Teleconverter

[Jeffm5690]

Canon 60D with a 70-200 F4/L IS USM

I'm going to Alaska. Should I be looking at a 1.4X or try to crop? I would love another L lens but can get the cash together just yet.

 

[Loswr]

Considered renting a great white?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are trying to photograph distant objects, 200mm plus a 1.4X TC will come up short.

You can only crop so much, not enough when using 200mm.

I find 400mm too little, 600mm too little, 1200mm too little as well, so consider a rental, or even a superzoom compact.

You can get 1200mm equivalent for under $200. I have one for a easy to carry camera. Good light is a requirement, and fast shutter speed or a monopod does wonders for IQ.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-powershot-digital-cameras/powershot-sx50-hs-refurbished

 

[Canon1]

Jeff, to directly answer your question... the 1.4x works very well on the 70-200 f4. AF is still quick, image quality still excellent. It would be a great way to increase your reach, and while many lenses do not play well with teleconverters and it is better to crop in post.... the combo you are suggesting is a better alternative to cropping. have a great trip.

 

[bholliman]

Short answer, yes, a 1.4 extender works great on 70-200's and is recommended.

Based on my experience, you will probably need additional reach however.

We visited Alaska for 3 weeks in June, 2014. I took my 70-200/2.8 II and 1.4x and 2x extenders and also rented a Tamron 150-600 for use on my 6D. I used the Tammy extensively on a whale watching cruise and at Denali National Park, but not much the rest of the time, the 70-200 with and without extenders were sufficient. I found the autofocus of the Tamron mounted on my 6D inadequate much of the time. I got plenty of good shots with it, but plenty of potentially good ones that were OOF. I was pretty happy with the combo initially, but after going back through the shots, disapointed to see how many were slightly out of focus. Part of the issue was my 6D, which as we know isn't great for action/wildlife, but my results with the 6D and 70-200 and extenders was much better. I took a bunch of eagle shots, many in flight, with a 70-200 (yes they were that close!) and the hit rate was excellent - with the same 6D and limited skills.

If I had to do it again, I would have rented a Canon 400/2.8 II for use with and without extenders. I recently added a 5DMkIII which would have helped if I had it last summer. If this isn't in your budget, I recommend renting a 400/5.6. I recently rented one of these for a trip to the Everglades and had excellent results (on the same 6D) shooting birds and alligators. This is pretty much a "good light" lens, but I think it would be a great option for Alaska, especially since it will give you 640mm reach your 60D.

Good luck with your equipment decision. Be sure to post some of your AK shots when you get back!

 

[Chisox2335]

Short answer, yes, a 1.4 extender works great on 70-200's and is recommended.

Based on my experience, you will probably need additional reach however.

We visited Alaska for 3 weeks in June, 2014. I took my 70-200/2.8 II and 1.4x and 2x extenders and also rented a Tamron 150-600 for use on my 6D. I used the Tammy extensively on a whale watching cruise and at Denali National Park, but not much the rest of the time, the 70-200 with and without extenders were sufficient. I found the autofocus of the Tamron mounted on my 6D inadequate much of the time. I got plenty of good shots with it, but plenty of potentially good ones that were OOF. I was pretty happy with the combo initially, but after going back through the shots, disapointed to see how many were slightly out of focus. Part of the issue was my 6D, which as we know isn't great for action/wildlife, but my results with the 6D and 70-200 and extenders was much better. I took a bunch of eagle shots, many in flight, with a 70-200 (yes they were that close!) and the hit rate was excellent - with the same 6D and limited skills.

If I had to do it again, I would have rented a Canon 400/2.8 II for use with and without extenders. I recently added a 5DMkIII which would have helped if I had it last summer. If this isn't in your budget, I recommend renting a 400/5.6. I recently rented one of these for a trip to the Everglades and had excellent results (on the same 6D) shooting birds and alligators. This is pretty much a "good light" lens, but I think it would be a great option for Alaska, especially since it will give you 640mm reach your 60D.

Good luck with your equipment decision. Be sure to post some of your AK shots when you get back!

Sounds like the tamron could have benefitted from AFMA

 

[Marsu42]

Should I be looking at a 1.4X or try to crop?

Other than the 70-300L, your 70-200L is designed to work together with the/a 1.4x tc.

Just remember that changing tc on-off outdoors all the time is a pita and will get your sensor dirty in no time, so for the occasional tele shot cropping might still be an option if you don't need high resolution. It's not like 200mm vs. 280mm is that much of a difference, esp. if you calculate in the drop in aperture and af speed.

