topic Re: Opinions on Extenders, please? in EF & RF Lenses

Opinions on Extenders, please?

PajamaGuy — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:49:51 GMT

Extender EF 2x III - or the EF 1.4x III. Same price. Other than the obvious, why one over the other? Are the optics equal?

Thanks!

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

Waddizzle — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:21:04 GMT

Take a closer look at the specifications. In order to gain something, you will almost always have to lose something, which in the case of extenders means f/stop settings.

When attached, the 2x extender reduces the effective maximum aperture by 2 stops.

When attached, the 1.4x extender reduces the effective maximum aperture by 1 stop.

In other words, they will make a fast lens a little slower, and a slow lens much slower. This can have a detrimental effect on auto focus, causing AF not to work at all when one of the extenders is used. Generally, if you want to still be able to use your AF on your zoom lens, then you only want to use one of those with a lens that is f/2.8 or faster.

Can AF work with slower lenses? Yes, but it really depends on the exact camera and the exact lens. No doubt, minute variations in manufacturing tolerances can make a difference between it working and not working. There is a good probability that your AF will still work with the lens set to f/4 with the newer EOS camera models.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

jrhoffman75 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:21:06 GMT

Only a limit number of high end Canon DSLRs will auto focus at f/8, so depending on your camera and lenses you may have a problem autofocusing with the 2X.

From what I have read very few lenses do well image quality wise at 2X.

I would recommend the 1.4X if you can only afford one.

I'm sure you probably know this, but the Canon extenders only work woth certain Canon lenses - "L" lenses 135mm and longer. Not the 75-300mm "L" zoom.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:41:39 GMT

And of course this is the correct answer....

"I would recommend the 1.4X if you can only afford one.

I'm sure you probably know this, but the Canon extenders only work ~~woth~~ with certain Canon lenses ..."

In general extenders are a poor idea. You give a lot to get little. There are a few "L" lenses that tolerate an extender fairly well. Most lenses don't. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon Extender EF 1.4X II work well together. I have this combo so I can recommend it. It also works well with the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens. Again a personal tested combo, I can recommend it. As a general rule they don't and you should avoid lenses that are slower than f4 with an extender. And f2.8 is even better. And again, IMHO, avoid the 2x altogether.

Then you get into the really super tele like the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens. Although the 1.4x works OK with it, it brings some more difficult limits to over come. At a 700mm FL, it can be quite a challenge to use. I do not own that combo but I have rented it.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

RobertTheFat — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:05:12 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon Extender EF 1.4X II work well together.

I see they're now up to the 1.4X III. Do you have a sense of how that works with the 70-200?

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

jrhoffman75 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:33:31 GMT

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:55:54 GMT

Bob from Boston,

"I see they're now up to the 1.4X III. Do you have a sense of how that works with the 70-200?"

Bob, I do not. And my level of dislike for extenders is not likely going to drive me to buy one. I must have a dozen+ extenders downstairs in the the formely stop bath stained walls of my darkroom. I have the version II of the 1.4x and no longer have the 2x copy. I will keep the 1.4x for now anyway as it does have some usefulness. I admit it works very well on the two lenses I use it on. The 70-200mm f2.8L and the 300mm f4L. Some say it works OK on the 400mm f5.6L but it doesn't so don't believe them.

As a side note, I have the Sigma 14x for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Canon and it works well also.

I don't have the Tamron version for thier SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens but have been tempted to try it.

I might add the Siggy converter is nearly useless on most of the other Sigma lenses.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:01:34 GMT

John,

This says it all.

"The image quality of lenses varies from model to model; and therefore, the optical results of the various with-extender combinations also vary. A great lens will typically produce the best image quality when used with the 1.4x ..."

That picture of the Christmas Cactus is pretty sorry for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens. Says a mountain, doesn't it?

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:48:36 GMT

Bob from Boston,

I said,

"I must have a dozen+ extenders downstairs in the the formerly stop bath stained walls of my darkroom."

This is on side of my formerly stop bath stained darkroom. Now miraculously transformed into a storage room for photographic gear.

What can I say? We are having an ice storm so I am bored. Can't get out and will probably loose electricity in a bit. As you can see it is full of junk. All the bags are full of photographic gear. Mostly lenses.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

Waddizzle — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:59:29 GMT

LOL. I hope that is not your latest big Siggy in the top center position against the rear wall.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

RobertTheFat — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:01:35 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
That picture of the Christmas Cactus is pretty sorry for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens. Says a mountain, doesn't it?

