Canon Extender EF 2x II

[tunpin.ong]

Hi,

This may sound repeated or overlapping with some threads but I am asking for a more specific requirement.

I am thinking of buying a Canon 2x Extender on my Canon 30D and 100-400mm IS Lens. Have come across some bad reviews of using of 2x extender especially on zoom lens.

Based on this choice, is there workaround to produce reasonable photo quality? Or is there other suggestion or other product without having to replace my current equipments?

Wonder if using manual focusing and mounting on my current sturdy tripod would solve most, if not all, of the poor quality against the 2x Extender.

Note: I am originally a digiscoper using my outdated Nikon Coolpix 995 and Swarovski AT80HD spotting scope. The only good thing about my old digiscoping is its reach. I am trying to do something on my DSLR to improve on its reach so that there are some overlapping of the usage when the object is far but still can be photographed using DSLR.

The main reason for me to increase the reach of my DSLR is to be able to photograph better photograph of the endangered Nordmann's Greenshank in Malaysia end of this year. (Mostly sunny and no wind, except when it rains). They are usually a few individuals in the far end among other waders and there is no way to get close to them at the distance I would covet. Getting a slightly better photo than my previous digiscoped photo would be a monumental achievement.

See my blog http://nordmannsgreenshank.blogspot.com/ (Some photos were taken by other photographers. For those taken by me, there are obviously rooms for improvements)

Is it worthwhile to add the extender or stick with digiscoping for far away target?

Happy birdwatching and photographing!

Regards,
Tun-Pin Ong
Sydney

[gordon g]

Even with a *2TC you will only have 800mm focal length - ie about *16 magnification from the lens. Adding in the crop factor of 1.6 gets you to 1280mm, approx *25 magnification. That's still a lot less than is available from a digiscoping set-up.
You could then crop the image more post-capture with either set-up, but that also comes a price of image quality.
There are disadvantages to either choice - I'd go for the one I found easiest to use if working within a useful range. If long distances are involved, really only the digiscope is going to give you anything.

[UlfL]

Is it worthwhile to add the extender or stick with digiscoping for far away target?
My own experiences with digiscoping vs DSLR are these: The scope will give you more reach, but unless you have exceptionally good equipment, the amount of detail in the photo will be far less than with a DSLR. The bird is much smaller in the DSLR-picture, but sharper and with more detail. So inspite of its shorter reach, the DSLR will produce better pictures.

This summer I did a photo trip together with a friend who used a new Fuji digital camera together with a Kowa scope with fluorite lenses. I had my Canon 30D and 300/f4 IS and 1.4x TC. We both photographed seabirds on quite a distance, and later compared the pictures on the computer. And it was easy to see, that although the birds where much larger on his pictures, they where less sharp and had much less detail than my pictures, where the bird was smaller.

So I'm sure that simply using your 30D/100-400 IS (without an extender) will produce better pictures than with your scope.

As to the extenders, I haven't tried any TC together with my 100-400 IS. I don't think it is really worth it, as the image degradation probably will be too great. Problem is that the TC will give more reach, but just as the scope, it won't give more detail. Image quality could be acceptable together with the 1.4x and very good light, but the 2x would surely be a waste of time.

Regards,
Ulf

[IanF]

Loss of sharpness and loss of light are the two things to be very wary of using a 2x converter with the 100-400mm zoom.

I have the Canon 1.4x and using it with the zoom produces usable but notably soft results. The 2x converter will produce softer photos even at smaller apertures and definitely isn't something I'd consider. The problem is I believe the number of glass elements/surfaces in the zoom lens for which there is no work around.

I also have the 400mm prime which gives pretty sharp results with the 400mm, but even with that lens you lose autofocus and due to the loss of an f-stop on the already f5,6 lens it's pretty awkward to take sharp photos without the camera being on some sort of support. You also lose autofocus with the 100-400mm, though with taping the pins you can retain a very slow autofocus. Using the 1.4x even with the prime lens is a last resort. I've had some pretty decent results using it, but the keeper rate is much reduced - even in perfect conditions - due to vibration and accurate focussing issues.

I think there's quite a bit of overlap between using a 400mm lens and digiscoping, but really they excel in different areas. I'm still using the Nikon CP4500 for digiscoping birds at a greater distance. The 400mm lens is good for at most 20yds - but preferably a lot less, yet that distance is where digiscoping starts to come into it's own.

