TC generation / lens matching

[Tinky]

Hi, I'll start with my usual caveat, apologies if this seems uppity, but please only post an answer if you have actual first hand, hands on experience of what I'm asking and the kit I'm asking about.

Still here? Great. Lets begin.

I have a 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS)

I would like to get more reach, and don't have the funds just now for either a 300mm f4L IS or 400 f5.6L.

In the past I've owned a bigma (DG, pre-OS) but didn't like the even slower aperture or IQ towards far end.
I've currently got an ancient Tokina 400 f5.6 SD, which can be ok stopped down (I mainly shoot video) but really want something I can use at f5.6 or faster.

I used to own the 1.4x II converter, but never really liked it that much on my 70-200, it needed a couple of stops down to really get the best out of it, and I wasn't happy with the level of chromatic aberation either.

So I'm looking at the 2.0x... the question I have is, am I better to match my lens to the contemporaneous tc? (so prob v1 for my 70-200) or will the v3 be significantly better?

You rarely see reviews for lens + TC combos with charts etc so it's hard to know what to do.

In an ideal world I would just buy the 400 f5.6, but at the moment there are too many other avenues for my cash..

Can anybody vouch for or ideally illustrate the IQ of different TC's?

 

[Zeidora]

There may be a reason for the lack of information on this subject, because with lower end lenses, it does not matter. The reviews I have seen on TC1.4 II vs III are all for big white primes, and even there, improvements may be considered marginal. If you really want to squeeze out more quality that depend on TC version, you have to take the plunge for some serious glass.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens. The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 NON IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens. However a 2X TC is noticeably worse. It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws. Most prints won't show any difference.

 

[antonioleandro]

I own a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and Canon Extender EF 2x II and III (and also 1.4x II). The results I get with the lens and the 2x III are noticeably better than the ones I get with the 2x II. The images shot using 2x III are noticeably sharper and have more contrast than the ones shot with the 2x II. The only reason I keep the series II teleconverters is that these can be stacked whilst the series III TCs can not.

 

[Tinky]

There may be a reason for the lack of information on this subject, because with lower end lenses, it does not matter. The reviews I have seen on TC1.4 II vs III are all for big white primes, and even there, improvements may be considered marginal. If you really want to squeeze out more quality that depend on TC version, you have to take the plunge for some serious glass.

First time I've thought of my 70-200 f2.8L as 'lower end'. I might just buy a screw in teleconverter for the filter end for a frivilous lens like mine.

 

[Tinky]

I own a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and Canon Extender EF 2x II and III (and also 1.4x II). The results I get with the lens and the 2x III are noticeably better than the ones I get with the 2x II. The images shot using 2x III are noticeably sharper and have more contrast than the ones shot with the 2x II. The only reason I keep the series II teleconverters is that these can be stacked whilst the series III TCs can not.

Ok, noted, thank you. Would it be a huge hassle fir you to shoot a contrasty scene with both versions of the 2.0x, something like a newspaper front cover would do?

 

[Tinky]

A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens. The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens. However a 2X TC is noticeably worse. It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws. Most prints won't show any difference.

Sorry Mt. could you clarify... do you mean non-iS or did you mean isii compared to ISv1? Do you have any images you could show of non-is with & without TC?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens. The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens. However a 2X TC is noticeably worse. It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws. Most prints won't show any difference.

Sorry Mt. could you clarify... do you mean non-iS or did you mean isii compared to ISv1? Do you have any images you could show of non-is with & without TC?

A TYPO, I don't know what happened to the NON IS I intended to insert.

The NON IS version is really excellent, and overlooked by many.

 

[Tinky]

A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens. The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens. However a 2X TC is noticeably worse. It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws. Most prints won't show any difference.

Sorry Mt. could you clarify... do you mean non-iS or did you mean isii compared to ISv1? Do you have any images you could show of non-is with & without TC?

A TYPO, I don't know what happened to the NON IS I intended to insert.

The NON IS version is really excellent, and overlooked by many.

It's certainly up to what I need for video and the three times a year I shoot action stills. I always have some form of camera support (video background) so I never bothered with the IS route, when at the time the only IS version (1) was consistently regarded as the very slightly weaker lens.

I was happy with it until I read that it was lower end and not a serious lens, this morning. Might bin it now.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's certainly up to what I need for video and the three times a year I shoot action stills. I always have some form of camera support (video background) so I never bothered with the IS route, when at the time the only IS version (1) was consistently regarded as the very slightly weaker lens.

I was happy with it until I read that it was lower end and not a serious lens, this morning. Might bin it now.

Some posters like to belittle others. They are often the ones who don't show their superior photos.

Ignore them.

 

[nc0b]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Before I bought a new 400mm f/5.6, I had both the 1.4X TC III and later the 2X TC III. Image quality is quite good with both, but AF speed is really slow with the 2X. The bigger issue for BIF with the 2X was totally losing focus in the sky. The zoom would hunt focus and end up at the close focus limit and never recover. The 400mm f/5.6 never had that problem. When I purchased a 1 year old 300mm f/4 IS, I sold the 2X TC to a fellow photog who had a 500mm f/4 IS II. I never heard how it worked out for him. With the two tele primes, I don't use the 1.4X TC very often, but I intend to keep it. With the new 100-400mm version II zoom, you may well find more of the 300 and 400mm primes available on the used market. I would recommend that route at twice the price of the TC III option. I never used or owned the older teleconverters.

 

[Zeidora]

There may be a reason for the lack of information on this subject, because with lower end lenses, it does not matter. The reviews I have seen on TC1.4 II vs III are all for big white primes, and even there, improvements may be considered marginal. If you really want to squeeze out more quality that depend on TC version, you have to take the plunge for some serious glass.

First time I've thought of my 70-200 f2.8L as 'lower end'. I might just buy a screw in teleconverter for the filter end for a frivilous lens like mine.

Zooms can not match the quality of primes; maybe at one focal length they are close, but going away from the sweet spot shows its signs. Too many optical/mechanical trade-offs. I consider any zoom, L or non-L, as "lower end". I'm not in the "good enough" crowd. If that tele-zoom suits your needs/wants, all is well. As you can see below, I don't have a single zoom for good reasons, and it works for me.

 

[nc0b]

Everywhere I go pros are shooting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. They cannot all be blind. If I can count each eyelash and eyebrow hair in a portrait, I consider the photo sharp.

 

[Tinky]

Zooms can not match the quality of primes; maybe at one focal length they are close, but going away from the sweet spot shows its signs. Too many optical/mechanical trade-offs. I consider any zoom, L or non-L, as "lower end". I'm not in the "good enough" crowd. If that tele-zoom suits your needs/wants, all is well. As you can see below, I don't have a single zoom for good reasons, and it works for me.

Fair enough: what works for you. I have a mixture of zooms and primes, I agree that when circumstances allow a prime is often better (I can get a better result from an f1.4 prime stopped down to f2.8 than an f2.8 zoom used wide open) and of course as I'm almost always shooting at 1/50th (video) the flexibility of a much wider aperture is useful.

However f2.8 zooms are fantastic when 'good enough' might also mean 'quick enough', 'in time enough', 'on budget
enough', 'portable enough', 'discrete enough' etc. I would love the opportunity to use a prime in every shot, but it wouldn't benefit my clients in any real way, though I do try to use a couple of cameras with a fast prime on each for set interviews.

Thanks for your answer though, It didn't really refer in any practical way to my question, but you've put it out there about your nice big lenses, and that you don't rate zooms, so thanks for that.