 |
|
|
Andybrightuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 77
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality relative to all other 2x teleconverters
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs to be used very wisely with the very best glass, slows AF dramatically on some lenses.
|
|
The best 2x I have ever used, and I have used plenty.
I have used this with my 600/4 and 300/2.8. Don't even consider this for use with non L glass, and even then it has to be the very best Canon produce.
This 2x is often cited as being poor, the truth is far from that if you use it with great care. With the increased magnification that this device creates, many other factors are at play for diminishing image quality, not just the 7 extra glass elements.
Don't blame the EF 2x II for air pollutants being compressed when the subject is miles away, and don't blame it for making absolute stability a must in your set-up.
You'll see what this teleconverter is capable of if you stop down and get the distance down between the lens and the subject, using rock solid support.
I wouldn't ever suggest that the quality of image is perfect with the 2x, but it is still capable of professional work when needs must. It can do the business, just know when to use it.
Its effect on AF speed (even with an f2.8 lens and a 1Ds MkII) can be a handicap for active subjects.
Can be stacked with the 1.4x, but the results are inconsistant and your are probably better up-rezzing with just the 2x.
images and more detail at
http://www.digiscoped.com/canonextenders.html
|
|
 Feb 11, 2007
|
|
bbudman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent results with prime lenses. Sharp as a tack and maintains great color and contrast. Build quality is first class.
|
|
Cons:
|
I waited too long before actually buying one!
|
|
|
I bought this teleconverter with the fear that I was going to be disappointed with the results I would get because I read alot of reviews that said it was soft and not worth the money. I already own the EF 1.4X II and could not be happier with the quality of photos I have taken using it. I will agree with others that these are not designed to be used with zoom lenses and should only be used with fast primes but I think this teleconverter is getting a bad reputation because people that own it are either using it with zooms, poor long lens technique, or cropping the image and trying to enlarge even more! I do not plan to use it with my zoom lenses and bought it mainly for the times when I need a little extra reach with my EF 500 F/4L IS. With enough light and stopping it down one extra stop I have taken images that are amazing in detail and sharpness. I have noticed that the autofocus has slowed slightly when I use it and have had the lens hunt from time to time but setting the focus limit pretty much took care of any issues I had. Let me stress once again that if you own a zoom and expect this to be the answer to focal length, you are probably going to be disappointed. But if you own a fast prime, stable working platform, and practice you long lens technique, it will be a welcome addition to your lens collection.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2006
|
|
s23chang
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 928
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good contrast and maintain good detail for a 2X tele-converter.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only works well with good lens. Period. If you have anything less than stellar prime lens then 2X is not recommended.
|
|
|
This review is for the Canon EF version 1 2X TC.
I have seen sites where the first version is sharper. Therefore, the results may vary depends on the tester.
I have tested this TC with many lenses at wide open only.
300mm 2.8
200-500mm 5.6-6.3
70-200mm 2.8
80-200mm 2.8
135mm 2.0
180mm 2.0
The best image quality was from 180mm 2.0 then the 135mm 2.0. The rest of the lens are not as sharp so
I think TC is as good as it can be. However, if your prime is not as good as you think, the image will definitely degraded and became unsuable.
I also tested the Canon EF 1.4X version I as well.
The 2X actually has better contrast but the 1.4X seems to retain slightly more micro detail but lost some contrast.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2006
|
|
phillik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $329.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Gets you places that you can't otherwise get to! And it can be stacked with the 1.4x for a walk on the wild side.
|
|
Cons:
|
This extender shows the limitations of many lenses (and is blamed as the culprit!), although this is less noticable on the 1D/1D2 than any of the tiny pixel cameras. One MUST use a tripod, MLU, etc. when using a big TC on a long lens; otherwise, an enlarged 1.4x will beat it. Also, stopping down one stop from wide open improves things considerably.
|
|
|
A few considerations for those who believe that they have a "bad copy": make certain that your setup doesn't allow for any "lens sag" ... such as holding your camera with the 2x and a long lens attached ... and use that MLU and a good tripod for those monster F/L shots!
Any weakness in the primary lens or your focusing ability or camera or subject movement is emphasized with any TC.
Remember that the area projected on the sensor is stretched DOUBLE compared to the 1.4x, which is again double what the bare lens is! So your subject covers four times the number of pixels as with no converter.
I do note that a mediocre shot with my 2x is no better than a cropped/enlarged shot with my 1.4x, but if care is taken, the results are well worth the effort.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2006
|
|
Greg Futral
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2006
Location: temp
Posts: 178
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Questionable
|
|
Cons:
|
Loss of Sharpness with the 600 F4 IS.
|
|
|
I had borrowed the Canon 2X, took a picture of an immature eagle in a tree. I did the same with a 1.4 teleconverter, and found that the image was significantly better with the 1.4. This was evident by looking at both the images at the same size. I think this may hold true with other lenses besides the 600 F4 IS. I think you are better off by using a 1.4 and enlarging the photo.