Yeah, but the reviewer did say that the extender did a better job than cropping the image to the same coverage. Which I guess is what one looks for in an extender. Or to put it another way, if it didn't give you an IQ advantage over cropping, the extender's other advantages wouldn't be worth much.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

Waddizzle — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:27:04 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
That picture of the Christmas Cactus is pretty sorry for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens. Says a mountain, doesn't it?
Yeah, but the reviewer did say that the extender did a better job than cropping the image to the same coverage. Which I guess is what one looks for in an extender. Or to put it another way, if it didn't give you an IQ advantage over cropping, the extender's other advantages wouldn't be worth much.

Somehow, I don't think that that would always point fault at the [extender]. A bad lens is not going to give you better IQ under your scenario. In fact, it just might look even worse, as the extender faithfully magnifies the lens' flaws.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ScottyP — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:22:08 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon Extender EF 1.4X II work well together.

I see they're now up to the 1.4X III. Do you have a sense of how that works with the 70-200?

I have the Mk.3 version of the f/1.4 TC, and I use it (sometimes), pretty much only with my 70-200 f/2.8 Mk.2. It may slow down AF a little at long distance, but if so it is not something noticeable.

At short range (about 10-12 feet) it does seem noticeably slower to AF, though you might ask yourself why anyone would use a TC on a 70-200 at closeup range. I was doing it to get bluebirds in the dogwood tree right outside my window when I really noticed it.

Image quality may be a just bit reduced as well. Some things don't seem quite as sharp as I am used to seeing from that lens.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

PajamaGuy — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:40:39 GMT

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon Extender EF 1.4X II work well together. I have this combo so I can recommend it.

Thanks Ed. That's the combo I'm looking at (the III). And it's the answer I expected. The effective 448 mm @ f.4 on my 7D II should be sufficient for HS football & baseball.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:41:44 GMT

Bob from Boston,

The Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens is hardly a "bad" lens. Matter of fact it is one of the sharpest lenses made.

So, if the extender looks sorry using that lens, it will be hard pressed to do any better. Little hope.

My own findings tell me most of the time cropping is better than most extenders.

On this we agree, "...the extender's other advantages wouldn't be worth much."

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

TTMartin — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:08:45 GMT

@PajamaGuy wrote:
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens and the Canon Extender EF 1.4X II work well together. I have this combo so I can recommend it.
@Thanks Ed. That's the combo I'm looking at (the III). And it's the answer I expected. The effective 448 mm @ f.4 on my 7D II should be sufficient for HS football & baseball.

The III is suposed to have faster focus.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

TTMartin — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:13:57 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
That picture of the Christmas Cactus is pretty sorry for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro Lens. Says a mountain, doesn't it?
Yeah, but the reviewer did say that the extender did a better job than cropping the image to the same coverage. Which I guess is what one looks for in an extender. Or to put it another way, if it didn't give you an IQ advantage over cropping, the extender's other advantages wouldn't be worth much.

My personal experience with extenders is when light is good and the smaller aperture size while using the extender doesn't push your ISO too high then the extender is better than cropping. However, if using the extender pushes your ISO up over 1600, then you end up better off using a lower ISO and just cropping. This is with a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and the Sigma 1.4X and 2X TCs. I usually end up just using the 1.4X TC, but, if the light is really good then the 2X actually does better than just cropping.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:19:40 GMT

"... if the light is really good then the 2X actually does better than just cropping."

Do you have a sample? I'd like to see it. I also have the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and Sigma 1.4x extender.

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

TTMartin — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:35:01 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"... if the light is really good then the 2X actually does better than just cropping."

Do you have a sample? I'd like to see it. I also have the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and Sigma 1.4x extender.

@Canon 7D, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 w/Sigma 2X TC @ 600mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO 500 taken 11/23/2015 at Ollie's Pond, Port Charlotte, FL

100% crop

Re: Opinions on Extenders, please?

RobertTheFat — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:10:54 GMT

@TTMartin wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
"... if the light is really good then the 2X actually does better than just cropping."

Do you have a sample? I'd like to see it. I also have the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and Sigma 1.4x extender.
@Canon 7D, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 w/Sigma 2X TC @ 600mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO 500 taken 11/23/2015 at Ollie's Pond, Port Charlotte, FL

100% crop

I'm not sure what those two pictures prove (except that you obviously managed to get the bird's attention). I thought the object was to compare two images, one taken with the extender and the other taken without the extender but cropped to the same size as the one that was. If the one taken with the extender doesn't look better, then you didn't need the extender in the first place.