# Advice/suggestions extenders



## scottkinfw (May 25, 2012)

I just got the 5DIII, and I was thinking about an extender to increase reach. I would appreciate advice and comments about real world experience from people who use them. I prefer wildlife photog, but any chance to shoot I won't pass up. I was thinking about the 1.4.

What I am interested in finding out is if the iq is affected significantly, and how will it affect focusing, color, contrast, etc. Is it worth it?

Thanks so much.

sek


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2012)

I have MkII versions of the 1.4x and 2x. Any extender will reduce IQ - how significantly depends on the lens with which it's used. In your case, you list 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II takes extenders very well, the 70-200mm f/4L IS will take a 1.4x ok, suffers with a 2x (and no AF due to f/8), the 300/4 does ok with a 1.4x (IQ will be a bit less than the 400/5.6 and 100-400 @ 400). The 400/5.6 also does ok with a 1.4x, not so good with a 2x, but any extender on the 400/5.6 means you lose AF.

In general, the TCs work best with the supertele lenses (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc.). With zooms and lesser primes, there's a bigger IQ hit.

Also, the 1.4x extender slows AF by 50%, the 2x by 75% (by design). That's fine for static subjects, ok for moving ones with a fast-focusing lens like the 70-200 II, can be a problem with moving subjects and slower focusing lenses (the 300/4 isn't 'slow' but it's not as fast as the others).

Do you mind manual focus or Live View? I ask because you already have a 400/5.6 prime - a 2x on your 70-200 II gets you to 400/5.6, and a 1.4x on your 300/4 gets you to 420/5.6, so while both combos do give you a lens with IS, it's no longer (or not significantly longer) than your 400mm prime. Adding the 1.4x to the 400/5.6 prime, as stated, means 560mm f/8 and no phase AF (unless using it on a 1-series body prior to the 1D X), although Live View AF works, albeit slowly.

I tested the 100-400mm with the 1.4x extender, and was happier with the shot at 400mm cropped to the 560mm FoV over the shot with the extender. I've taken some shots with the 100-400mm and the 2x - turned out ok (not great), but focusing was a pain at f/11.

I do find the extenders useful occasionally, mostly when I'm going out to shoot with my 70-200 II primarily (outing with kids), but bring the 2x just in case. The other situation in which I find the extenders useful is that with the 70-200 II, the combo is weather sealed, which the 100-400mm is not (nor are the 300/4 or 400/5.6). I'm actually considering moving from the 2x II to the 2x III (and selling the 1.4x, which I just don't use much at all).

FWIW, here are a some examples - the first two on the 7D where I was using the extender + 70-200 II in drizzle/rain (the 1.4x shot was before I had the 2x), the third was bringing the 2x along on a trip with the kids where I brought the 5DII and 70-200 II. Clicking them then View All Sizes in the upper right will get you to a 1600 pixel version if you want to check sharpness.




EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 1.4x II Extender @ 280mm, 1/2000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200




EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400


----------



## Michael_pfh (May 25, 2012)

I have the 1.4x II and I like it. The impact on image quality is not very noticeable however it reduces the AF speed significantly. Of course different lenses show different results in combination with the 1.4x II. 

I also got the 2.0x II which does impact the IQ quite a bit hence I only use it when I really need the extra reach.

You can stack them on top of each other but the results are not really keepers.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 25, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> I just got the 5DIII, and I was thinking about an extender to increase reach.



If you're not set to get the Canon tc: I've got the small and rather inexpensive but non-sealed Kenko 1.4 dgx which fits all ef lenses and am using it for my 70-300L and 100L macro.

The iq on the tele beats shooting at native range and then cropping. The best thing is to use it on the 100L macro, it's works even better than on my old non-L - you gain instant magnification starting with a very reasonable f4.


