BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2996 posts, RR: 3 Posted (6 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3017 times:
The other day I was looking at Canon compatible teleconverters; I have a 70-200 f4L IS and sometimes would like some extra range. The ones that I am considering are Canon's own 1,4x (as I would lose AF with 2x) and Sigma's 1.4x. The Sigma is cheaper, but most people say stick to main brands, is the quality difference that big? And is there any other brand that builds a compatible teleconverter?
I have been looking for reviews on the web, but nothing too informative. Obviously you cannot really test a converter alone, you always test the converter/lens combo. It would be great to hear your experiences, especially from somebody who has used both brands (or others).
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3039 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3007 times:
I would definitely go for the Canon.
But, it is only applicable to a certain lens group. All which are L, but some L's don't work on it. All of the 70-200 L's do work for sure.
You are going to lose quality with whichever one you buy -- better off going with the Canon as you will not lose as much quality as with the Sigma. Also, keeping the brands the same will probably result in better AF functionality and IS.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3005 times:
I've heard great things about the Canon 1.4x (although the 2x is supposedly poor), especially when paired with the 70-200 Ls. Quality loss is apparently not noticeable and you of course maintain full AF, however I've heard it's a smidge slower (again not too noticeable).
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3254 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
I have the Canon 1.4x extender and use it on the 70-200 f4 L IS. Very good combo. The loss of quality is noticeable if you pixel-peep, but the 70-200 f4 L IS is very sharp to begin with, so the results with the extender are more than acceptable.