70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x / 2x Teleconverter...Thoughts?

Hey all,

I have a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS with my 40D and I use it a lot. I find the IS really useful for the type of shooting I do. The problem is that I've started to want more from this lens than it is capable of giving me.

So here's my question: Do any of you have experience with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS with the 1.4x or 2x extenders? I'm not a pro and I'm not planning to make any (much?) money off my photography, so this is a sizable purchase I'm looking at and I want the benefit of any knowledge, good or bad, that you can offer. (Yes, I'm aware that this lens becomes a 105-320 f/4 with the 1.4x and a 140-400 f/5.6 with the 2x.) Experience with this lens or the extenders is welcome, and obviously I'm particularly interested in anyone's advice that has used the combination of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 1.4x.

Having answered several of these, "Should I buy this equipment or not?" queries myself, here's some background info that should help to convey my thinking and my situation. (Or, if you have enough info already, you can stop reading here. )

My 70-300 is a workhorse, but when I'm going for enlargements bigger than 12x18 I'm usually shooting from a tripod, and I'm getting a bit of chromatic aberration that becomes really obvious (nothing outside the specs for this lens, though). For many of my shots, I find I need a shallow DoF and I find the quality when shooting wide open very good (meaning fixable in Photoshop) for up to 8x12 prints. Beyond that, I have to spend a lot of time correcting problems that are just too visible in the final work otherwise.

So, I think it's time for me to make the jump up to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I shoot a fair amount in the 200-300 range with my 70-300 now, so I think I would find the loss of 100mm at the long end intolerable, hence I want to also pick up the 1.4x teleconverter. I've considered going even further by getting the 100-400, but I don't need or want the push/pull zoom and I am frequently wanting to shoot wide open. Because the 100-400 has the same aperture (actually, even slightly more limiting at f/4.5-5.6) as my current 70-300 isn't going to give me bang for the buck.

At the same time, if I ever want to get out to 400, I could get the 2x extender and, for a fraction of the cost of owning both lenses, I can cover 70-400 at various very acceptable (!) apertures.

I know that there are several people that consider the extenders to be a Very Bad Thing...at the same time, I know that a lot of pros shoot with them (typically coupled with the 100-400 or long prime teles), so I'm not sure what to make of this. Print sizes I'm targeting are primarily 12x18 and 17x22--would any negative effects of these extenders be significant, assuming I'm scaling to these sizes with moderate cropping? ("Moderate cropping" to me means minor things like leveling the horizon and cropping to a square.)

Thanks!

See my recent threads entitled "70-200 2.8 with 2x extender for soccer" for what I've recently experienced. In the second message (part 2) I've got a link to a web page that contains 140 pictures that I took of my daughter's soccer game this past weekend with the 70-200 2.8 IS and 2x teleconverter.

People praise the 1.4 extender and lament over lack of sharpness and/or IQ for the 2x extender.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

KennyS said:

People praise the 1.4 extender and lament over lack of sharpness
and/or IQ for the 2x extender.

Click to expand...

It's generally not the IQ of the extender that's the problem, it's a question of whether the lens it's used with has enough sharpness to stand up to magnification. As an example, here is the 70-200mm f4 IS with not only the 2x extender but also the 1.4x extender on at the same time for a total of 560mm:



This was taken with the lens wide open (100% crop in the upper right hand corner).

--
Mike Mullen

mmullen wrote:
As an example, here is the 70-200mm f4 IS

mmullen said:

with not only the 2x extender but also the 1.4x extender on at the
same time for a total of 560mm:

Click to expand...

You can stack extenders???

Awesome. I could live with a 210-640mm f/8 option!!

Does anyone have any info on how the 70-200 f/2.8L IS compares in quality to the f/4L IS? Would I see pretty close to the same result as posted?

Thanks very much for the info!

I think I see a little of the issue you were referring to in terms of compromising the image...I'm thinking I'll go with the 1.4x to start and if I need to go out past 320 I'll look into the 2x later, but that definitely gives me an upper bound in terms of image quality compromise (which isn't much at all).

By the way, I noticed in your thread that you were interested in figuring out a test to tell the difference between image noise and image artifacts introduced by the extender. Actually, there's a very simple test you can do to see the difference.

Put the lens on without the extender and shoot several test images at 70mm, 100mm, 140mm, and 200mm, varying ISO (100/200/400/etc) and aperture (go wide open, f/5.6, f/8, and f/16). (You should use a tripod here and always use the 2" self-timer or a remote release to take camera shake out of the equation--if you're really fastidious about it, use mirror lockup too, but unless your exposures are between 1/10 and 5", it won't really make any difference.)

Then put the extender on and set the same focal lengths, 70mm, 100mm, 140mm, and 200mm (this gives effective focal lengths twice what you set: 140mm, 200mm, 280mm, and 400mm). Then shoot the test image under the same combination of apertures and ISOs.

