Does anyone have experience with either the 100 2.8 APO with 2X APO extender and the 180 2.8 APO with 2X extender? Short of the 280 4 APO (which I cannot afford,) will I be thrilled with the IQ of the two combinations above (again, for landscape work at infinity?) Thank you.
When I had the 180mm f2.8 APO, I made some tests using the 2x APO and the performance was exceptional. I also compared it to the 180mm f3.4 with a 2x APO and the 3.4 lost a bit of image quality with the 2x extender, while the 2.8 didn't seem to loose any quality.
Robsteve,
Is there any drop off in performance for the 180 APO 2.8 with a 2x APO extender vs. the 1.4x APO extender? How much better is the 1.4X APO extender over the Canon 1.4x extender? If you were to get only one extender with this 180 APO 2.8 lens which one would you get, 1.4x or 2.0x?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Robsteve,
Is there any drop off in performance for the 180 APO 2.8 with a 2x APO extender vs. the 1.4x APO extender? How much better is the 1.4X APO extender over the Canon 1.4x extender? If you were to get only one extender with this 180 APO 2.8 lens which one would you get, 1.4x or 2.0x?
The 180mm f2.8 APO I had was not a version that accepted a 1.4x extender. My experience with other lenses is the 1.4x degrades the image quality the least. A way to look at extenders is that they magnify the lens and its faults. Less magnification means less faults. This is another reason why a high quality and great performing lens works better with the extenders than a lesser quality lens would. If the lens already has resolution and other good qualities to spare, the magnification may not bring these faults out.
I don't know about the 180 Apo, but I can testify to the quality of the Apo-extenders. I used to have a 280/4.0 APO lens and even with both extenders stacked the quality could only be described as excellent. I dont think there is a significant difference in image quality between the 1.4x and 2x extender, as the original lens is virtually aberration-free. (as Rob points out, the magnification of the errors is the problem). The main concern is the loss of an extra stop.
Thanks for the info Rob and Jaapv.
I am leaning toward the 2x APO extender for my 180 APO 2.8 that I just bought.
I have the EF 1.4X extender which I have been told works with this lens and is almost as good or as good which is hard to believe.
Do you think the brand-new, under-factory warranty versions of the 2x APO extender going for $1085 are worth it or should I look for a used one?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Thanks for the info Rob and Jaapv.
I am leaning toward the 2x APO extender for my 180 APO 2.8 that I just bought.
I have the EF 1.4X extender which I have been told works with this lens and is almost as good or as good which is hard to believe.
Do you think the brand-new, under-factory warranty versions of the 2x APO extender going for $1085 are worth it or should I look for a used one?
I would just go with a used 2x APO without ROM contacts. They can be had quite cheap sometimes.
Are you sure your 180mm will work with a Canon 1.4x? Even the Canon has the nose that protrudes into the back of the lens and would probably only fit on the latest 180mm f2.8 APO. The Canon extender is pretty good and may be good enough for your purposes. The Leica 1.4x APO is quite special and is made with the special Noctilux glass.
p.2 #11 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Rob are you saying the Leica 1.4x APO is made with special Noctilux glass and the 2.0 APO is not?
My lens probably doesn't take the extender as the serial number is just below the magic number that Rob(Conner999) stated from Doug's website and so I mostly likely will be sending it to Leica to get the modification which I have been told is ~$500. I will know for sure shortly when I receive the lens in the next few days.
p.2 #12 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
The copy of 180/2.8 APO I have does not take the Leica 1.4x APO, but it does take Canon 1.4X II without a problem. At least for the 1 series, you need a chipped adapter or you'll get an error.
One thing I did notice with both 1.4x and 2x Leica APO extenders on 1DsM3 is that they do vignette wide open on the Leica 800/5.6. I don't have the Canon camera any longer, and I don't know if the 180/2.8 APO will vignette with the 2X APO on a full-frame sensor. Stopping down for landscapes will probably take care of the vignetting, but I don't know that for a fact.
A used Leica 2X APO would be fine. But, make sure it's the APO and not the older 2x.
p.2 #13 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Cool, I'll first try my EF 1.4x and see how it performs with this lens.
Why for the 1 series does the adapter need to be chipped to avoid an error? Interesting.
I can chip my adapter then if I need to.
The vignetting wide open I am hoping is only due to the Leica extenders not being designed for the 800 5.6 and that this does not happen on the 180 APO 2.8?
A good price for a used APO 1.4x or APO 2.0x is ~$600, right?
p.2 #15 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
wayne seltzer wrote:
A good price for a used APO 1.4x or APO 2.0x is ~$600, right?
Wayne:
I just remembered I have a spare 2x APO complete with box and case. I used this one with my 180mm f2.8 APO when I did my testing. It does not have rom contacts. A few months back, Conner99 sold me a ROM version. I wanted the ROM version to get the exif in the files.
I'll sell the non-ROM version for $600, if you are interested.
p.2 #19 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
telyt wrote:
The 2x APO is fine on this lens even if it's not the version that will accept the 1.4x APO.
Wow! Thanks Telyt, if this is true, I will be saved from the $500 service mod.
And I can use the EF 1.4x too.
Seems too good to be true. Just tell me you are just messing with us.
p.2 #20 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
The problem is that the Leica 1.4x APO's font element extends quiet a distance into the rear of the lens it's mounted to. Look at your EF 1.4x - then add some. The problem is that earlier versions of the 180/2.8 APO (which are the ones typically seen in the market) do not have the physical space to accommodate that front protrusion. The 2.0x APO, like the EF version has no such issues. Any version of the 180/2.8 APo will take the 2.0x without issue.
