Opinions on Extenders, please?

[PajamaGuy]

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!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ScottyP]

---

@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. 

[PajamaGuy]

---

 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.

[ebiggs1]

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."

[TTMartin]

---

@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. 

[TTMartin]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

"...  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.

[TTMartin]

---

@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

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.