 (want to see the similar aperture a TC will give me) and I can only cut a 1/125.

Comment, comment please and they are all welcome.

Thanks

Bill

[Geoff F]

That is a tricky situation whatever settings you use, Bill.

The white background makes exposure difficult and for fast actions I would like to use at least 1/800.

So I suppose whatever you try, a lot of compromise is necessary. These shots are quite good but I suspect that you can probably get a bit sharper if you can everything to come together.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Bill,

In my opinion, more of the young lady and less of the rink is desireable - so I think the TC is a good move. By "complete ISO stop" however means shooting at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 etc though, not 2000. If you'd shot this at ISO 3200 you'd probably have had slightly less noise, and your shutterspeed would have jumped from 1/125th to 1/200th which - if you're panning - should be OK. It's always going to be a compromise though; the likes of a 400mm F2.8 lens with either TC might be even better, but you lose the ability to zoom and thus risk not being able to contain the lady fully within the frame.

This is possibly a good candidate for Canon's new 200 - 400mm lens with built in 1.4x TX (selectable) when it's released.