Now you've created images that you can compare 1-to-1, no matter what you're looking for. If you're interested in seeing the noise in the image introduced by ISO, then you can compare two shots without the extender where ISO is the only difference. If you want to see artifacts introduced by the extender, then compare the same ISO / same aperture / same focal length with and without the extender. Or you can compare same ISO / same aperture / same effective focal length (so the 70mm and 100mm with the extender on vs the 140mm and 200mm with the extender off)--this one is probably going to be the most interesting since you can pixel peel exact areas of the frame. (It's probably also instructive to compare shots with everything the same except effective aperture.)

The big question I'll have when I'm doing these kinds of comparisons--if I ever find myself shooting in the 140-200mm range with the extender on, what is the quality compromise I'm making by being too lazy to take it off? (or in my case, I'll have the 1.4x, but you see what I'm saying...)

I chose the 70-200 IS f 2.8 over the f 4.0 because of the low light situations...take a look at this picture that was taken at the Biodome Aquarium in Montreal in a very dark tunnel...this is when you don't need a tc... and IS.But I use a Sigma TC2X very often on my Canon 70-200 IS f 2.8 and I'll try to post one later. Click on 'new window' and see the first two images (bass).It's been taken through the aquarium glass.

I shoot my 70-200 f/2.8 non IS with the 2X TC quite often. I believe the IQ degradation comes not from the TC but from camera shake. This combo definitly requires a tripod. I am not sure why as I shoot my Sigma 50-500 handheld all the time. Maybe the balance, maybe the interaction of the mirror/shutter? I haven't figured it out yet, but examining the image with FocusMagic shows evidence of a small amount of camera shake. It works much better with Mirror lockup and a remote release. YMMV.
--
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg
http://www.sjprg.us

drippinDodger said:

See my recent threads entitled "70-200 2.8 with 2x extender for
soccer" for what I've recently experienced. In the second message
(part 2) I've got a link to a web page that contains 140 pictures
that I took of my daughter's soccer game this past weekend with the
70-200 2.8 IS and 2x teleconverter.

Click to expand...

Which TC are you using ?? I have the 70-200 f/2,8 L and in recent test with the x2 TC Kenko 300 DG Pro & the 40D, it was not able to do AF at all ... hunting all the time ... this TC did not report the extender factor to the camera ... so at 200 mm was reported as a 200 mm at f/5,6 ...

Using the same lens with the Canon x2 Mk II & 40D,it did work the AF without any problem ... it did reported 400 mm f/5,6 to tha cam

--
Cheers

Juan

Canon 40D
Tokina 10-17 FE & 12-24 f/4 / Canon 50 mm f/1.4
Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Canon 70-200 f/2,8 L
Canon 300 f/4 L IS
Flash Sigma 500 Super DG

The f/2.8 version has the wide aperture going for it, but not much else. The f/4 lens is much sharper at f/4 and smaller apertures than the f/2.8 lens. Putting even a 1.4 on the f/2.8 will probably disappoint you greatly.
--
http://www.photobyaaron.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photobyaaron/sets/

Yes. And with both TCs stacked 70-200 f2.8 recognizes only one TC (x2) which makes it f5.6 rather than f8 and AF still works (slow but works).

Quality with both TCs is dissapointing.

If majority of your shots with 70-200 will be with TCs perhaps you sould consider 100-400 L or 300 f4 with TC x1.4 ?

Takke care.
--
Olgierd

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good or bad I'm guy with a big lens.

wickedphotos said:

The f/2.8 version has the wide aperture going for it, but not much
else. The f/4 lens is much sharper at f/4 and smaller apertures than
the f/2.8 lens. Putting even a 1.4 on the f/2.8 will probably
disappoint you greatly.
--

Click to expand...

This is a huge exaggeration. From what I've seen the differences are minimal. People on this forum tend to blow small differences out of proportion in order to justify their own purchases. If the 2.8 IS version was that bad, it wouldn't be a required piece of equipment for just about every pro with Canon gear. I have both the F4 non-IS version and the F2.8 IS version. They both produce great results with a 1.4 converter. I have tried them with two stacked 1.4 converters, and the results are acceptable, especially with some processing.

--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

I use a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x on a 70-200f2.8 IS with good results.The combination improves rapidly as I stop down(one stop makes a big difference).So I shoot at an effective 280mm at f5.6(equal to 448mm in 35mm terms).

Hi,

Actually, my intention is to run with the 70-200 with and without the 1.4x extender. I was kicking around the future possibility of adding a 2x so I could get out to 400mm, and I wasn't even aware I could stack extenders until I read the response in this thread, so it definitely isn't something I'm planning to do all the time...it's one of those situations where it's a nice option to have if you need to push past 400mm without buying any more equipment. In that case it's a situation of getting a shot with compromised quality vs not having a shot at all.

My primary uses are going to be shooting with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 200-320 f/4 (this is the only range it would make sense to use the 1.4x extender).

In a previous post in this thread I discussed why I didn't like the idea of the 100-400--did you see any flaw in that? (Basically, not a wide enough aperture.)

Thanks!
sev

Olgierd said:

Yes. And with both TCs stacked 70-200 f2.8 recognizes only one TC
(x2) which makes it f5.6 rather than f8 and AF still works (slow but
works).

