p.1 #3 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
I've used them all in the past and on that lens currently and the Canon 1.4x II is still obviously sharper after looking at photos. AF speeds are about the same, but there's a dropoff with sharpness with the Kenko and Sigma TC's. I even sent the Sigma TC in to the factory to get repaired because I thought it was so bad, but the tech from Sigma who was working on it called me and said it was perfect, no adjustments necessary and sent it back to me free of charge. I sold it pretty quickly.
p.1 #4 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
I've got a dirt cheap Kenko 2x MC4 which I've used on a 70-200 mkII. AF speed isn't too bad at all (I've only really used it for airshows where it had no problems). One thing I would say, if you're looking at using it on FF there is a weird effect around the edges of the frame. This isn't so noticeable on a crop. I haven't used any canon TC on my 70-200 mkII so nothing to compare against unfortunately.
p.1 #6 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
Will Patterson wrote:
I've used them all in the past and on that lens currently and the Canon 1.4x II is still obviously sharper after looking at photos.
And there are those that think the Kenko are as good as the Canon, and some think it is better:
I am one of those people. I did some testing of 1.4 Kenko and Canon II before buying one and could not see any difference in IQ and sharpness. Plus Kenko fits most lenses (if not all) while Canon does not.
p.1 #9 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
You might want to throw Tamron into the mix for consideration as well. From all I've read, it compares favorably to the Canon. I wasn't able to justify the extra cost, so I went with the Tamron.
I thought it was awful at first on my 70-200 f/4, so I sent it in to Tamron. Somewhat like Will mentioned with his Sigma, Tamron said the TC was perfect and that something was wrong with my Canon lens.
I thought, here we go...the run around. So I sent my lens back to Canon and sure enough, the lens was out of alignment somehow and the left side was 'ever so slightly' soft. This was hardly noticeable without a TC, but with it, the problem was greatly magnified.
Since getting the lens back, the combo works well together. Tamron was right.
p.1 #13 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
So, you sholdnt really aim for any higher that the 1.4 from what I can gather from all of you, it ends up losing quality compared to what you actually aim to get...
in other words... get a real telelens if thats what I need
p.1 #14 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
thomashammer78 wrote:
So, you sholdnt really aim for any higher that the 1.4 from what I can gather from all of you, it ends up losing quality compared to what you actually aim to get...
in other words... get a real telelens if thats what I need
No problem using a 2x especially on a supertele lens. IQ is still very good and for the f/2.8 lenses which end up at f/5.6 with the 2x AF is still good too, more so with the mk II superteles but from my experience also with the mk I superteles. Lenses like the 300/400 f/2.8 eat TC's for breakfast.
But I agree it should not be a full time proposition to use a 2x or even 1.4x. If this is happening you should invest in longer glass. Just don't be afraid to use TC's when needed.
p.1 #15 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
faremax wrote:
I am one of those people. I did some testing of 1.4 Kenko and Canon II before buying one and could not see any difference in IQ and sharpness. Plus Kenko fits most lenses (if not all) while Canon does not.
Another happy Kenko owner. I have Canon 1.4II & Kenko2x. Wioth the Kenko 2x I found virtually no difference at all on a 300 f2.8. On testing at my local dealer & viewing on their computer equipment that most only dream of we came to the conclusion that I should retain my $700 which paid for 5 days in Bali-flights included..
p.1 #16 · anyone had experience with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM
thomashammer78 wrote:
So, you sholdnt really aim for any higher that the 1.4 from what I can gather from all of you, it ends up losing quality compared to what you actually aim to get...
in other words... get a real telelens if thats what I need
For those times when I may want 400mm of focal length, but don't want to lug my 500/4 around, I find the 2xIII with the 70-200 IS II to be a fine compromise.
