# Patent: Switchable 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverter



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2019)

> A patent showing a new style of teleconverter from Canon has appeared at the Japanese Patent Office this week and translated by Canon News.
> Canon is showing off a teleconverter that can switch between 1.4x and 2.0x, which would be a great way to increase the usability, flexibility and efficiency of using teleconverters.
> If you’re on location with both Canon teleconverters, it adds to the risk of dust getting inside the camera body. If you’re switching between 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, you may also miss the shot.
> Adding teleconverters to big lenses increases the size, weight and bulk of lenses as well, so simply putting built-in teleconverters into every super telephoto lens probably isn’t the answer either. Canon has been working very hard to reduce the...



Continue reading...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jun 20, 2019)

This would be the bomb, particularly if you could stack 2 on an R body and have 1.0/1.4/2.0/2.8/4.0 options!


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 20, 2019)

Please, Canon, please, produce it QUICK !!!!


----------



## melgross (Jun 20, 2019)

Assuming the quality isn’t limited by this design, I would buy it.


----------



## degos (Jun 20, 2019)

> Adding teleconverters to big lenses increases the size, weight and bulk of lenses as well, so simply putting built-in teleconverters into every super telephoto lens probably isn’t the answer either




Nah, the rear end of the f4 superteles ( even the IIIs ) is empty space. A TC would add some lateral bulk for the switch and insertion mechanism, but the weight would be near the mount end and so less noticable.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 20, 2019)

Guess I‘m not in that market because of the price.
But if the disadvantage in size wasn‘t that big - why not?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2019)

Can't let the wife see this. If she knew there was such a thing as a 2X extender... well, I'd never get a super tele to call my own.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 20, 2019)

Maybe I would buy it with an EF 2.0 200 - if it has 1x / 1.4x / 2x it would become an 2 - 200 / 2.8 - 300 / 4 - 400 in a moderately compact package! But I think it will be "only" 1.4x <-> 2x as compromise for IQ / size / prize


----------



## Sean C (Jun 21, 2019)

It's be neat to add a bulge like the 200-400 has for the extender, and make a R to EF adapter that can swing the elements out of the way to make a 1.0 with no loss as well.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jun 21, 2019)

I would buy this in a heartbeat. Even more so if there was a 1x option.


----------



## Pape (Jun 21, 2019)

picture shows there is 1x ,1,4x and 2x
I guess there are 2 converter you can turn to sides. Other left and other right.
There must be lens what makes room for 1x?
Or its just 1,4x 2x converter what is good too 
Or maybe that main objective got collapsing rear end construction?
would be nice bonus for RF super teles on those cases what got room for that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 21, 2019)

Very intriguing. And it'll be for RF, right, for what that's worth.

Jack


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 21, 2019)

Seems to me like Canon is considering one of two options:

1. A 1.0x/1.4x/2.0x made as an integral part of a super tele lens, like the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x.

2. A standalone 1.4x/2.0x tele extender. As this is two-for (with added convenience & mechanical complexity) *and* has no competition, it would be significantly more expensive than combined price of 1.4x & 2.0x extenders.

Oh, and it would prove Canon is ******* due to lack of innovation.


----------



## neonlight (Jun 21, 2019)

Both 1.4x and 2x extend the length of the tele lens (look at the image plane in the three diagrams). That means it won't do 1x unless there is some glass to do that in the TC which may lose definition to some extent. So this has to be a stand alone 1.4 or 2x only. The option of two TC's in a lens would work as the lens/TC's would be designed together. 
If the new tele RF lenses (for example) could be designed to work with a longer space then 1x might be doable, but there again that would negate the purpose of moving the back elements nearer the sensor!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2019)

I am frequently switching between 1.4x, 2x TCs and bare 400mm prime, but I am not sure I would want this unit. One of the problems with extenders is that the bare lens is the sharpest, the 1.4xTC degrades IQ by about 10% and the 2xTC by 20-30%. What I would prefer would be a zoom optimised for the longest length, and I wish Canon would make some more telephoto zooms.


----------



## Pape (Jun 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am frequently switching between 1.4x, 2x TCs and bare 400mm prime, but I am not sure I would want this unit. One of the problems with extenders is that the bare lens is the sharpest, the 1.4xTC degrades IQ by about 10% and the 2xTC by 20-30%. What I would prefer would be a zoom optimised for the longest length, and I wish Canon would make some more telephoto zooms.


yep but zoom lenses got nearly double amount of lenses . Theoretically it never can be as good as prime. Even big money is turning things better for zooms.
Or could they optimize to longest focal lenght and reduce amount of lenses to minimum.
Or hrm tele converter got lot of lenses nowadays too ,so i guess you right Alan.
How about crop sensor camera and 600mm f8 full frame lense with inbuild 2x speedbooster for bif?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2019)

Pape said:


> yep but zoom lenses got nearly double amount of lenses . Theoretically it never can be as good as prime. Even big money is turning things better for zooms.
> Or could they optimize to longest focal lenght and reduce amount of lenses to minimum.
> Or hrm tele converter got lot of lenses nowadays too ,so i guess you right Alan.
> How about crop sensor camera and 600mm f8 full frame lense with inbuild 2x speedbooster for bif?


