Using a 20D with a 70-200 F4. I've heard the 2x doesn't work the best w/ the F4 and it should only go on the 2.8. True? So, is my other option the 1.6x?
Anyone know of better options than the Canon brand or an inexpensive place to find one?
Printable View
Using a 20D with a 70-200 F4. I've heard the 2x doesn't work the best w/ the F4 and it should only go on the 2.8. True? So, is my other option the 1.6x?
Anyone know of better options than the Canon brand or an inexpensive place to find one?
"work the best" is very subjective
if all you want is a 400mm focal length, then it works perfect
if you want a FAST 400mm, then yea, not so great, but hey, its only 2 stops, and you're shooting digi, so just bump up the ISO.
Like this?
http://anderle.info/images/INDEX/Opr...fitComfort.jpg
I apologize for that.
I'm not a Canon expert buy I believe you'll have AF issues >f5.6. That means the largest TC you can use is the 1.4x.
If you can't try out a TC locally, order from B&H - they'll allow you to return it if you aren't optically satisfied (put it on a tripod, compare before and after of something like a sign)
I've already done that :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dromond
Your AF will fail at anything slower than 5.6 unless you have a fancier camera like an EOS 3 or an EOS 1 which have center AF sensors that can work out to f/8.
You should purchase a Canon EF Extender 1.4X (you don't have to get the II version since your camera doesn't have weather sealing)
the 2x isnt very good anyway even with the 2.8 L so stick with 1.4 or try a sigma 400 5.6 fixed
I pulled the 1.6 number out of my... 1.4 was what I was thinking. Good info Summit, just what I was looking for.
what are the potential negative consequences of this taping?Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalpicture.com
The same as if you used a lens without the pins.
consequence: poor AF accuracy...
m'kay.
so with my 20D, only the center AF point would be usable. however, i often use the AF to get in the ballpark, then flick to MF to dial it in (and for prefocusing). so i could feasibly do the same thing with the TC even at the widest aperture (on a 70-200/2.8)?
A 2x TC on an f2.8 lens would give you a max aperture of f5.6.... which wouldn't require taping anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by smalls
lower than f5.6 it won't be as accurate (as Summit said) and it will hunt more
...but chuck it into manual focus and it won't mess with it, maybe. Unless you're shooting fast action stuff Autofocus is a crutch... kinda like shooting everything on Program....Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I was under the impression that the Kenko 1.4 Pro/Tamron 1.4 SP teleconverters would omit the aperture change info when talking to the body, thereby allowing your AF to try to work at higher aperture than those it's supposed to work at. The catch is more hunting, just like using a slower, crappier zoom lens, because it's that much harder for the AF to find a high-contrast area to focus on.
(FWIW, I intend to buy one of those two--most sources indicate that they're functionally identical--when resources allow, as they seem to be compatible with a greater range of lenses than the Canon 1.4).
that may be, however i have some issues with my images having to go from L glass and then pass through a kenko/tamron TC. it seems somewhat conterintuitive. am i off base?Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum
why not try them and see? the tamron pro is pretty good. the tamron pro and kenko pro 300 are identical just different badging/coloring I believe.
You're going to loose quality either way; the anecdotal evidence I've seen on various forums led me to believe that the quality difference with a 1.4x converter from either source (Canon or Kenko/Tamron) would be barely perceptible except when pixel-peeping. For me, the ability to use the 1.4x on a greater variety of lenses--particularly non-Canon lenses--trumps a small difference in quality. The price difference doesn't hurt the equation in my book, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by smalls
The Canon 1.4x is reputed to be second to none...
Personally, I didn't buy the 1.4x because the small extra reach didn't seem worth the hassle. If I was going for a 1.4x I'd go for the Canon, but I went for a 2x which I felt was more usefull. Then again, I was applying it to a f/2.8 and it only works with 1 lens that I own.
I use a Sigma 2x EX tc. I find it's quality tradeoff well worth it when the extra reach is called for on my 70-200 2.8 L. Then again, I now officially hate Sigma for their customer service attitude. I am just now experiencing some AF issues at certain focal lengths (after having it for 5 or 6 years). I think it is an electronic problem.
I'd tell you that calling AF a crutch on a 1.6x camera without interchangable ground glass is a great exaggeration. Ever try to MF an f/4 lens on a Canon digital rebel? It is a real challenge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
I used MF a lot more on my EOS-3 (and I replaced the ground glass in it) or even my older Elan II (EOS-50) and A2 (EOS-5) than I do on my 20D, even for non-action.
I still MF when it is called for or necessary (even in action). This is why virtually all of my lenses are FTM. It is not rare by any means for me to use MF, but frankly the AF on a 2.8 or 1.4 lens is often more reliable than my Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball through a 1.6x viewfinder with ground glass that is optimized for brightness, not manual focusing. (MINIMUM 1/3 the DoF range for whatever CoC they are using).
PS I am in full manual exposure mode and and using the "spot" meter for 99%+ of all my exposures (including action). I originally learned SLRs on a Canon FTb, which was manual focus and exposure (needle match). I used to shoot 4x5 and only stopped when I lost darkroom access. I am not "lazy."
AF is NOT a crutch for most APS-C shooters (Canon at least if not all others).
What? I couldn't hear you?
Auto Focus
Auto Iris
Auto Exposure
Auto Think
If it's good enough ... it's good enough, I guess. Now hand me a cocktail.
OK... then again I usually think "medium format" first ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
I am amused that you think aperture auto-stopdown on exposure is a crutch. Many would also say that zoom lenses are a crutch (and I used to think so until I got into the mountains).
I was under the impression that the 20D is not a Rebel. I guess I'm wrong and you are right... again. Poor Truth, taking such pretty pix with such a shitty camera.
Smalls: My point was it CAN be done, not that it has to be done.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
It is not, and while there is a minor improvement in the VF quality, it is still much harder (not impossible) to use, especially for effective MF, especially compared to a FF camera like a 1D, 5D, or a decent film body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
That's all
PS, if you still missed it, I agree with you and support people learning to use full manual exposure for almost everything.
There are split-screen prism screens available for the 20D; just because Canon doesn't claim that the screens are user-serviceable doesn't make it true. I've got a Haoda screen in mine, and it makes life much easier when trying to manual focus (more light through the viewfinder would help, too). I highly recommend it for anyone who's less of a clutz than I am and can manage to install it without scratching it.
Haoda Focusing Screen Review
http://www.camerahacker.com/Tools/In...oda_Screen.jpg
Another option is the KatzEye. According to the guys at work it's better because it doesn't "black out" as readily. They have a shitload of cameras that they manufacture for as well.
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/ccp51/m...ory/20d_sm.gif
OMG that is FREAKING COOL!!!
Thanks for the heads up on that!
the photo.net convention of dentist Leica enthusiasts likes the katzeye
Woooof those aren't cheap! Katz Eye + Optibright treatment + architectural grid is $205!
And for $205 it screws up my partial metering? Weak...
The Hoada is $82 for the diagonal split...
I'll probably get one... it won't be as bright or as big as my EOS-3, but it will be a step in the right direction.
bwahahhaah that made my day :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
ok, don't buy that thing unless you have a 2.8 lens. not even really good for that. I have it for one specific reason and do not use it very often.
1.4 is as far as i would go. if you need 400mm and can't spend much money then get the canon 100-400 f4-5.6 L lens. It's not great but it works and it's in the $1200 range. It works much better than a 70-200 2.8 with the 2x tC on it, trust me.