Quality with both TCs is dissapointing.

If majority of your shots with 70-200 will be with TCs perhaps you
sould consider 100-400 L or 300 f4 with TC x1.4 ?

Takke care.
--
Olgierd

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good or bad I'm guy with a big lens.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any image in your post.

I do understand the flexibility of having the f/2.8...on the other hand, it's one stop, so I could always bump ISO to get that. I'm primarily interested in the f/2.8 for the decreased depth of field--seems to me that it'd make a great portrait lens for that reason (particularly at the short end).

life9328 said:

I chose the 70-200 IS f 2.8 over the f 4.0 because of the low light
situations...take a look at this picture that was taken at the
Biodome Aquarium in Montreal in a very dark tunnel...this is when you
don't need a tc... and IS.But I use a Sigma TC2X very often on my
Canon 70-200 IS f 2.8 and I'll try to post one later. Click on 'new
window' and see the first two images (bass).It's been taken through
the aquarium glass.

Click to expand...

Can you post any examples or reviews that support what you're saying here?

I'm not questioning the validity, but I'd like to know how big the difference is so I can make the call based on the shooting I do. I might be willing to make the quality trade-off...

wickedphotos said:

The f/2.8 version has the wide aperture going for it, but not much
else. The f/4 lens is much sharper at f/4 and smaller apertures than
the f/2.8 lens. Putting even a 1.4 on the f/2.8 will probably
disappoint you greatly.
--
http://www.photobyaaron.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photobyaaron/sets/

Click to expand...

Well...I'm thinking that one reasonable explanation could be...

The IS in that lens is designed for 70-200mm focal lengths. So at the long end, if you're shooting 1/200 at 200mm, the IS allows you to go to 1/50. If you add the 2x extender and you're now shooting at 400mm, it might be a flawed assumption to use the 1/focal length rule, same as if you were shooting a 400mm "natural" focal length.

Or, more likely, the 1/focal length rule still holds, but the IS may be built to tolerances that are sharp without extra magnification. Since the extender is effectively added that magnification, where you might get 2 stops without it from IS, you might only get 1.

I'm not sure of exactly how IS and an extender might affect each other, but it doesn't seem beyond the realm of consideration...especially since you're saying that your IQ degradation goes away when you shoot from a tripod.

By the way, I can say with some level of certainly that MLU really only has significant impact on images around 1/3 shutter speed, I usually play it safe and use MLU when taking exposures between 1/10 and 3". (Much faster than 1/10, it seems the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze the shake introduced by the mirror slap, much longer than 3" and the contribution to the exposure made during the shake due to mirror slap isn't significant enough to show up either.) If I was using an extender, I might double those limits with the 1.4x (to use MLU between 1/20 and 5") and triple the lower limit with the 2x (use MLU between 1/50 and 5"--no sense tripling the high side--the shake has died out after about 3" regardless of how much magnification you're using).

Interesting info though! Thanks!

sjprg said:

I shoot my 70-200 f/2.8 non IS with the 2X TC quite often. I believe
the IQ degradation comes not from the TC but from camera shake. This
combo definitly requires a tripod. I am not sure why as I shoot my
Sigma 50-500 handheld all the time. Maybe the balance, maybe the
interaction of the mirror/shutter? I haven't figured it out yet, but
examining the image with FocusMagic shows evidence of a small amount
of camera shake. It works much better with Mirror lockup and a remote
release. YMMV.
--
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg
http://www.sjprg.us

Click to expand...

In case you dont know, you can see comparisons of most lenses at all apetrures and focal lengths PLUS THE 1.4X TC at http://www.the-digital-picture.com

You can see there that the f/4 version of this lens is much much better in terms of IQ. I valued the 2.8 enough to justify the cost difference AND the IQ difference.

I own a 2.8is and a quantaray 2x TC. The combo is dreadful. Why would I pay for the fantastic IQ of this lens, than ruin it with a TC. The contrast gets cut in half. I get better images by cropping tight at 200mm in pp. At least AF speed is still useable.

I hear the canon TC's are worth the extra cost. I plan to get a canon 1.4x to replace my garbage quantaray 2x... or maybe invest in a longer prime... I'd like to borrow or rent a 100-400 to see how usable it is.

--
richalborn.smugmug.com

One quick thing... you mention that with the 1.4x tc you get out to 320mm. I believe that it only gets you to 280 mm (200 x 1.4 = 280). You would need a 1.6x TC to get to 320 mm.

On the other hand, I'm a newb and my understanding and math skills could certainly be brought into question.
--
-twig

Yup, I said that because I'm an idiot. Time to head back to multiplication class.

twigerator said:

One quick thing... you mention that with the 1.4x tc you get out to
320mm. I believe that it only gets you to 280 mm (200 x 1.4 = 280).
You would need a 1.6x TC to get to 320 mm.

On the other hand, I'm a newb and my understanding and math skills
could certainly be brought into question.
--
-twig

Click to expand...