# Which converter, 1.4X or 2X, based on these lenses bodies



## awair (Dec 18, 2015)

I have acquired numerous lenses over the years. I am in the process of switching (but maybe not completely) to full-frame.

Should I get the 1.4X or 2X converter (no more money for lenses for at least 2 years)?
Which of these lenses should I let go of, if any, based on the converter choice?

135/2L (still my favourite, though probably on the crop format)
70-200/2.8L IS
300/4L

Which bodies should I let go of?

7D
7D2
6D

My two 'dream' lenses on my wish list are:
200/2L &
200-400/4L with 1.4X

Both are probably 3-5 years away, if ever...

Thank you for any advice, comments or consideration that might give me an alternative look at the issue.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2015)

Saw your other thread. Congratulations on the new purchases.

Assuming you want to keep both formats, I'd sell the 300 f/4L, 7D and 6D and buy the 100-400L II (and skip the TC). At 300mm, the 100-400L II is better than the 300L (but gives up 2/3 stop but has IS), and at 400 is better than the 300 + 1.4x or 70-200 + 2.0x. It gives you the reach you want (similar to your 200-400 dream lens) at a cost of 1 stop, but is lighter, handholdable for much longer time and a lot less expensive. You can always add the 1.4x to use later for even more reach.

Of course, this is based on the assumption that you budget is 400 + any equipment you sell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2015)

Which should I get – a two seat convertible or a minivan? Any advice is appreciated, but I'm not going to tell you if I have kids, and if so, how many. 

In other words – what do you shoot??

Some points to consider:

With the 300/4, your 7DII will AF with the 2x TC (center point only), the other cameras will not (although they will with live view). 

Unless you need the 7D as a backup camera, why hang onto it – the 7DII trumps it. 

There's very little optical difference between the 1.4xII and 1.4xIII. The AF benefits of the MkIII TCs apply only to the MkII great whites (and I suppose to the 200-400, but that has the TC built in). So, you might consider a used 1.4xII (and in fact, you might be able to pick up both used MkII TCs for the cost of a single new MkIII. 

The 70-200/2.8L IS will take a big optical hit with the 2x (the 70-200 MkII is much better in that regard.

Hope that helps...


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 18, 2015)

To tag onto Neuro's comments (which are spot on), the 135 does not take the converters well at all - at least until the lens is stopped down to f/8 or so. Take a look at The Digital Picture tools and you'll see what we mean:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2015)

Don't bother with a TC on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (MK I). The lens is weakest at its longer focal lengths, and a TC just amplifies the weakness.

Sell the MK I and Get a MK II if you want to use TC's with it. The old tech IS in the 300mm f/4 is not going to work well when you handhold the lens with a TC, so its a tripod for best results.

I was never happy with TC's on my 135mmL

Sell your old 7D, sell your old 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, sell your 300mm f/4L.

Buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L II, and a 100-400mm L MK II along with a single 1.4X TC (A MK II TC is fine)


----------



## awair (Dec 18, 2015)

Thank you for the consideration above, I haven't even got the batteries charged on the 1Dx yet and I already have a better idea of how to proceed...



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don't bother with a TC on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (MK I). The lens is weakest at its longer focal lengths, and a TC just amplifies the weakness.
> ...
> The old tech IS in the 300mm f/4 is not going to work well when you handhold the lens with a TC, so its a tripod for best results.



I should have clarified that it is the 70-200/2.8 IS II model that I have. Using a 1.4X would effectively render the 300/4 obsolete, unless I use that lens only on the crop body. I take it that the 1.4X with the Mk II will be a match for the 300? Certainly it will be more convenient.



neuroanatomist said:


> In other words – what do you shoot??
> ...
> Unless you need the 7D as a backup camera, why hang onto it – the 7DII trumps it.
> ...
> There's very little optical difference between the 1.4xII and 1.4xIII.



Mostly, I have been shooting kids' sports with indoor swimming taking the lion's share. With the available light the 300/4 was especially unimpressive on the 7D, but acceptable on the 7D2 and good, albeit with less reach, on the 6D.