The only improvement I can make would be with a 500mm lens or greater, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

[JohnZ]

Ian, I can only imagine I have misunderstood what you said in your post. "The 400mm lens is only good for at most 20 yards" ? I have to beg to differ whether you are talking about the prime or zoom lenses.
To hopefully illustrate I have posted a couple of shots. The first is the original taken at 400mm which I suspect would make the distance in excess of 50 yards. The second is a cropped version with no PP`ing.
I have also read various posts regarding the effect of a 1.4x converter on the focussing speed of the prime lens. Some say that the speed is reduced but as the lens is very quick anyway the difference is negligible. Others, like yourself, say the focussing speed is very slow. As I was thinking of getting a 1.4x converter I am now confused.
I had considered the Canon 500mm but it is a large lens and would probably put a stop to any of my thoughts of using it handheld.

[christineredgate]

Nothing can compare re magnifaction to a digiscoped pic,(excluding 600mm lenses with a converter!!!).But one has to be a very experienced digiscoper ,eg Paul Hackett,to obtain the superb images through digiscoping.But I have used a 2x converter ,using a tripod,only in very good light and the images are quite acceptable.Not as clear as a 1x4,but okay.Lenses used were 100-400 and 400F5.6.But you do need very good light,and your subject,unless very large,eg,Heron or seal,should not be way out on the skyline.

[IanF]

Lol! It doesn't read quite right does it? I should have qualified that in terms of sufficiently filling the fame with small birds. Of course with larger birds the distance can be much much greater - even more so if they're in flight. With the DSLR I find quaility is often good enough to use a straight crop of a small bird. With digiscoping that's seldom the case, most often some downsizing is needed as well as sharpening.

Sharpness is just one consideration. Overall using a DSLR is a more user friendly technique. For closer birds, results are usually better and easier to obtain. Digiscoping wins out in respect of being able to do it from a greater distance and causing less disturbance. A Sparrow or Thrush from 50yds would be hard to spot in the frame with a 400mm lens - with or wthout a converter.

Personally I don't find using even a 1.4x conerter very practical with a f5,6 lens on the 20D for everyday use due to the fact you lose the autofocus/slow it down so much and another f-stop. Side by side the 400mm prime autofocus is noticably faster than the zoom in normal use - let alone then adding a converter. Even if you tape the pins on the lens whilst you can retain autofocus, the lens is very slow to focus and hunts a lot. You can feel the lens juddering and that's even on well lit high contrast sujects. On lower contrast subjects it often won't lock at all. With manual focus being one-touch I find the best technique is to manual focus and then let the autofocus fine tune the focus the last few inches. If the bird moves though or you move slightly then you're back to square one. This is amost impossible to do hand held, really the setup needs to be well supported.

Using a 1.4x converter has it's place but is very restrictive - iwth the 100-400mm I simply don't bother due to the loss of sharpness even if there's enough light to stop down to f8. With a 2x converter you'd lose another f-stop and likely get even softer results.

[JohnZ]

I thought I had misunderstood you. I am still concerned about using a 1.4x converter though. I don`t disbelieve what you are saying but there are so many conflicting reports about this. I had planned to get a Kenko 1.4x converter but having read your last post I now have my doubts.
Is it not possible to get round this by taping the converter and then raising the ISO ? I ask this because I have a 400mm lens and it is so quick to focus that I find it hard to believe that it will struggle, even at f8, if you raise the ISO to maintain a fast shutter speed.
See I told you I was getting confused !

[IanF]

I think part of the confusion from conflicting reports may be to do with the camera models. On the higher spec models such as the Canon 1D there is no problem with autofocus at f8 - on the 20D, 30D, 350D and 400D autofocus stops altogether at above f5,6.

Some bright spark discovered that by taping three of the pins of a lens used with the 20D etc. you can retain autofocus - but it's very very slow and as I said above causes the lens to judder as it struggles to focus.

By raising the ISO you do indeed regain the shutter speed but that has no influence on the autofocus operation. Manual focus is the obvious way to go - but not that easy/accurate using the EVF - it does work, I've taken a good number of shots I've been happy with, but a lot more are wasted due to mainly focus errors. Another issue is the softening of the image when using a converter - more so with the zoom lens. I find there's a fine divide between using the 400mm on it's own and enlarging the result as opposed to using the lens+converter which causes slight softening.

