A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon Extender 1.4 X VS. 2.0X

Canon Extender 1.4 X VS. 2.0X

Park Trot , Mar 28, 2010; 09:03 p.m.

I am a semi-pro photographer and am interested in purchasing a extender tube for use with my Canon 70-200 IS USM 2.8 and my Canon 7D. I am looking at this primarily for personal use and not for my professional work. More specifically, I am looking to use it to do wildlife photography at my cabin (relatively bright conditions). I haven't used an extender tube since my days in film and was wondering if anybody had any experience with either of these tubes. I am also interested in any other thoughts anybody might have on the topic.

Thanks in advance!


    1   |   2     Next    Last

John Crowe , Mar 28, 2010; 09:44 p.m.

Generally I prefer cropping from images made with a 1.4x over using a 2x. However some situations, like my kids' soccer games, lend themselves to using the 2x to get even more reach while maintaining the flexibility of a zoom. For wildlife I would still prefer using a 1.4x until I could afford a long telephoto prime, like the 300/4 L or 400/5.6 L. There are times when the longest lens you have is still not long enough and there is no point in always using a zoom at it's longest setting. This is when it is time to buy a telephoto prime.

Jack Nordine , Mar 28, 2010; 09:57 p.m.

The 1.4X will allow for better image quality than the 2X.

Rubo Aristakesyan , Mar 28, 2010; 10:40 p.m.

OT: Am i correct in my calculations that a 200mm lens on a 1.6x crop body + 1.4x extender would yield a 400mm equivalent focal length?

Marco Mariano , Mar 28, 2010; 11:38 p.m.

Rubo -> 200 x 1.6 x 1.4 = 400!?... should be 448 right?

Philip Wilson , Mar 29, 2010; 12:10 a.m.

I have both and the 2x is very poor (I have used it on my 300 F4, 70-200 f2.8 non IS and 70-200 F4 IS) with the 2x and an F4 lens you essentailly lose AF except on a 1 series body. In addition while the IQ from the 1.4 x is reasonable the 2x is not good. Indeed I cannot remember the last time I used the 2x. While the 1.4x is quite acceptable it is not in the same league as a prime or zoom. For example the 70-200 f2.8 non IS plus 1.4x is not in the same league for IQ as the 300F4. Also even with the 1.4x AF speed suffers a lot.

Scott Ferris , Mar 29, 2010; 12:17 a.m.


Not really, it (a 200+1.4TC on a 1.6 crop camera) will give you the same field of view as a 448mm lens on a FF camera. But that is not quite the same thing. The image is exactly the same if you mount the lens TC combo onto a FF camera and crop it.

Anyway, whilst most people are fairly dismissive of the 2x TC on the zooms there are a few that get on with it very well. One person is a member here, William W, he even has a folder of images just for threads like these. One difference might be that he uses the non IS version of the lens, but I doubt it. Almost everybody that uses the 1.4 TC seems happier with the results though.

Marco Mariano , Mar 29, 2010; 01:02 a.m.

i have both Kenko 1.4X & 2X TCs, 1.4 is definitely has less IQ degradation than 2X. if "moment" is more important than IQ, im not hesitating using 2X on my 70-200 2.8 IS. and besides, 5D2 has more room for correction.

Dave Holland , Mar 29, 2010; 01:38 a.m.

There is a review on photo.net comparing the two, looking at eagles in a nest. Bottom line is to use the 1.4, ditch the 2X. My experience as well. I shot the moon with both, but the 2X was inferior to a 1.4X plus cropping.

Sreehari Sundararajan , Mar 29, 2010; 03:06 a.m.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses