Archive 2007 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

Ron Hew
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

Caleb Williams wrote:
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

Oct 11, 2007 at 08:15 AM

Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

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?

Oct 11, 2007 at 12:05 PM

sdgphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

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

Oct 11, 2007 at 03:30 PM

tmr_wa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

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

Oct 11, 2007 at 05:40 PM

Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · 135mmL + 1.4 extender

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.

Oct 12, 2007 at 01:21 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end