70-200 2.8L IS test with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters

[Harv]

For so long now, I have been hearing about image degredation when teleconverters are being used on anything other than Canon's long, fast primes. Degredation using a 2x teleconverter is supposed to be terrible. I decided I would try to see for myself and set up a simple test.

I used a 3-colour grid I had produced some time back at 9" x 6" and printed on high gloss paper. I clipped this to a vertical surface. I illuminated this with an off-camera strobe set at camera left and at a distance to provide me with an aperture of f/8. I did this as f/8 is usually my target aperture in the real world, as is using single point AF.

The first shot was taken with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS on my 1D MkIIn and mounted on a sturdy tripod at a distance to totally include the grid in my viewfinder. The lens was racked out to 200mm and left there for subsequent shots.

The second shot was taken using the same setup with my 1.4xTC MkII and the camera was moved back to provide the same framing.

The third shot was taken using the same setup with my 2xTC MkII and once again the camera was moved back to provide the same framing.

The first 3 shots are the full frame versions resized to 900x600 pixels for viewing. The following 3 shots are 100 percent crops of the originals.

Perhaps my eyes are not that great, but I have to struggle to see any apparent degredation using the 1.4xTC, if any. Use of the 2xTC, in my opinion, has not softened the image enough to give me any fits. Certainly not in any real world application.

Perhaps your eyes are better than mine and I welcome your comments.

200mm Full Frame
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473468-O.jpg

200mm + 1.4TC Full Frame
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473827-O.jpg

200mm + 2xTC Full Frame
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473869-O.jpg

200mm 100 percent crop
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473803-O.jpg

200mm + 1.4xTC 100 percent crop
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473846-O.jpg

200mm + 2xTC 100 percent crop
http://harveyg.smugmug.com/photos/126473891-O.jpg

The only post processing was the application of my mild sharpening routine.

[Joe F.N.]

Talk about having too much time on your hands....I went over all the tests a few times. If someone said 'pick a soft one' I would be hard pressed to find it. I did somewhat the same thing with mine but not quite as sophisticated as your tests and got the same results. That's a good thing.

[Harv]

Talk about having too much time on your hands....I went over all the tests a few times. If someone said 'pick a soft one' I would be hard pressed to find it. I did somewhat the same thing with mine but not quite as sophisticated as your tests and got the same results. That's a good thing.

Joe, we both know I have far too much time on my hands. Until Daphne gets home, that will continue to be the case. I'm a prisoner in my own home. Sheesh. I needed something to do.

I also tried both teleconverters for AF speed. At least to the degree that one can tell without instruments of some sort. I did not notice any difference in AF speed using the 1.4TC and using the 2xTC, there was barely a noticeable difference. We're probably talking milliseconds here. Certainly nothing that would impact it's use in the field. I'm guessing the 1D had something to do with that.

[GBRandy]

Great....my stuff isnlt even here yet and now I need a TC.

The Nikon 2x converter is no-where near as crisp as the Canon one based on your tests.

[mdephoto]

Cool test Harv and yes they all look good. But we all know that those pesky birds don't just sit still like that. So, could you hook that grid up to one of those roller type clothes lines and pull it real fast while you shot it with each one of the TC's and then post those results --- that is since you have so much time available ......... <vbg>

[Harv]

Cool test Harv and yes they all look good. But we all know that those pesky birds don't just sit still like that. So, could you hook that grid up to one of those roller type clothes lines and pull it real fast while you shot it with each one of the TC's and then post those results --- that is since you have so much time available ......... <vbg>

That's next on my list of things to do. All kidding aside, I know that simple tests like this don't tell the entire story. It's little more than a simple comparison. At least some big fuzzy images didn't jump out at me.

I hope to get out and try for some birds in flight with both combinations. Only then will I know for sure about the AF performance and sharpness. Particularly with the 2xTC.

I shall let everyone know when I get it done.

[mdephoto]

Harv, I sure as heck hope you know that I was funnin' with ya.
I think the test that you did does prove something. I will look forward to your upcoming test but the drawback (if I may use that word) with that test is that each shot will be with a different bird at a different distance ... unless you are going to talk them into following the exact same fight path so each shot with each lens can be the same exact condition .. something you could do with the grid you could control. At any rate, I wanted you to know that I really did think your test was worthwhile and I appreciate the time you took to complete it and post it for the rest of us... that are too lazy to go to the effort....

[Harv]

Harv, I sure as heck hope you know that I was funnin' with ya.
I think the test that you did does prove something. I will look forward to your upcoming test but the drawback (if I may use that word) with that test is that each shot will be with a different bird at a different distance ... unless you are going to talk them into following the exact same fight path so each shot with each lens can be the same exact condition .. something you could do with the grid you could control. At any rate, I wanted you to know that I really did think your test was worthwhile and I appreciate the time you took to complete it and post it for the rest of us... that are too lazy to go to the effort....

