Looking for a 1.4x teleconvert for Canon

Bill, thank you for the photo. The next time I use the extender with my 100-400mm on my 60D, I'll do some electrical taping first.

OK. Good.

Hi Bill:

Awesome and very detailed post - thank you! :)

I am on board with what you are saying, but with a tiny change (this may have been a typo): I currently have the 5DMkIII (not MkII)and the 7DMkI (not Mk II), HOWEVER I am hoping to upgrade to the 7DMkII in a month or two. I have also heard that the upcoming 80D may be a bit more teleconverter-friendly, in fact I downloaded the manual for the 80D and it seems to interact with teleconverters quite well, and they have a list of lenses and their characteristics using this body and the teleconverters. see: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/4/030002...s80d-im-en.pdf for those who may be interested - even just in the body itself.

Luckily for me I am not anticipating taking much in the way of sports photography, most likely my use will be for landscape, lunar and wildlife photography, the latter of which can be quite speed dependent. I am quite happy to manually focus with the 2x teleconverter (I grew up with manual lenses after all), but the opportunity to use the 1.4x unit to get some autofocus functionality is attractive. Having both the 70-200 and the 100-400 lenses does not mean I will carry both simultaneously (they, plus bodies, will weigh a fair bit!), so a teleconverter can provide a degree of flexibility without a lot of weight! :)

I had been reading about taping over the contacts and see no reason not to give it a go as you describe: it may give me some extra flexibility with regards body choices. I did read a couple of comments on line that suggested the quality of image was less acceptable with the cropped sensor than a full-frame one.

I am really impressed with both the original photos of the swimmers (NICE shots!) and I am OK with the shots using the Teleconverter: I tend not to print large images so the loss of IQ may not be an issue - really I am feeling my way in the Teleconverter universe so it will be fun to see what I get! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tronhard

. . . I currently have the 5DMkIII (not MkII)and the 7DMkI (not Mk II), HOWEVER I am hoping to upgrade to the 7DMkII in a month or two. . . .

---

That was a combination of my typo (about the 5D) and my misread of your post (about the 7D). I have edited my Post#19 to reflect the facts.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention

Bill

Perhaps a minor change is needed regarding the loss of iq and that it "may not be an issue".

Loss of IQ is a term that is sometimes misinterpreted. Perhaps the better word would be the use of TCs will lead to some image softness, more so on crops + zooms, less so on full frames + zooms and almost not noticeable on crops/full frames + primes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

That was a combination of my typo (about the 5D) and my misread of your post (about the 7D). I have edited my Post#19 to reflect the facts.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention

Bill

---

No worries Bill, the substance of your advice was still very valid. :)

Trev,

You are most welcome.

I hadn't thought of the 80D. That's a good thought.

Good luck with your choice - though I don't think you really need that much luck with it: the 70 to 200/2.8 that you have is an excellent optic and it works excellently with the x1.4MkIII.

*

You might have gleaned that I am not an huge fan of the EF100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6L IS USM. But I reserved mention of that early on because you do NOT have that lens. I've done a couple of A/B comparisons of the 100 to 400L and two of the 70 to 200/2.8L Lenses plus a x2.0MkII and MkIII Extenders. The native 100 to 400 wins over the 70 to 200 with the x2.0 Extenders - but at times it is close, depending upon the aperture and FL.

I have NOT used the EF 100 to 400F/4.5~5.6L IS MkII USM - but quite a few reputable tests (including field tests) conclude that there is much improvement over its predecessor - and it seems to me quite a few (reputable) photographers, who do use the 100 to 400 zoom a lot, back that up by their comments after upgrading.

As also mentioned, I am ignorant as to how the 100 to 400L MkII performs with a x1.4 Extender, this is because I don't "know" anyone who is using that combination: but I am very interested - and so if you do buy the Extender, I would be very pleased to read a brief (or long) report when you use the Extender with your 100 to 400 MkII.

Thanks,

Bill

BTW for clarity:

Both the images of the Swimmer were made with an x2.0MkII Extender EF.

In the top image (the Backstroke) the top part is a crop and then the bottom part is further crop of the 100% crop - i.e. cropped to display the most awful parts of the Image Quality degradation.

In the bottom image (the Butterfly) the top part is a crop at about 75% and then bottom bit is a further crop of that crop - again to show the worst of any Image Quality degradation.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobobird

Perhaps a minor change is needed regarding the loss of iq and that it "may not be an issue". Loss of IQ is a term that is sometimes misinterpreted. Perhaps the better word would be the use of TCs will lead to some image softness, more so on crops + zooms, less so on full frames + zooms and almost not noticeable on crops/full frames + primes.

---

Understood.

Thanks for taking the time for clarifying the meaning; then specifying "softness"; and then grading the affect.

That makes sense to me.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobobird

Perhaps a minor change is needed regarding the loss of iq and that it "may not be an issue".

Loss of IQ is a term that is sometimes misinterpreted. Perhaps the better word would be the use of TCs will lead to some image softness, more so on crops + zooms, less so on full frames + zooms and almost not noticeable on crops/full frames + primes.

---

I see your point Bobo, and thanks for emphasizing it. :)

I thought IQ would include that plus other faults such as chromatic aberration and distortions. I had looked on a couple of reviews of TCs and across the range of impressions there were reports of all of these to varying degrees for different makes and models. When I said loss of IQ may not be an issue it was in the context of what output I wanted for my own purposes (as has been my theme) I would not deny it might be an issue for others. I would also take into account whether, without the TC, I could get a usable shot at all.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tronhard

I would also take into account whether, without the TC, I could get a usable shot at all.:rolleyes:

---

Not to worry, with the set that you have, that is not going to be an issue unless you are the issue. haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobobird

Not to worry, with the set that you have, that is not going to be an issue unless you are the issue. haha

---

Ah, so true... I have often said the weakest link in photography is the carbon-based life-form behind the camera...:cool:

Trev, I was intrigued by your reference to the 80D. I've been dreaming for some time about getting a second camera body, the 7Dii but now obviously need to have a look at the 80D. Thanks for providing a link to its manual – I've downloaded it but have yet to have a look.