How is IQ after putting the Canon 1.4x extender on the 135mmL (on a 5D)? Does one lose much sharpness? Are there other things I should be aware of (for example: does AF still work, what becomes the minimum aperture)?

Thanks!

I just got a 1.4X and took my first pictures last weekend with the 135L and 1.4X on my 5D. I was very impressed with the results. AF works great and still very quick, minimum apeture was f/2.8, and the results were very sharp with good color and contrast.

The IQ of the 135 with the 1.4 is hardly noticeable at all on a 5D even under intense pixel peeping. This is a great combination and how I get a ~200mm f/2.8 indoors.

J

I had always read that IQ isn't affected and that many people skip over the Canon 200mm f2.8L prime because of this. I finally got around to using the combo last week on my 20D and although I didn't do extensive testing, I was pretty pleased with the results. The combo makes for a nice close focusing set-up too. Here are some of my samples:


Mind you, these are stopped down, but I didn't see any significant IQ loss wide open @ f2.8 either.

WOW, a 135mmL and 200mL in one excellent package. Off to the shop again... BTW defresh, those "macro" shots look superb! Did you do some cropping on these shots, or are these FF?

189mm guys, let's not get carried away! Outstanding IQ w/ the 1.4x and it's true...
ya won't even know it's on there.

Daan B wrote:BTW defresh, those "macro" shots look superb! Did you do some cropping on these shots, or are these FF?
Thanks Daan. And yes, I did do some minor cropping to these shots.

I used the 135+1.4 for a dance performance once and I was very pleased with both the focus speed and the results, wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

Checkout Canon's MTF charts. In some cases the 135 is sharper with the 1.4x TC!

Actually Trench, it is closer to 191 as a 1.4 converter is actually a square root of 2 converter or 1.414 and change.....

not that is some true pixel peeping or "who cares" information...

;-)

The combo, what ever actual length is quite nice,

Tom

As everyone has said, you won't notice any difference except for the focal length and aperture. The backgrounds stay silky smooth and the sharpness doesn't change a bit.

Oh no the 135L + 1.4x thread; the last one of these was spirited.

Seeing I like to stir things up, I'll state the 135L + 1.4x is better than a 200L.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Oh no the 135L + 1.4x thread; the last one of these was spirited.

Seeing I like to stir things up, I'll state the 135L + 1.4x is better than a 200L.

oke:

Pixel:

Here Here !!! Nothing like a Spirited debate to circulate the blood. Have to agree, the 135 & TC combo is a gem that has to be beheld to be believed.

My 200 went out the door virtually unused just because of this factor.

Definately a superb combo on the 5D. Perhaps consider the Kenko 1.4 DG instead of the Canon as the Kenko will fit more Canon lenses.
And it color matches the 135L nicely, but then you might have some long white boys...

I have no experience with the 200L II, so I can't compare sharpness, but when I used the 135L + 1.4, I had really sharp images.

Here's a few

^^^^^^ Oh my goodness .... one sec be right back.

EDIT: Ahhh too expensive in Japan. Have to order online. Def getting this. I have been debating for a while but now I think I will pull the trigger.

Daan,

The IQ of the 135 and the 1.4 is very good indeed. The min aperture becomes f/stop 2.8 as the square of 2 converter soaks up 1 stop of light.

Still a great performer and if you have the converter, it is a great way to go.

While we're on the topic, has anyone tried stacking two 1.4x TCs to get a 270 f/4? How does it compare to a 300 f/4?

Oh, what about 3 1.4x TC's or a 2x+1.4x? That'd be a 378 f/5.6. Perhaps that vs. the 400 f/5.6? This combo is probably pushing it...

Ariel Bravy wroteh, what about 3 1.4x TC's or a 2x+1.4x? That'd be a 378 f/5.6. Perhaps that vs. the 400 f/5.6? This combo is probably pushing it...
Hah, that's funny, the day I shot Football with Travis, I had the 2x and the 1.4x stacked on the 135 for storage, but I didn't shoot anything with it. I have used the 2x and the 135 and the quality was pretty good, but I can't judge as the jpeg files were compressed at 10 out of 12, so it's hard to tell what the exact quality was

Caleb Williams wrote:
Ariel Bravy wroteh, what about 3 1.4x TC's or a 2x+1.4x? That'd be a 378 f/5.6. Perhaps that vs. the 400 f/5.6? This combo is probably pushing it...
Hah, that's funny, the day I shot Football with Travis, I had the 2x and the 1.4x stacked on the 135 for storage, but I didn't shoot anything with it. I have used the 2x and the 135 and the quality was pretty good, but I can't judge as the jpeg files were compressed at 10 out of 12, so it's hard to tell what the exact quality was


IMHO, ef 2x TC II on 135L is just as sharp but tad slow focusing wise but never had a chance to stack 2 x 1.4 though Cheap way to get 270/F4 and very light indeed

I bought the 1.4x extender today for use on my 135mmL + 5D. It's good, but the statements that sharpness isn't affected at all aren't entirely true in my case. With the extender it is somewhat soft at f/2.8. Peak performance is at f/5.6 - f/8. Maybe I have a "bad copy" of the extender (if this is possible anyway)? Are there any known sample variations with these extenders? Or does one always have some declining performance with these extenders?

Daan B wrote:
I bought the 1.4x extender today for use on my 135mmL + 5D. It's good, but the statements that sharpness isn't affected at all aren't entirely true in my case. With the extender it is somewhat soft at f/2.8. Peak performance is at f/5.6 - f/8. Maybe I have a "bad copy" of the extender (if this is possible anyway)? Are there any known sample variations with these extenders? Or does one always have some declining performance with these extenders?

I'd say you're experiencing the norm. Every lens will take a "hit" with a TC; laws of physics aren't going to change. What you'll find with the 135 is that it takes a pretty good hit wide open (f2.8) with the 1.4x, but stopped down one to f4, it's superb. For example, see what LR found http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/55130763/original . It's consistent with Bryan's findings at The Digital Picture. Adding a TC affects both resolution and contrast http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=9&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=0

It's hard to tell with resized and reworked images on the web, but if you're peeping, all the talk about adding a TC and no IQ compromise is not accurate. And lastly, the 200 f2.8 L walks all over the 135 + 1.4x with both at f2.8 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=1&API=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=108&Camera=9&LensComp=245

Just what I need...another reason to sell another lens in order to buy more equipment .

I have a very sharp 200/2.8 that I like a lot, so I think I'll keep my 135 / 200 combo and leave the 1.4x TC out of the picture!


---tom

sdgphoto,

Thanks for those links. They confirm my own observations and your statement that IQ will be affected after using a TC (those damn laws of physics :-)). Indeed the 200mm 2.8L walks over the 135mmL + 1.4x combo (at least according to the tests done by the digital picture). Still the 200mmL is a lot more expensive than a 1.4x TC and adds also a lot of weight to the bag.