Random Orbits said:


> Saw your other thread. Congratulations on the new purchases.
> 
> Assuming you want to keep both formats, I'd sell the 300 f/4L, 7D and 6D...
> 
> Of course, this is based on the assumption that you budget is 400 + any equipment you sell.



Unfortunately the budget is closer to minus 400. I really need to sell 2 bodies and possibly a lens, with either converter being the only option to extend my reach. I thought of selling the 7D2, only because it should fetch quite a bit more than the 7D; and the 7D with the 135 is still a great combo.

If I sell both 7D & 7D2, the 300 will go. If I sell the 6D and one of the 7s, then it might be worth keeping. I guess the local market will decide for me...

Thank you again for your advice and comments.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 26, 2015)

Sell 7D. 
Sell 300/4.
Forget about TCs.
Buy 100-400 II.


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 27, 2015)

awair said:


> I have acquired numerous lenses over the years. I am in the process of switching (but maybe not completely) to full-frame.
> 
> Should I get the 1.4X or 2X converter (no more money for lenses for at least 2 years)?
> Which of these lenses should I let go of, if any, based on the converter choice?
> ...



I'm going to go against the popular flow and suggest you keep what you have and learn how to push your equipment. 

I only suggest that because I have seen over the years (and after owning several different bodies and lens combinations) that knowing your equipment is better than the equipment itself.

I am currently learning the 7D2 and yes it is a remarkable camera. Is it $1700.00 better than the 7D? No... it's not. Is the 6D $2000.00 better than the 5D2? You ge the idea....

Your lenses are going to be a better investment than the bodies you use. You need to figure out what you are shooting and what you need what equipment for what. Your budget is a big factor as well...

Too many on here (no offence guys...) will suggest that unless you have the best the rest is crap. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The best camera is the one you have in your hands and know how to use.

I use a Tamron 1.4X tele on my Canon 70-300L with my 7D2 and it works amazing. Photos are sharp and focus is dead on and fast. Truth is, what do you really NEED? What can you really AFFORD?

Some of my best photos were from my older XTi and non L 40-300. I have sold more of those than any of my current photos combined. Concentrate more on what you are shooting at. 

Just my very humble 2 cents.

D


----------



## iaind (Jan 10, 2016)

Since getting 100-400mm II. 300mm f4 has become redundant. 
Lose it with 7d


----------



## awair (Jan 10, 2016)

Thanks for all the advice. I particularly liked this, albeit a bit late for me:



Richard8971 said:


> I'm going to go against the popular flow and suggest you keep what you have and learn how to push your equipment.
> ...
> I am currently learning the 7D2 and yes it is a remarkable camera. Is it $1700.00 better than the 7D? No... it's not. Is the 6D $2000.00 better than the 5D2? You get the idea....
> ...
> D



The market decided, and the 6D is gone and I will keep pushing with the rest.

I'll probably rent the 1.4X and then decide whether to keep the 7D/7D2 based on the full frame results.


----------



## awair (Feb 15, 2016)

An update...

Based on recent results and a little googling, it looks like the best option is to keep all the lenses and drop the (remaining) two 7Ds.

The results from the 300/4 with the 1Dx were better than I could have imagined, and although a pain to change lenses, seemed worth it over the 70-200 for some shots.

I also found reference to the DXOMark 'P-MPix' rating, which seems to indicate that cropping the full-frame results should yield better quality (sharpness) than using the crop? Not sure if I interpreted that right, but with better noise and colour, the FF images are definitely more 'keepable'.

If/when the 7s go, I'll look at a 2nd body from the upcoming 6D2 or 5D4, but definitely no rush. 

Will also have a look at the 1.4X (probably rental) for the 300/4 only, but for the scenario I'm thinking of, it would probably be better to rent the 400/2.8 or 200-400...

Thanks for the tips and advice.


----------



## awair (May 23, 2016)

My 7D2 has gone back to Canon, to be replaced.

I recently used my (original) 7D with the 70-200, and also the 1Dx with the 1.4x III. Very happy with both results, so it looks like the 1.4x was the right choice.

The 7D has shown competitive results with my new lens and is probably too old to get a decent return. I'll sell the 7D2 replacement when it arrives, and be 'down to a sensible' two-camera collection!


----------