 

[bholliman]

We visited Alaska for 3 weeks in June, 2014. I took my 70-200/2.8 II and 1.4x and 2x extenders and also rented a Tamron 150-600 for use on my 6D. I used the Tammy extensively on a whale watching cruise and at Denali National Park, but not much the rest of the time, the 70-200 with and without extenders were sufficient. I found the autofocus of the Tamron mounted on my 6D inadequate much of the time. I got plenty of good shots with it, but plenty of potentially good ones that were OOF. I was pretty happy with the combo initially, but after going back through the shots, disapointed to see how many were slightly out of focus.

Sounds like the tamron could have benefitted from AFMA

I did a quick AFMA on it at 600mm and 150 using Focal. The problems were more due to AF inconsistency than having it dialed in I think. I did end up with plenty of sharp pictures from the Tammy, just not many with moving subjects. Maybe this lens just doesn't AF great with the 6D (which has limited AF anyway), I know many have reported excellent results with this lens using 5DMk3's and other bodies.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I am going on a Alaska cruise in June and I almost have the same set up as you. 70D with 70-200 l4.0 is plus the 1.4 tele mk3. the converter works well with the 70-200 and I am also taking the 10-22 ef-s for landscapes and the 400l 5.6 with a manfrotto 682 monopod.

but the lens dose pair well with the 1.4 extender I hope you will get some good photos on your trip

 

[nc0b]

My wife and I are going to AK in May and June, and I will take a 60D and a 6D, just like last year' trip to Easter Island. For sure take the 1.4X TC III, which works just fine with your 70-200mm f/4. Besides a 24-105mm and 70-200mm, I will add a 400mm f/5.6.

Options and comments please: I have both 70-200mm lenses, f/4 IS and f2.8 IS II. The 2.8 focuses faster, but is it worth the extra wight for outdoor shooting? Don't know what time of day and light to expect. I also have the 300mm f/4 IS, which also works with the 1.4X TC III, but of course the AF speed with the TC is nowhere as fast as the 400mm 5.6. I have had good results with the 6D and the 400 5.6 for raptors, if I keep the shutter speed around 1/1000.

We will be returning via the inland passage cruise, but I cannot imagine shooting much from the deck of a ship. Seems like any kind of wildlife would be way to distant to be worth shooting. I have lots of antelope in my view finder in Colorado, but even with the 400mm, there is lots of cropping. It is rare to get within a few hundred yards of an antelope. First trip to AK, so am only guessing at lens choices.

 

[Marsu42]

The 2.8 focuses faster, but is it worth the extra wight for outdoor shooting? Don't know what time of day and light to expect.

Personally, I don't think the f2.8 is worth the weight and bulk for travel and outdoors, one of the reasons I've got the 70-300L. Remember that 1 stop of more light probably won't save the day, for "shoot in the dark" you'd rather have a really fast prime like f1.4 if something moves - otherwise just crank up iso on the 6d.

The f2.8 lenses are more about thinner depth of field, and question is how often you'll really see much of this effect for general outdoor shooting esp. as the danger for out of focus shots rises if you're not careful.

 

[bholliman]

The 2.8 focuses faster, but is it worth the extra wight for outdoor shooting? Don't know what time of day and light to expect.

Personally, I don't think the f2.8 is worth the weight and bulk for travel and outdoors, one of the reasons I've got the 70-300L. Remember that 1 stop of more light probably won't save the day, for "shoot in the dark" you'd rather have a really fast prime like f1.4 if something moves - otherwise just crank up iso on the 6d.

The f2.8 lenses are more about thinner depth of field, and question is how often you'll really see much of this effect for general outdoor shooting esp. as the danger for out of focus shots rises if you're not careful.

+1 For travel, I would definately take the f/4 lens. I took my 70-200/2.8 II to AK, but would have taken an f/4 version if I had one and would not have missed any shots.

 

[nc0b]

Thanks for the comments. I will take the 70-200mm f/4 IS, the 24-105mm, and 400mm f/5.6. My wife may do some shooting, too, so should I also take the 300mm f/4 IS, or is that too much baggage?

I shoot indoor dance, and the f/2.8 is fantastic, but that is a totally different venue. On Easter Island and Machu Picchu I certainly didn't need f/2.8.

 

[greger]

When I bought the 70-200 f4 IS USM I bought the 1.4 ll Extender as well. They work wonderfully together. I took a pic of an osprey flying over the river and when I zoomed in on the computer I could see a fish in it's talons. Cropping shots with this combo works well also. This combo is a purchase that you will not regret. Just mount them together before leaving home to keep your sensor free of dust. I found the 2X extender pics were too soft for hand held shots so I bought the 100-400 L lens f or the reach and better quality pics. I also mount this to my 7D before leaving home.