Yep, I knew. And you're quite right about the rest of it.

What I see as the obvious difference is in the contrast and saturation of the bare lens vs. with the TC. I will try it on real birds soon, but if the preliminary test above had shown obvious degredation, I wouldn't bother.

[Kevin]

I had heard of numerous comparisons between the 70-200/f2.8 + 2.0tc vs the 400/f5.6 vs the 100-400 and in almost every case people were thumbs down on the 70-200 + 2.0tc combo saying the image quality was terrible. Seeing you're results kind of threw me for a loop--in a good way. :) These are far better than I would have imagined.

Yes, you can see a difference in the quality at 100% but I wonder how large of a difference there would really be if they were at "regular" size and sharpened? Very little I'd suspect.

When it comes to birding with this combo, I think the quality will suffer less if the bird is kept rather large in the frame. Small details will probably be the biggest area to suffer. But I'm anxious to see some real world examples from you (when you find the time). ;)

[Harv]

I had heard of numerous comparisons between the 70-200/f2.8 + 2.0tc vs the 400/f5.6 vs the 100-400 and in almost every case people were thumbs down on the 70-200 + 2.0tc combo saying the image quality was terrible. Seeing you're results kind of threw me for a loop--in a good way. :) These are far better than I would have imagined.

Yes, you can see a difference in the quality at 100% but I wonder how large of a difference there would really be if they were at "regular" size and sharpened? Very little I'd suspect.

When it comes to birding with this combo, I think the quality will suffer less if the bird is kept rather large in the frame. Small details will probably be the biggest area to suffer. But I'm anxious to see some real world examples from you (when you find the time). ;)

Me too, Kevin.

[Corry]

Early last summer I purchased a 70-200mm 2.8 IS for use with my 30D, I almost purchased a 1.4 converter to go with it because of the bad press I read about 2X converters. But I threw caution to the wind and got the 2X and I have to say I'm glad I did. I'm very pleased with the results I am getting. Yes sometimes I do use sharpen mask to slightly improve the image but it certainly is not always necessary. If I could change one thing about it, it wouldn't be image quality it would be to make it f2.8... but F5.6 is the sacrifice you pay... oh well

Bottom line... I love this combo and would recommend it to anyone

[Corry]

I'd also like to ad a word about image quality and perception....

If soft images are the most often voiced complaints about this combo and not actual poor quality images then it's all very subjective anyway. I like a soft look in some of my shots, in fact a lot of my shots. I have some lenses, my EF-S 60mm macro for instance, that is very sharp for macro which is nice, but if I use it as a general lens especially to shoot people, its too sharp and unflattering and I end up softening them photoshop.

Vignetting is another area that is subjective when it comes to perceived quality.
Unless it's really pronounced and degrading I don't mind some slight vignetting, such as I might get shooting 2.8 with some of my lenses. I find it to be a nice quality most of the time and if I don't like it I can crop it out or otherwise post process it.

One reason I moved out of the darkroom and away from film was because I find I much prefer digital work flow. Purists might have a heart attack reading this but once I considered the technology to "be there", I had not qualms moving over. Digital is much faster, less messy and gives you much more control especially in post processing. I always shoot RAW so I can correct my images and mistakes after the fact, which in my opinion frees me up from worrying about getting it just right every time and allows me to actually get the shot.

So to wrap this up I'm just going to say that I like good lenses and will pay for them because I do like quality but I'm not nit picky about some imperfections that I can fix via post processing, which I expect to do anyway in digital work flow.

[Harv]

Corry, in my mind you make some valid points here. As you state, so much of what each of us finds acceptable is an individuals perception.

I tend to shoot a lot of birds and am always looking for a lot of sharpness and detail. Frankly, I did a bit of real world shooting with the 70-200 2.8L IS and both converters. I was not overly pleased with the results I got using the 2xTC as I was shooting birds in flight and the light was not great, reducing contrast. They were not as sharp as I would want for publishing, but certainly would do in a pinch. The 1.4xTC faired much better, although not as good as the bare lens. The results were certainly useable. Having said all this, my major complaint was that the AF slowed a bit with the 1.4x and seemed to slow a lot with the 2x as well as having a tougher time to acquire the target.

Keep in mind, as I stated above, I tend to look closely for sharpness and detail.

Thanks for commenting.

[Corry]

Ah I've never shot anything moving with my 2x really... the slower AF would be a pain in that case for sure. Can't say I noticed contrast differences much though.

BTW I think this is a great forum... glad I stumbled across it this morning :)