My Canon 100-400mm II zoom lens at 400mm is hardly worse than my 400mm DO II and very sharp at the edges too. It's only when you put on TCs that the prime pulls ahead. A new lightweight native 300mm f/4 would be more attractive to me than a 600mm f/8 that doubled down.


----------



## Pape (Jun 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> My Canon 100-400mm II zoom lens at 400mm is hardly worse than my 400mm DO II and very sharp at the edges too. It's only when you put on TCs that the prime pulls ahead. A new lightweight native 300mm f/4 would be more attractive to me than a 600mm f/8 that doubled down.


Yep native 300mm f4 is good enough when high resolution sensor . With RP i wishing something with inbuilded TC or speed booster  Or i could just buy d90


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2019)

Pape said:


> Yep native 300mm f4 is good enough when high resolution sensor . With RP i wishing something with inbuilded TC or speed booster  Or i could just buy d90


It's just for ease of carrying etc, I'd prefer to use 300, 300+2xTC than 600, 600`+0.5xTC


----------



## ERHP (Jun 24, 2019)

I'd probably buy a multi-TC like that, especially if it does 0/1.4X/2X. It really comes down to what type of images you want to make. Some people, myself definitely included, try to get as close as possible for the more static detailed portrait shots and are relatively screwed when the subject takes flight because wings get clipped. If you know the species you are shooting, you figure out most of the tell tales of impending flight and could back off the TC if it is a lever activation like the 200-400. Just tired of cleaning the dust off the sensor from multiple swaps each outing.


----------



## Pape (Jun 24, 2019)

thats how i feel too ,i would like keep lense mostly short like 300-400mm for suprice flying birds and then able to change greater magnification fast when seeing one sitting.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 24, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I couldn’t figure out in this patent if you could also switch to 1.0x, so you could, in theory, leave the teleconverter attached to your favourite lens if you so desired.



Well, it's quite clear in the patent image that this won't be possible.

The distance to the sensor on 1.0x is shorter than at 1.4x and 2x so this is a standard adaptor that plugs on the end of the lens - it's not something built-in like the on the 200-400 lens and to get 1.0x you need to remove it.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 24, 2019)

ERHP said:


> I'd probably buy a multi-TC like that, especially if it does 0/1.4X/2X. It really comes down to what type of images you want to make. Some people, myself definitely included, try to get as close as possible for the more static detailed portrait shots and are relatively screwed when the subject takes flight because wings get clipped. If you know the species you are shooting, you figure out most of the tell tales of impending flight and could back off the TC if it is a lever activation like the 200-400. Just tired of cleaning the dust off the sensor from multiple swaps each outing.


Is the dust problem because you work in dusty, windy surroundings or is a matter of technique. I am constantly changing TCs but have never needed to clean a sensor. I treat the open end of the camera or the lens like I was trained for handling Petrie dishes by having them point downwards during handling and also immediately putting the caps on the TC. An occasional blow of the TC or end of lens helps but I rarely see dust there.


----------



## ERHP (Jun 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Is the dust problem because you work in dusty, windy surroundings or is a matter of technique. I am constantly changing TCs but have never needed to clean a sensor. I treat the open end of the camera or the lens like I was trained for handling Petrie dishes by having them point downwards during handling and also immediately putting the caps on the TC. An occasional blow of the TC or end of lens helps but I rarely see dust there.



With the 600 mounted on a tripod/gimbal I have both more and less control than doing things handheld. I spend the time to clean the camera, the TC and lenses, especially near the mating surfaces. Dust accumulates the fastest in one area but once it starts there, it is everywhere within a month. People have jokingly called it a NASCAR tire change when I swap, which has probably reduced the issue, but not eliminated it. Camera is off to reduce any dust attracting charge, camera angled down, etc. Most of my shots are in Southern California, a coastal desert/windy mountains/actual desert so dust is going to be in air. The part that is overlooked is I'm still usually tracking a subject and sudden movements aren't helping there which is why I'd prefer a selectable unit attached.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 24, 2019)

ERHP said:


> With the 600 mounted on a tripod/gimbal I have both more and less control than doing things handheld. I spend the time to clean the camera, the TC and lenses, especially near the mating surfaces. Dust accumulates the fastest in one area but once it starts there, it is everywhere within a month. People have jokingly called it a NASCAR tire change when I swap, which has probably reduced the issue, but not eliminated it. Camera is off to reduce any dust attracting charge, camera angled down, etc. Most of my shots are in Southern California, a coastal desert/windy mountains/actual desert so dust is going to be in air. The part that is overlooked is I'm still usually tracking a subject and sudden movements aren't helping there which is why I'd prefer a selectable unit attached.


The change is more difficult for you because of your heavier lens and being somewhat unwieldy on a tripod than it is for me for my hand held gear. Such a unit could be useful to you, but it would add more noticeable weight for me - 450g or 1lb guessing from the weights of the current 1.4 and 2xTCs - which you wouldn't notice as much on a tripod.


----------