Some independent converters are said to maintain faster autofocus but I've only read about the Tamron 1.5x and the Kenko 1.4x - non-pro version however both of these contain poorer quality optics causing the image to greatly soften/degrade. The Kenko pro 1.4x does need the pins taped and I've seen some first rate shots taken with it - bearing in mind the limititions described above.

For me the converter has it's place in the camera bag but it's by no means an easy solution to use for guaranteed better resutls at a greater distance.

[ecobo]

I have a 300/4L IS prime and I very often using it with a 1.4x tc.
This combo works pretty well, but sometimes I need more reach, so I am thinking to get a 2x and I am searching a good test to see how much sharpness will I lose. I am using a 1Ds body.

[UlfL]

According to my own tests, it's a waste of time to use the 2x on the 300/f4 IS. The 2x will bring you closer to the bird, but due to loss of sharpness, there won't be any more visible details in the birds plumage. Therefore you could simply stick with your 1.4x TC, and crop the pictures, to get the same result as with the 2x.
The 2x is not bad, the limitation is surely the 300/f4 itself. The lens simply does not let any more details through, to match the larger magnification of the 2x.

Regards,
Ulf

[tunpin.ong]

Hi,
One of our forum members have recently posted a few shorebird photos using
30d 100-400mm 2 x ext.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/116948/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/1

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/116747/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

The result is not bad. Looks like I'll need to get 2x for myself. The photographer used manual focusing and he needs to have a longer reach to photograph shorebirds. Would appreciate if anyone could give more tips to improve it.

One more question - would anyone kindly let us know exactly how to 'tape the pins' in order to achieve autofocus functionality when using the Extender.

Regards,

[IanF]

Hi,
One of our forum members have recently posted a few shorebird photos using
30d 100-400mm 2 x ext.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/116948/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/1

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/116747/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

The result is not bad. Looks like I'll need to get 2x for myself. The photographer used manual focusing and he needs to have a longer reach to photograph shorebirds. Would appreciate if anyone could give more tips to improve it.

One more question - would anyone kindly let us know exactly how to 'tape the pins' in order to achieve autofocus functionality when using the Extender.

Regards,With the lens side of the converter uppermost and facing you it's the three left hand pins that you need to tape.

I just use plastic insulation tape. After a few months it needs to be replaced as it can come unstuck.

With the Canon 100-400 and a 1.4x converter I find results are a little soft. With the 400mm f5,6 prime lens they are tack sharp - provided you get the focus spot on. With both lenses autofocus is slowed considerably and in dull conditions the focus can hunt quite a bit. I find it best to manual focus on the subject and then activate autofocus for the fine tuning - that way it's almost instant.

[tunpin.ong]

Hi Ian,
Thanks for your help. I have forwarded to two other contacts who also asked the same question.
B (:

With the lens side of the converter uppermost and facing you it's the three left hand pins that you need to tape.

I just use plastic insulation tape. After a few months it needs to be replaced as it can come unstuck.

With the Canon 100-400 and a 1.4x converter I find results are a little soft. With the 400mm f5,6 prime lens they are tack sharp - provided you get the focus spot on. With both lenses autofocus is slowed considerably and in dull conditions the focus can hunt quite a bit. I find it best to manual focus on the subject and then activate autofocus for the fine tuning - that way it's almost instant.

[Romy Ocon]

I'm into my second copy of the 100-400 IS. My first has average sharpness and needs to be stopped down to f/8 at 400 mm to match my 400 5.6L. The newer one however is as sharp as my 400 5.6L even wide open at 400 mm.

Here's a couple of 2x TC shots (800 mm) - you can judge the quality if it suits your purpose.

1. My older 100-400 IS, 300D + Tamron 2x, AF (AF works on 4 outer horizontal points), 800 mm, f/16, 1/400 sec, ISO 400, hand held:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/39834950


Unprocessed 100% crop, in-camera jpeg (-1 sharpness):

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/39834954/original


2. My sharper 100-400 IS, 1DM2 + Tamron 2x, AF, 800 mm, f/11 (wide open), ISO 800, 1/40 sec, hand held supported by window sill:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/70301319


Processed 100% crops:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/70301543/original


Good luck on your decision,

Romy