|
|
joeyseager
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Can't fault it for optical quality or mechanical construction. The best available.
|
|
Cons:
|
Limited applicaiton - compatible with only a narrow range of Canon lenses
|
|
|
I only own one lens that I can use this with: the 300mm f/4 L IS lens. The converter degrades the image slightly but this means the images I get from the lens are superb rather than perfect...
This unit is a world apart from lesser third party converters. It is built like a tank and optically it is so well matched to the lenses for which it is designed that the images made with it are up to professional standards.
It's quite expensive but much cheaper than buying an extra lens.
There's been some comment about why it's a 1.4x converter and not a 1.5x converter. The answer is in the maths. 1.4 (to one decimal place) is the square root of 2. A 1.4x converter therefore reduces the area covered in the field of view of the lens by a factor of 2 - or the linear dimensions of the field of view by a factor of 1.4. A 2x converter reduces the area covered in the field of view of the lens by a factor of 4, not 2. There have been some 1.5x teleconverters marketed but I believe these were actually 1.4x converters benefitting from 'creative marketing'.
|
|
 Mar 1, 2006
|
|
coppertop
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1729
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
You don't loose any quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Why couldn't it be a 1.5x
|
|
|
Bought this to use with my Canon 70-200 f4L. Absolutely no reduction in clarity. The AF does get sensative in low light conditions but in average to bright light, no difference.
Never understood why companies built 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Why not 1.5x and 2x?
This is a good compliment to any telephoto L lens.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
MISUR
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $285.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
WRONG PLACE TO POST "?"
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE
|
|
|
ANSWER IS "NO" AND "YES" - THIS ADAPTOR CAN BE USED ON ANY LENS OVER 135 MM - YOU WILL LOOSE 1 F-STOP - AND AUTOFOCUS ON ANYTHING ABOVE F4
HAVE ONE - LOVE IT
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2006
|
|
shadow11
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Can this converter be used with NON "L" lens and get good results, like the 17-85mm IS lens and 300mm standard 4.0-5.6?
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2006
|
|
imeod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, weatherproof, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
one f-stop loss
|
|
|
This is a great way add that extra boost to your telephoto lenses. I use it with my 70-200mm IS 2.8 lens on my canon 20D; it add the conversion factors together and I get a 156-448mm f4 IS lens! How can I complain about that? The image quality is also great.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2006
|
|
Shaitan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great built (water-proof), Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight loss of AF speed, Report its presence to the body (which is a problem if you use f5.6 lenses with a non 1 serie body, Price
|
|
|
I am using this extender with the 70-200L IS f2.8 lens. The results are trully spectacular (images are as sharp), especially when stopped down a bit (i.e., f.5.6)
However, the loss of AF speed is an issue if you try to shoot birds in flight.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2006
|
|
jan zlin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great transfer of image of 70-200 mm f/4 with-out loss of sharpness and color rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Don't see any!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2005
|
|
barjanto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 27, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, build, performance
|
|
Cons:
|
price :)
|
|
Price almost the same as my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. But besides it - no complaints. Images (combined with 70-200mm f/4L USM) are still very sharp. Auto focus just little bit slower - but sometimes feels as fast as without the TC. Wish the 2x can give the same results and performance. 
Owned it just less than 2 days. Sample of pictures 70-200mm f/4L + 1.4 TC II @ http://www.pbase.com/boedi/ef_tc
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2005
|
|
DEvianT
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality, Build Quality, Weather proofing
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Has a superb build quality with weather proof gaskets when used with L lenses. Comes in soft pouch with front and rear caps to seal it. I have been using mine with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with great results doesn't seem to show any of the softness i've found with some cheaper teleconvertors and IS, exposure and autofocus work with no issues. Recommend without reservation.
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2005
|
|
milesd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have read a lot positive comments about the 1.4x II extender. Yet it was really a (nice) surprise when I compared the pictures taken with and without this extender (Lens: Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS USM). There is virtually no loss in image quality.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2005
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
quality / strength
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Optically i find it very very similar to the first version, I sold that one and bought this. Cannot fault this converter. I use it on my 135f2L...spectacular results..and also on my 300f2.8L. I have even satcked it with my 2x and shot the moon wide open..results blew me away. Some CA with both converters stacked, but apart from that excellent sharpness...using a 1DmkII.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2005
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great -- No complaints
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
best lens product i have ever bought from canon. i used it all year on the 400 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I notice no virtually no image quality drop off. it is a product i use at virtually every sports shoot i do. only 'small' complaint might be that the front cover looks like a camera body one but is a little deeper. wish it was exactly the same as they get mixed up when you are breaking down from an event in a hurry.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
Vettesight
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compct and light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't AF on my 10D, although this is a 10D issue not a TC issue
|
|
|
I find it to be sharp, but even sharper when stopped down to f 11 or 13. Sure wish it could AF on my 100-400 IS. I use the tape trick but modify it as i don't like the seeking of the AF. I manual focus with the contacts taped and use the beep and AF light indicator function to confirm AF. I am getting pretty good at this and the images are sharp.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2004
|
|
TwoBoy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good image quality - I am most happy with this. WELL WORTH BUYING.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive item but you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
My review is based on Canon 10D + 100~400L lens. I have not tried it with any other lens.
I am very "anti-extender" so I might be forgiven for trying to find fault any way I can. With my 100~400L IS USM lens it works very well and the IS handles it well at full zoom. AF is automatically disabled with the stated lens so don't expect it - the only negative. It feels as though it belongs with this lens. At time of writing I have only tried it in disgusting light and it has come through this small test like a very good thing.
Kruger Park results - 10D (1.6) + 100~400 + 1.4 X II = a 224~896mm lens which is still hand holdable by strong people - that's dammed good going by any glass. No drop off in image quality was noticed, if there is it's not really noticeable. This is an essential for the wildlife photographer.
It would be a big plus not to lose AF with the 100~400L lens, there must be some way for Canon to address this without user resorting to taping contacts which may cause other serious problems long term.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2004
|
|
wkoffel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Tight optical coupling yields very little loss of light, good color, great sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
Works with a very limited range of lenses.
|
|
|
I use this extender all the time on my Digital Rebel with a 70-200/2.8L IS lens, giving an effective focal length of 448mm !
My only regret is that this extended has the deep glass which juts out too far to use on many other lenses. A more generic manufacture would help turn things like my 50mm into a 100mm, and give a more useful walking-around range to my 17-40/4L
Also, it's a little annoying that the standard Canon lens cover doesn't fit on this. I always have to be sure I keep the deeper lens cover with this extender, rather than swapping around indiscriminately.
|
|
|
May 11, 2004
|
|
