2 x ef extender ii teleconverter

Additional CA Chromatic Aberration is introduced as is slight barrel distortion, but vignetting is somewhat reduced only using the center of the image. Another negative aspect to shooting with the Canon EF 2x II Extender attached is the resulting reduction in autofocus speed. The lens and extender combo can always be used in manual focus mode. A narrow maximum wide aperture creates a dark viewfinder that makes manual focusing even harder. Some people are reporting that the pins on the extender can be covered with tape to trick the camera into autofocusing.

I doubt Canon condones this - I have not tried it. It is weather-sealed when used with similarly-sealed lenses and camera bodies. Build quality is excellent - Canon L Lens quality. Pictured above from left to right are the Canon Extender EF 1. The L is shown for size comparison only - it is not compatible with the 2x. Canon extenders simply do not fit behind the rear lens element on Canon's non-extender-compatible lenses. As a rule, but subject to change, the compatible lenses include fixed focal length L lenses mm and longer, zoom L lenses at least 70mm on their wide end and Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses.

My advice is to use the Canon EF 2x II Extender to extend the usefulness of a very sharp lens that has another more primary purpose.

The native lens is slightly less trouble to mount and dismount as well. The 2x is also useful in creating a longer focal length lens than is available natively. You have two bodies, so using a two working camera set is a good idea: I have a mate who uses Nikon and he uses a 70 to and mm Prime on his second body for Swimming, but frankly two cameras and a 70 to and prime and some cropping when necessary has worked well for me for Swimming: Field Hockey and Football.

One main element is camera position and in this regard being allowed to move around and having good access is important. William Michael , Mar 29, The EF 2. With the 1. Mark Keefer and William Michael like this. It's interesting to me the good quality you get from the combination of the x1.

As I mentioned I was not very impressed with that combination. WW, sorry, but I didn't have the direct 1. I did have excellent experience with a 1. William Michael likes this. Thanks, everyone. I misspoke in my original post, meaning to indicate an mm reach, not Hence the term doubler. The YongNuo speedlight I referred to is a remarkable unit, for what Just saying Thanks again and especially to William Michael for his extensive reply. Mark Keefer , Mar 30, For the record, I've never used the Canon teleconverters, but i have used others like the original Vivitar and Nikon 2X converters.

They both worked well with my mm Reflex-Nikkor and a reflex Celestron mm. I have the mark 1 mm and I use it with an Aps-C body to get the extra reach - Whether some relatively slow teles work with the Canon converters also depends on the body model. Another option if you are shooting relatively stationary subjects is one the the excellent mirror lenses - these are, by the way, NOT the cheap mirror lenses being offered new these days.

JDMvW , Mar 31, When I bought my and 40D, which was the current top of the mid-line at the time, I "tested" both the 1. The 1. I bought the Canon 1. There was still noticeable loss of sharpness, but the added reach was more important to me at the time.

Better a less sharp image than no image. Canon have stated in print that their TCs were designed for their primes and may not perform well with lesser lenses, but it may also vary from lens to lens.

One TC may work well on one sample of, say, the , but not work well on another sample of the same lens. Tolerances are tight, but not perfect. Hence, an EF 2. There is often confusion about the meaning of the verb "work" when it is used as above. Good that it has been clarified for those who might have misunderstood William Michael , Apr 10,