11-26-2019 10:20 AM
"I would be in the 1/1600 range or faster."
Even this will not help a lack of IQ in the first place. I think we agree!
11-27-2019 11:24 AM
I have a recent version Canon 2X that I ordered in a moment of weakness using some of B&H's incentive cash. I have tried it a few times with two of Canon's sharpest primes (EF-200 F2 and EF-300 F2.8) and the loss of IQ is great enough that I just have no desire to use it as much as I wanted to like the results. The images are decent with the 2X but when compared with the results from the bare lens the reduction in sharpness and contrast is very noticeable. If I were primarily interested in wildlife photography I might feel differently and would be more willing to accept the 2X.
I have used the 1.4X quite a bit and although there is some loss of quality, it is nowhere close to the loss with the 2X. My only real objection to the 1.4X is a slight but very noticeable reduction in focus capture speed and this is true even in very good lighting with the 1DX and 1DX 2 bodies. I primarily shoot sports and the slight focus speed reduction with the 1.4X would be far less important for most other use.
11-27-2019 02:51 PM - edited 11-27-2019 06:51 PM
All thank you for posting about ur experiences with the extender. Allow me to add my two cents - i recently upgraded from the 70d to the newer R.
I wont get in details about one vs the other - in respect to the bodies- but will limit my comments to the lens and extender combo
70D - using the 100-400 is with the 2x extender(first version) - the autofocus does not work - the need arose from shooting wildlife in Africa - the results were not the best for several reasons
A. The pictures were dark
B. The were cloudy
C. Manual focusing was very cumbersome as i disnt have time to keep up with the animal movement
To compensate for all the above i had to get a tripod, had to adjust the iso - even then the quality was not superv
R - same lens and the same extender
A. Autofocus works well
B. The image quality is mush sharper - there is still some softness to the picture but not overly noticable (amatuer me)
C. Although there is the same loss of f stops the camera’s sensor and being full frame compensates very nicely.
D. I have not had to use the tripod yet in low light conditions just yet bit havent tried any night photography with this combo either
As i mentioned before just my two cent of my experience with this combo with the two different bodies
11-27-2019 05:03 PM - edited 11-27-2019 05:03 PM
Some of your A,B,C's were not caused by the tel-con. And most importantly everybody has different expectations and different goals or requirements. If what you are getting from your gear satisfies you, more power to you. Glad for you, go for it.
Some recent samples from different folks, on this forum, lately would not satisfy me but apparently they do that person. That's all that matters!
11-27-2019 06:48 PM
Interesting that your acnecdotal knowlege about the lens convo can make you speak with conviction over my empirical knowledge of the set up. And yes not being a rich snob who can afford the 10k+ set ups I have come to terms that I will be giving up some things for exchange of others. thanks for your insight...
11-28-2019 10:29 AM
"Interesting that your acnecdotal knowlege about the lens convo can make you speak with conviction ..."
I don't really understand all that but I can tell you I have six or seven tel-cons. I even have a 3x! I had the lens you speak of. I had it for several years. I have the 2x tel-con. The combo did not meet my goals, so it got sold, but it obviously does satisfy some people's requirement. And, that is fine, it's just not for me. If you good with it and love it, fantastic, go for it.