Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L + 1.4x - DPChallenge Forums

11/16/2006 09:48:18 AM · #1

I just want to make sure I have this right...

A Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L + Canon 1.4x extender = about 156-448mm at a constant f4.0. Is that right.

Also... besides the water-proof build quality, is there any reason to buy the MK II extender... or is the previous version just as good?

kirbic

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/16/2006 09:53:01 AM · #2

For an APS-C cam, your focal length equivalents are correct. I believe that on the 1.4x converter, the optics are the same between the MkI and MkII, but the coatings are improved on the MkII I think. That and the weather seals are the only real differences.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

11/16/2006 09:54:30 AM · #3

Save yourself a few bucks and buy the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter...

Kenko 1.4x TC for Canon from B&H

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

11/16/2006 09:57:04 AM · #4

70-200/2.8 becomes 98-280/4 with the 1.4x, so 157-448/4 in 35mm terms, yes. Cheaper and faster than a 100-400/4-5.6 too :o)

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

11/16/2006 10:16:36 AM · #5

Originally posted by Manic:

70-200/2.8 becomes 98-280/4 with the 1.4x, so 157-448/4 in 35mm terms, yes. Cheaper and faster than a 100-400/4-5.6 too :o)

To be fair, the 100-400 becomes 140-560 equivalent on the APS-C sensors.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

11/16/2006 10:17:45 AM · #6

Thank you for the excellent answers. I realize now that the calculations were "in 35mm terms". So as it turns out, this combo will not give me a greater focal reach than my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro.

I was wanting to get L glass, speed, AND greater distance... I guess you can't have everything...

darnok

Nikon D850

11/16/2006 10:39:23 AM · #7

Originally posted by santaspores:

Then buy a 400mm 2.8L IS. That will give you L glass, speed and greater distance. You can have it all.... if you pay for it :)

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/16/2006 10:44:54 AM · #8

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Manic:
70-200/2.8 becomes 98-280/4 with the 1.4x, so 157-448/4 in 35mm terms, yes. Cheaper and faster than a 100-400/4-5.6 too :o)

To be fair, the 100-400 becomes 140-560 equivalent on the APS-C sensors.

And the 100-400 is much sharper then the 70-200 with a 1.4x on it.

cloudsme

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

11/16/2006 10:44:54 AM · #9

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't think the auto focus works with the 100-400 and the 1.4 telextender.

11/16/2006 10:49:13 AM · #10

Raziel... get thee behind me Satan! Just kidding... I don't have that kind of $$ to spend... don't tempt me.

cloudsme: There is a cheep work-around for that issue, but if I got the 100-400 I wouldn't buy the extender anyway.

cloudsme

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

11/16/2006 10:50:57 AM · #11

Originally posted by santaspores:

I've heard of the tape trick, but I don't know if it really works.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

11/16/2006 10:55:16 AM · #12

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Manic:
70-200/2.8 becomes 98-280/4 with the 1.4x, so 157-448/4 in 35mm terms, yes. Cheaper and faster than a 100-400/4-5.6 too :o)

To be fair, the 100-400 becomes 140-560 equivalent on the APS-C sensors.

I don't think the auto focus works with the 100-400 and the 1.4 telextender.

Maybe, but the equivalent numbers are for the lens without the converter. Actually I misspoke, adding the 1.6 factor of the APS-C sensor, the adjusted range, without the converter is 160-640 for the 100-400 (35mm equivalent).

I think the question is to get the 70-200 witha converter or the 100-400 without.

11/16/2006 11:11:02 AM · #13

OK - what about the Canon EF 300 f/4.0L along with the 1.4 extender. I assume that the speed will become 5.6. I am trying to keep the price down, and will compromise some the convenience of a zoom for the speed/reach of a prime. Is anyone using this combo?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/16/2006 11:15:14 AM · #14

Actually, the Canon EF 300 f/4.0L pics don't look as sharp as examples of other L glass...

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

11/16/2006 11:18:50 AM · #15

Originally posted by santaspores:

Actually, the Canon EF 300 f/4.0L pics don't look as sharp as examples of other L glass...

I have used that combo many many times, very sharp, very versatile. Love it!

Examples:

11/16/2006 11:32:17 AM · #16

doctornick: I saw those lovely images - and saw your use of the extender. I was looking at the non IS USM version of the lens. The IS USM lens is also cheep and the the lens looks much sharper to me...

kirbic

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/16/2006 11:38:15 AM · #17

Originally posted by santaspores:

Actually, the Canon EF 300 f/4.0L pics don't look as sharp as examples of other L glass...

As doctornick posted, the 300/4 is very sharp. It's a great value as well. It probably will handle the 1.4x converter better than the 70-200 will.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/16/2006 11:57:13 AM · #18

I would think that a prime with a great deal of reach would be very awkward to use as a versatile lens. 300mm x 1.4 x 1.6 is nearly a 700mm lens. The problem is, to use your feet to zoom in and out you need to walk quite a distance.

Is that birdy gonna sit still while you scoot back 100 feet?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/16/2006 12:05:35 PM · #19

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

From experience 300mm is NOT that long...and definitely inadequate when it comes to shooting birds...

11/16/2006 12:05:50 PM · #20

DrAchoo: Point well taken (and with a chuckle). Though I don't see the situation as dire as all that. The birdy will in deed sit still as there is nothing close enough to worry him or her or it. But yes... I need to add that to my consideration.

11/16/2006 12:13:26 PM · #21

I agree - 300mm isn't very long when shooting birds. But 300mm x 1.4 will do nicely I think.

By the way (for anyone who might be interested in such): I often shoot birds as drive-bys. They will let your vehicle get much closer than your body. So I drive around my college campus and prop my lens on the car window. I have managed some very close shots that way... though I look like an idiot doing it.

Message edited by author 2006-11-16 12:14:31.

11/16/2006 12:16:41 PM · #22

The goal is to get something nice for $1000 or so... which I don't even have yet. I realize that there are good solutions in the $5000 price range...

Canon EOS-20D