Hi all,

I'm considering the purchase of a 1.4x or 2.0x Canon Teleconverter for my 30D. I would use it on my two standard lenses which are 18-55mm and a 70-300mm. They are expensive and I was just wondering if anyone had experience using them with regards to image quality, functionality and ease of use.

Comment appreciated.

Thanks
Paul

A friend has both the 1.4 and 2x Canon teleconverters.

He isn't interested in computers, so I do all his image processing for him. The EXIF info is on the photos, so I've seen hundreds of images with and without the teleconverters and can tell what picture was taken with lens and/or teleconverter.

Basically, you can't see any image degradation! Note that this is with Canon's top of the line lenses and not with cheaper aftermarket lenses. I imagine that an inferior lens would have its flaws revealed, especially by the 2x or when using both teleconverters at once. And yes, my friend sometimes uses both teleconverters at once (and then you can see some image softening in the corners).

HTH

John

My understanding is thst if your lens is not a f2.8 lens forget it. Dr.C

quote:

Originally posted by doccash:
My understanding is thst if your lens is not a f2.8 lens forget it. Dr.C

Well, there is no free lunch (I only commented on image quality in my post above because that is all that I had personal experience with).

With the 1.4x you lose one f-stop, so you do have to go down one shutter speed, all else being equal. Personally, I dislike flash photos, so my own lenses are the big heavy type that function in more situations without flash. Again, no free lunch!

John

I have tried converters on both Canon and Nikon top line cameras - EOS 1D and D1X - and I am afraid I was not too impressed with them.

Basically, it is better to use a 400mm lense than a 2X converter and 200mm lense.

I know, economics come into the equation, but, as the old saying goes, there is no free lunches.

Saeed's comment makes me realize that I should clarify what I meant by "top of the line" lenses in my earlier post. I mean lenses costing $US 9000 and up...

I'm sure lesser lenses don't work as well with teleconverters.

Also, Saeed is perfectly correct that a prime lens alone is better than a short one with a teleconverter. Has to be! However, I have to admit that I could not identify the pictures taken with vs without a teleconverter (typical wildlife shots). I had to look at the EXIF info on the file to see which pictures were taken with a teleconverter.

Also, I should perhaps point out that none of the lenses that I'm talking about are zoom lenses -- lots more glass elements and trade-offs with those than single focal length lenses I'm sure...

Cheers,

John

Lunch or no lunch, a f2,8 lens becomes an f4 with a teleconverter wich is usable, not as good as prime, but good images can be achieved just as well. Poor folks have poor ways. Dr. C

I own both the 1.4 and 2x Canon converters and use them mostly on my 2.8 70-200 lens. My naked eye can not tell if there is any loss of quality.
But buyer beware these converters will not fit all lens. Sometimes an extension tube will allow you to attach one but then you may not be able to focus on far away subjects.

I use a 2x extender on a canon 70-200 f2.8 lens attached to a 30D. Maximum aperture becomes 5.6a and is usable. At 400mm you had better be rock solid if to have good iq. Dr.C