Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Converters & Extenders  
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10
Posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

Please forgive my inexperience in this domain, but I haven't actually ever used one of these.

I would like to know what difference do you make between a converter and an extender, if any?
As a French guy, my technical English is a bit limited, which definitely doesn't help if I want to avoid making any mistake when purchasing the item.

My problem is that I am going in a few weeks time to Africa for a photo safari in a wildlife park and I'm afraid that, although an excellent and powerful lens, my Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM might be a bit too short sometimes.

I've checked the B&H website and found these two ones:

CANON Life Size Converter EF

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/12311.jpg


CANON Extender EF 2x II

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/220457.jpg


There is a 50 USD difference in price, which is not at all a factor in my choice.

I would really appreciate your help in this matter as well as some valuable advice.

Thanks to you all.

Regards
MightyFalcon


The sky has no limit...
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1148 times:

The life size convertor is designed specifically for the 50mm macro lens to increase its maginifaction from 1:2 up to 1:1 - this is useless to you.

What you should be considering is either the Canon Extender EF 1.4x or EF 2x which will increase the focal length of your lens by either 1.4x or 2x at the cost of one or two fstops.

BUT in the case of the 100-400, applying either of the convertors will result in the loss of AF, and a distinct loss in sharpness and contrast. In my experience, the 100-400 + 1.4x provides acceptable quality, 100-400 +2x does not.

As a general rule, I'd suggest you would be better sticking with the 100-400 and enlarging the images where necessary. If the shot is sharp, a fair degree of enlargement is usually acceptable. A shot which fills the frame, but is of poor quality, is worthless.

I found the only (relatively!) affordable route while retaining sharpness was the Canon 300mm f4 LIS plus 2x extender.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 1119 times:

Thanks Colin for your reply.

Actually, you made me save some $: Although I knew about the loss of AF, I was not expecting any loss in sharpness or contrast.
I'll stick to your advice; anyway, if I find my pictures not good enough, it will give me an excuse to go back to Africa!  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers
MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SOU, Terrorism & Operation Rainbow posted Mon Jun 18 2007 23:38:16 by VSMike
High ISO On Compact/Point & Shoot Cameras posted Thu May 24 2007 14:35:40 by Fergulmcc
Canon 500 F4 & 300 F2.8 Drop In Filters posted Wed May 23 2007 13:51:08 by Garry
Photo Opportunities Inside Terminal Of CDG & DXB posted Thu May 17 2007 17:52:21 by Vice911
Newcastle & Dublin Spotting posted Fri Apr 27 2007 16:31:04 by Hobbsieoz
Photos At Paine Field & Everett posted Thu Apr 12 2007 23:58:39 by Soundtrack
Where To Spot At TPA & MCO? posted Sat Apr 7 2007 05:58:14 by FelixSJU
How To Make Color To B&w Conversion Well? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 11:37:14 by Alphafloor
N713SW B&W LAS posted Tue Mar 13 2007 01:26:35 by LASOctoberB6
Please Give Sharpness & Ac Advice On A Panning posted Sat Mar 10 2007 00:25:04 by INNflight