I'll happily use a doubler when I deem it useful, and I am perfectly happy with the results.
Here's one; taken from the top of a tiny boat, bobbing in the waves, very flat, poor light, hand-held. This is a very significant crop (down to about a quarter linear measure); the birdie was a long, long way away, having lunch of another birdie. I didn't have my long lens, and couldn't have controlled it under the circumstances anyway.
Canon 7D, wide open (f/5.6), 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 200 (so 400mm focal length on the shot), 1/1000, ISO 1600:
I'm with the others who don't prefer to use it. HOWEVER, when you need the reach, I've found the newer Canon 2X very effective. If it happens to be on in a less than ideal situation, it can still work. Moving targets are tough with sluggish focus, especially with the 7D.
All taken with Canon 300mm 2.8L IS II plus Canon 2x III extender.
Liquidstone wrote:
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).
On my 1DX, it basically works like this - if focus is close to the subject, it locks on and will stay there during AI Servo (as with the race cars coming towards or going away from me). The AF in this case actually works fairly quickly, as compared to when the lens is way off focus. When you look through the viewfinder and everything is very blurry like the focus ring had been turned a good amount, then you half press the shutter button to tell the camera to autofocus, the lens works very slowly, moving the focus slowly until it suddenly is within range of the subject and it'll lock on and it's almost like the lens then wakes up and starts moving quickly again and will stay locked on. Basically, whenever I took the camera down from my eye, I tried not to touch the focus ring so it wouldn't hunt, or if I was in one spot for a while I'd assign a focus preset to help the lens pick up and lock on.
But the IQ from the 2x III with both my 70-200 II and 300 2.8 II was very good, I was impressed with the photos as well as how the combo performed.
No, I do not really. It's all simple Canon stuff: I shoot JPGs only, Standard picture style, and I do not try to mess things up in photoshop, or bring out colours in pp which were not there in reality.
Main use of my 2x teleconverter I is in combination with my 24/3.5 T/S lens. Fantastic way to get great tilt shift photos on FF with nearly 50 mm FL if fast speed is not needed. Focusing is no issue since tilt shift lenses are MF lenses anyway.
Yikes! I guess I misremembered... I remember now that I haven't yet tried it on the 300 - it was the 1.4x III I've tried on the 300. Here are a few from that combination.
I'm quite sleepy this afternoon, and there's a thunderstorm coming to boot, so I doubt if I'll be getting to trying the 300 + 2x today; but I'll make a note to do so soon...
Almost a permanent fixture on my 300 2.8. With the hood @ home & tripod mount removed, this combo has become light enough to take on daily hikes. Photo below is 1/3rd frame (35% of original shot), taken hand held @ ISO 3200 1/320s f6.3 using this combo on a hike yesterday. Even if I had a bigger super tele, I would not taken it with me on this hike.
pKai wrote:
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)
A 2x TC should work well with your listed glass, at least with the last two lenses. At 100% view, a 2x TC shot might deceptively look less sharp per pixel than a 1.4x TC or naked lens shot. However, when you equalize the images (IOW upres the 1.4x or naked lens shots), the one taken with a doubler has more details.
IME, soft 2x TC shots with a big white are normally caused by misfocus, camera shake or subject motion. Can you post a sample of your 2x shots?
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...
A head-on BIF is a tough AF job even for a naked lens. Well done, Chris!
