3) If you are totally desperate, like on a desert island and need to focus the suns rays through the lens to light a fire, then you may attach the 2x teleconverter. With the in-built teleconverter OFF, autofocus works slow but you can only use the centre focussing point. With the in-built teleconverter ON you are limited to the joys of manual focus.
To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!
(Underscoring mine.)
Being a notorious user of TCs, I of course disagree with Mr. Rouse. On sharp base lenses, there's a significant increase in detail captured with a 2x over a 1.4x. On my 400 2.8 IS, the increase in captured detail goes up all the way to a 4x TC.
Long-tailed Shrike (Lanius schach)
5D2 + 400 2.8 L IS + Canon 2x TC II, bean bag, 1/250s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso200, uncropped full frame resized to 1200x800
I like it on super tele for sure, clearly does better than upscaling even on the IS Mark I lenses. Sure it makes thelens perform like a tamron 70-300 vc but so does upscaling 1.4x too, get less detail if maybe a touch richer overall contrast but the loss in that case isn't enough to make up for detail difference. On 70-200 f/4 IS it brings a touch more detail than upscaling from 1.4x TC but overall it makes it worse in other ways so not sure I like for zooms (no AF either, well I guess there would be now).
Wow.... those are outstanding samples, Skibum and Will!
With the slowish AF of the 2x TC, I never expected it to be that good at action (I for one seldom uses it at BIFs).
Posting another sample:
Little Egret (Egretta garzetta)
7D + 400 2.8 IS + Canon 2x TC, 800 mm, f/8, ISO 200, 1/320 sec, manual exposure in available light, bean bag, uncropped full frame resized to 1500x1000
PetKal wrote:
A fine topic Romy, and excellent pictures Romy and all.
The little egret I haven't seen before, and I think that's one of your best shots, pare.
Thanks, Peter!
PetKal wrote:
Here's a couple of shots with handheld 1DX + 400 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII.
Wow shots, Peter - proof that a doubler can be likable!
The detail and colors of the "pidjun" are popping off my screen. Great exposure job on the second bird.... the bokeh is delightfully mysterious (are those blooms in the background?).
Thank you Romy, yes , the bird was perched in an opening within a flowering crabapple tree......my favourite pink/red bokeh generator in May every year.
Here's one with monopod mounted 1DX + 600 II + 2xTC III.
PetKal wrote:
Thank you Romy, yes , the bird was perched in an opening within a flowering crabapple tree......my favourite pink/red bokeh generator in May every year.
Here's one with monopod mounted 1DX + 600 II + 2xTC III.
The Series II big whites and the Series III doubler sing in your hands, Peter.... the IQ (detail, colors and contrast) is simply naked-lens-like at the posted size!
Andrew J wrote:
I love the 2x and also stacked with the 1.4x.
Whoa..... tons of downy feather detail, Andrew!
Let me up the ante a bit, to 2x + 2x:
Shooting info - Elev. 2195 m ASL, Mt. Data, Mountain Province, Philippines, January 21, 2010 (19:21:18 local time), Canon 7D + 400 2.8 L IS + stacked Canon 2x and Sigma 2x TCs, 1600 mm, f/16, ISO 200, 1/30 sec, contrast detect focus in Live View, 475B/3421 support, remote switch, processed, cropped, resized and rotated to strengthen composition.
I must be doing something wrong. I've had a 1.4 II for years and am happy with it, generally speaking.... IQ loss is as expected and mostly acceptable.
Some months ago I had a chance to get a 2xIII at a decent price (20% off refurb through CLP) so I did.... I've tried it on the following lenses and my results have been less than stellar..... IOW, unacceptably soft (to me, at least) compared to the 1.4II and certainly the lens alone.... Should I send it back?
70-200 2.8L II
400 5.6L (MF only, of course)
600 F4L I
800 5.6L (MF only)
pKai, I feel somewhat the same. My 70-200L I does not take the 2XII very well, and stacking the 1.4XII on it makes it far worse. I suspect a lot of that is due to the zoom design and a 300F4 or other long prime would work a lot better, which is why I am taking the 300F4IS to Glacier with my this summer.
Its not that the 70-200+2x is bad, but there is a noticeable loss of sharpness, but again I assume on the 70-200 even stopped down is only a little bit better than the 5D, and when you put the 2X on it, the optical resolution just isnt there, as it would be with a prime.
Andy Rouse is a very opinionated and colourful character as we can see from his review. I've met him a couple of times and he's a good guy, but he his opinions can be contentious. For example during the seminar I attended he said that if he saw someone shooting a flower he would go over and stomp all over it because no one should be taking shots of flowers. Riiigghhhttt.....
I use my 2 x ext iii quite a lot. Its how I get my "reach" currently.
Chris B. wrote:
While a 1.4x literally lives on my 500 virtually all the time, every once in a while it'll come off in favor of the 2x. It does a wonderful job...
