[NBR] Teleconverters

[Couch_Surfer]

Anyone running a teleconverter for more reach?

I know on the tech side of it, you lose a stop for the 1.4 and 2 stops for the 2X - but on a 2.8 70-200, that should mean you could push out to 400mm (4.0) in a somewhat affordable manner.

I'm thinking mainly for shooting wildlife - Brackendale Eagles in January come to mind. Just curious if anyone else has experimented with one and if it's a decent addition.

[jbazett]

Anyone running a teleconverter for more reach?

I know on the tech side of it, you lose a stop for the 1.4 and 2 stops for the 2X - but on a 2.8 70-200, that should mean you could push out to 400mm (4.0) in a somewhat affordable manner.

I'm thinking mainly for shooting wildlife - Brackendale Eagles in January come to mind. Just curious if anyone else has experimented with one and if it's a decent addition.

f2.8 + 2 stops is f 5.6, Still not bad for a 400mm lens. Don't forget that You lose autofocus capabilities with the 2x as well.

[Couch_Surfer]

f2.8 + 2 stops is f 5.6, Still not bad for a 400mm lens. Don't forget that You lose autofocus capabilities with the 2x as well.

Didn't realize you lose autofocus. I'm also assuming that a tripod would become pretty important out at that range.

[jbazett]

Didn't realize you lose autofocus. I'm also assuming that a tripod would become pretty important out at that range.Totally, Hand holding a 400mm in 'less than ideal' light conditions can be pretty tricky. I use a 1.4x converter with my 200mm occasionally, Works pretty good, The price tag is a little heftier. If I owned a 70-200 f2.8 I would go for the 2x for sure especially if the lens had IS.

[Ian_]

its not so much the loss of stops but the extra layers of glass you put in front of your lens...which soften and darken your images.

[JSinclair]

yeah I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and I have the 2x tele.

The autofocus works fine, but is slower than normal. You loose 2 stops (5.6) and Ian is right the images are softer and darker by a bit.

I have it as a Jacknife in my bag just in case I need the extra reach. I have shot some surfing with it and it works in a pinch.

I would love to have a dedicated 400mm but that is down the road...you know when I am shooting the ASP Dream Tour...

[Couch_Surfer]

I would love to have a dedicated 400mm but that is down the road...you know when I am shooting the ASP Dream Tour...

I thought everyone on this BB had one of these in their pack....
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/186152.jpg

BH has them in stock (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186152-USA/Canon_2533A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_2_8L.html) - only 6500 USD ;)

[JSinclair]

I thought everyone on this BB had one of these in their pack....
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/186152.jpg

BH has them in stock (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186152-USA/Canon_2533A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_2_8L.html) - only 6500 USD ;)

Eventually, that's the one.

400mm 2.8 IS

:)

Happyness is a long lens.

[b-man]

I've only had extensive experience with the 1.4x and 70-200 f/2.8L, but I can tell you that you'll be able to tell which shots had the converter and which did not. The background blur gets very harsh with the extender. I usually stop down 2/3, or even a full stop if the light permits. Sharpness increases greatly with stopping down.

[Faithless]

You lost alot of sharpness with a 2x converter.

Best bet is a 1.4 (great) and Cropping in photoshop.

[Faithless]

You lost alot of sharpness with a 2x converter.

Best bet is a 1.4 (great) and Cropping in photoshop.

[JSinclair]

I dunno if I'd get a 1.4 with the 70-200mm. I would with a 300 or 400mm.

the reach advantage is negligible with a 1.4 on a 200mm. the extra 80mm you can probably walk into.

[Faithless]

you don't lose as much light, and the quality is still almost the same. 2x, really degrades the image.

[.243racer]

you don't lose as much light, and the quality is still almost the same. 2x, really degrades the image.

yes, but sometimes you have to actually TAKE the image.