 

[danski0224]

Thanks for the comments. I will take the 70-200mm f/4 IS, the 24-105mm, and 400mm f/5.6. My wife may do some shooting, too, so should I also take the 300mm f/4 IS, or is that too much baggage?

I shoot indoor dance, and the f/2.8 is fantastic, but that is a totally different venue. On Easter Island and Machu Picchu I certainly didn't need f/2.8.

What do you intend to take pictures of? I notice no wide angle stuff (<24mm) listed in the packing list.

If anything, I'd consider renting a 100-400II and leave the 70-200, 300 and 400 at home. You would have 1 camera with the 24-105 and the other with the 100-400II, assuming that you are bringing 2 camera bodies.

As to whether or not your entire list is too much baggage, pack it all up and spend a day somewhere taking pictures before taking it on the cruise/trip. You will find out quickly.

 

[Northbird]

Short answer, yes, a 1.4 extender works great on 70-200's and is recommended.

Based on my experience, you will probably need additional reach however.

We visited Alaska for 3 weeks in June, 2014. I took my 70-200/2.8 II and 1.4x and 2x extenders and also rented a Tamron 150-600 for use on my 6D. I used the Tammy extensively on a whale watching cruise and at Denali National Park, but not much the rest of the time, the 70-200 with and without extenders were sufficient. I found the autofocus of the Tamron mounted on my 6D inadequate much of the time. I got plenty of good shots with it, but plenty of potentially good ones that were OOF. I was pretty happy with the combo initially, but after going back through the shots, disapointed to see how many were slightly out of focus. Part of the issue was my 6D, which as we know isn't great for action/wildlife, but my results with the 6D and 70-200 and extenders was much better. I took a bunch of eagle shots, many in flight, with a 70-200 (yes they were that close!) and the hit rate was excellent - with the same 6D and limited skills.

If I had to do it again, I would have rented a Canon 400/2.8 II for use with and without extenders. I recently added a 5DMkIII which would have helped if I had it last summer. If this isn't in your budget, I recommend renting a 400/5.6. I recently rented one of these for a trip to the Everglades and had excellent results (on the same 6D) shooting birds and alligators. This is pretty much a "good light" lens, but I think it would be a great option for Alaska, especially since it will give you 640mm reach your 60D.

Good luck with your equipment decision. Be sure to post some of your AK shots when you get back!

Yes, +1. Although for size & weight I prefer the 300 2.8 with extenders for effective reach of 420 F4 and 600 F5.6. Pair it with the 7D II for extra reach and life is good. Image quality with 1.4TC is great. With the 2.0TC technique is important and there is a noticeable decrease in image quality.

 

[bholliman]

Yes, +1. Although for size & weight I prefer the 300 2.8 with extenders for effective reach of 420 F4 and 600 F5.6. Pair it with the 7D II for extra reach and life is good. Image quality with 1.4TC is great. With the 2.0TC technique is important and there is a noticeable decrease in image quality.

Hopefully, a 300/2.8 II will be my next lens purchase (still working on convincing my wife I need it...). 300-420mm will handle most of my super-tele needs and I wanted something I can use hand held.

 

[nc0b]

I appreciate the suggestions. As far as what I will be shooting, and do I need something wider than 24mm, I don't really know having never been to AK before. I have an 18mm Zeiss, which isn't all that large and easy to include in my kit. I didn't miss it on Easter Island or Machu Picchu, as the 24-105mm on the 6D and 70-200mm f/4 IS on the 60D worked well. I never considered renting the new 100-400mm II. I have no idea what that would cost for three weeks vs. just buying it.

 

[danski0224]

I appreciate the suggestions. As far as what I will be shooting, and do I need something wider than 24mm, I don't really know having never been to AK before. I have an 18mm Zeiss, which isn't all that large and easy to include in my kit. I didn't miss it on Easter Island or Machu Picchu, as the 24-105mm on the 6D and 70-200mm f/4 IS on the 60D worked well. I never considered renting the new 100-400mm II. I have no idea what that would cost for three weeks vs. just buying it.

As far as the rental goes: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is-ii

And with their Keeper program, the rental cost can be applied to the purchase price. No affiliation, but I have rented from them before.

Maybe rent a 1.4x III if you do not have one.

I've not been to AK either, but if your Zeiss 18 doesn't take up much room, I'd bring it. No real reason not to.

I'd also familiarize myself with camera setup for doing a handheld panoramic stitch at say 24-30mm (or anything you want) in portrait orientation.

 

[nc0b]

Yes I own a 1.4X TC III. Works great on either of my 70-200mm lenses. Have tested it on my 300mm f/4 IS, and it isn't bad if I think I need IS more than fast focus. The focus speed with the 400mm f5.6 is amazing, just like the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Don't own a body that will do f/8 AF, so have never tried it on the 400mm.