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2006
|
|
bigg1es
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $337.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Its small enough to throw at the shop assistant who sold it me and heavy enough to hurt!
|
|
Cons:
|
Redefines unsharp. This is the most blurry thing I have ever bought. Used on a 5D with 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) at around f8.0 all new kit. All images taken were unusable. Now arguing with shop to try and get my money back.
|
|
|
I have bought bad lenses before (eg sigma 24-70 f2.8) but never anything as bad as this. No doubt this is a bad example but when you buy new professional L series kit you expect it to work first time out of the box. I paid the high price and bought it from a real shop ( Calumet ) in the hope I would avoid anything iffy. First time I use it its clearly unusable and now the shop is giving me the run around (they say I have to take it back to the branch I bought it from who will "exchange it" )
I am getting very very very tired of Canon "professional " stuff that doesn’t work properly.
|
|
|
Jul 5, 2006
|
|
xxxrr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 391
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, AF speed, compatibility
|
|
Cons:
|
None, it's a 2x
|
|
Here an example:
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/9154/img53247iv.jpg
On my 70-200 L 2.8 IS the 2x work very well.
I am satisfied. The AF is fast, the compatibility on my 5D is excellent.
There is a little loss of quality, but now I have a 400!! Moreover, the color don't have loss of quality.
For my need, the 2x is an excellent choiche, the 1.4x is too poor in focal magnify: better to crop the photos at 200 than to have 1.4x in my opinion.
|
|
|
May 14, 2006
|
|
imeod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
A cheap way to get super-telephoto range. Strong weatherproof build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Makes all of my pictures too soft to be used for anything other than to scrapbook.
|
|
|
Everyone raves about this extender, so maybe I have a bad one. I'm use it on my 70-200mm IS and the pictures are disgustingly soft. Unfortunately the 70-200 is the only lens that I can afford to try it on.
My biggest disappointment is that the picture quality difference between the 1.4x and 2x is huge. I'm going to keep my 1.4x and sell my 2x.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2006
|
|
Thang
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8078
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005
|
|
deedee4re
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 659
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Has anyone noticed the depth of field is not as shallow using the 2x Extender II (even at 5.6) compared to using a lens (example Tamron 200-400 f5.6 lens)
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 2, 2005
|
|
Cichy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality (yes, yes..), price, 2x tele, sharp (from 8.0)
|
|
Cons:
|
2 stops, little soft at 5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2005
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 32083
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
2X focal length for a small cost
|
|
Cons:
|
Only good image quality with the super-tele lenses
|
|
|
Works really good on my 300/2,8 IS lens. A good thing instead of buying the 600mm lens if you only need it sometime.
But the image quality together with zoom lenses are not so good.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2005
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
get big leg's without spending big bucks.
|
|
Cons:
|
2 stops
|
|
|
Its cheaper to use this and a 300f2.8 to get a 600f5.6, than outright purchasing the 600f4.
Its loss in image sharpness cna be fixed slightly in post production. If used in good light, its hard to tell the quality loss. I dont recomend using this with any zoom whatsoever. t works very well with my 300f2.8 and my 135f2L.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
Kirk77
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality and sealing
|
|
Cons:
|
image quality,
|
|
|
Even though its not as good as the 1.4, its the best 2x i have used. I had the 2x series I and I find this is very similar, the only advantage I can see is wide open this is sharper, and the fact that you can stack it is a big plus.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Price and build quality. It actually works and I have seen many pros at NFL games use them---and the guys that use them are top shooters that produce wonderful images.
|
|
Cons:
|
No matter how hard I try, I find the image quality really drops. I LOVE the 1.4 and for what I do (mostly sports) it has virtually no negatives. However, each time I bought the 2X (3 times now) and use if for awhile, I just can't fall in love with it--so I sell it off.
|
|
|
Pretty much said it above. Maybe if you use in on a real stable tripod and stop it down, it will work well. I find that wide-open, the contrast drops and so does the sharpness. But I shoot mostly sports on a monopod, so maybe the problem is me. Like I said above, it is night and day between this one and the 1.4X. On my 400 2.8 IS, the 1.4 totally rocks !
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
rd4tile
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2138
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build and image quality with Canon Super Telephotos. Excellent benefit for what it costs.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only works with some lenses.
|
|
|
Rather than dwell on the fact that a 2X extender just can't match up to the equivalent larger telephoto image quality wise I'd like to congradulate Canon on making a product that really works great and has a great cost to benefit ratio. When you mate this extender to one of the fast Canon super teles (in my case the 300 f2.8L IS) you get a good usable image. It's pretty obvious Canon did their homework when they designed these. If your dead serious about image quality then of course go for the length you need! (and then watch yourself put these extenders on at times anyway!). If one can afford a 4K to 8K super telephoto than I think the 1.4X and 2X are worthy investments to go along with it. If you look at all the equipment lists of those who own the fast Canon L's you'll pretty much see these extenders as part of their bag.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
40
|
118630
|
Mar 1, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
83% of reviewers
|
$289.88
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.45
|
8.14
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