----------



## wcksmith (May 25, 2012)

Just a thought on the 2x extender. The 2X III (the latest version) is VERY good with the 70-200 2.8II & the 5DIII. I've shot birds in flight and in the bush with great results and no significant fall off in autofocus time. The IQ is great, even at 400mm.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 25, 2012)

wcksmith said:


> Just a thought on the 2x extender. The 2X III (the latest version) is VERY good with the 70-200 2.8II & the 5DIII. I've shot birds in flight and in the bush with great results and no significant fall off in autofocus time. The IQ is great, even at 400mm.



I've heard that too about the latest 2x extenders. I thought the 1.4 would be as much as I wanted to use without losing too much IQ, but a cpl of people I have talked to said the new 2x III is very good and they want to add it to their 1.4's. If that's the case then I'm going to seriously look at the 2x instead of the 1.4 for use with my 70-200 2.8II.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2012)

The IQ effect of a extender depends very much on the lens it is used with. Don't go there with a low end lens, CA and distortion already in the lens will magnify. With good glass, like the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II a TC will provide excellent results, but slow AF.

I've had reasonable results with my 100-400mmL at 400mm, and a TC works very well with a 70-200mm f/4 IS too.

Here are some images of Mount Spokane (That snow covered peak in the center top of the image behind the trees) I took a year or two back with my 100-400mmL and 1D MK III. This was the MK II TC, I would expect the MK III to be better.

50mm f/1.4 (65mm equiv) for a baseline










400mm (520mm equiv) no TC Now you can see the mountain and the TV tower that my Internet provider uses to broadcast from)







400mm +1.4TC (728mm equiv)







400mm + 2X TC (1040mm equiv)








400mm with 1.4X +2X stacked (1456mm equiv)








And, a 1:1 crop with my 5D MK III hand held snapshot.


----------



## danski0224 (May 25, 2012)

If this was a CSI show, you could zoom in on your reflection on one of the tower bolts


----------



## ScottyP (May 25, 2012)

Canon makes several _*1.6x *  extenders _ for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ. They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Canon makes several _*1.6x *  extenders _ for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ. They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.



I've never seen a 1.6x. I wonder how they compare with the new II or III series?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I've never seen a 1.6x. I wonder how they compare with the new II or III series?



Lol. They're bigger, blacker, and have a shutter button.


----------



## kazeye (May 25, 2012)

Personally I like to use my 40d for hard to reach subjects rather than my 5d and an extender. I have the 1.4x mark II version and I'm pretty happy with it. I've used it on a 100-400 L and had to use a tripod with live view to manually focus it. You'll notice the viewfinder is much darker with the extender on. The results weren't bad, I photographed an owl on her nest.

I've also used the extender on the 300mm 2.8 IS, and it still seems tack sharp. On the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, it slowed the autofocus some, and noticed a slight degradation of image quality, but still perfectly usable. 

Overall, I like the 1.4 II extender and think it's worth getting. I found one used on Craigslist for $170, and it'll probably be worth the same when I sell it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Canon makes several _*1.6x *extenders _for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ. They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.
> ...


 
Yes, I have a 7D, but it does not produce the best of images when you need high ISO. Adding extenders to a f/5.6 lens quickly reduces the light so that a high ISO is needed. So its limited to bright light, or a fast lens. I'm thinking of selling it since I bought the 1D MK IV, it has way better IQ at high ISO.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 25, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a 1.6x. I wonder how they compare with the new II or III series?
> ...



Lol. So how's the IQ though?


----------



## RC (May 25, 2012)

Neuro & Mt S., thanks for the nice comparison shots. 8). I've got a 1.4 II that I use with my 70-200 f4 IS on my 1.6. Been working on trying to get sharp moon shots. Hope to post some with and without my 1.4 after the next full moon. Just got done AFMAing the lens with and without the extender.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (May 25, 2012)

7D with 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 1.4x III, at f/4:

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1240165276&k=GELoj&lb=1&s=A


----------



## scottkinfw (May 26, 2012)

That is too funny. Do the 1.6 te's come with names like 7D?





neuroanatomist said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a 1.6x. I wonder how they compare with the new II or III series?
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (May 26, 2012)

Thank you all for the excellent and articulate comments.



neuroanatomist said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen a 1.6x. I wonder how they compare with the new II or III series?
> ...


----------

