Canon 24mm f/1.4 L II and Canon 2 x TeleConverter

[rottie102]

Not to be used together before you ask

I love my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART but I do keep finding it too long for my shooting. On a full frame before you ask again... So I want something at 24mm. Apparently Sigma is going to introduce the 24mm f/1.4 Art in October or November but I want/need something now.
And I've never seen a lens with so many different opinions: soft/sharp/amazing/crap etc

Has anyone had one/used?

Also, I want to buy a 2x TC to be used with 70-200 f/2.8 IS, what's Pistonheads experience/opinion on that? x1.4 is not worth the hassle IMO so x2 is the only option I consider.

[JulianHJ]

Breadknife and I hired them for startrails and related stuff on holiday in the US a couple years back. They were very nice, but I liked the (non-astro) results from my 24mm f3.5L TSE more. This year we hired Samyang 24mm f1.4s instead, as most online comparisons with the Canon were very favourable or better for the same astro use, but at a fraction of the cost.

If there's one lens I don't want to sell/give up/upgrade, it's my TSE.

Edited by JulianHJ on Saturday 21st June 17:47

[nellyleelephant]

I had a 2x mkiii that I used with my telephoto and I wasn't impressed so sold it on.

The version iii extenders are supposed to be very good with the second generation supertelephotos though.

[RobDickinson]

24L is a great environmental portrait lens, and landscape lens when stopped down. It's far too compromised to be an astro lens, ca, huge coma and crap corners mean stopping down too much.

Samyang 24 is better for astronomy.

2.0 tc mk3 on the 70-200 mk2 works well.

[nellyleelephant]

RobDickinson said:

2.0 tc mk3 on the 70-200 mk2 works well.

Really wasn't that impressed with it on my 500, I was cropping afterwards too which would show up more flaws I suppose.

[RobDickinson]

nellyleelephant said:

RobDickinson said:

2.0 tc mk3 on the 70-200 mk2 works well.

Really wasn't that impressed with it on my 500, I was cropping afterwards too which would show up more flaws I suppose.

Probably depends a lot on both copies and the autofocus.

From what I have seen its very close to the 100-400L in quality though a bit behind in AF and ahead in IS.

[Thunderace]

I've got a 70-200 F2.8 IS and the Mk2 1.4x. I much prefer this combination to the 100-400 which I also own. I bought the 400mm prime earlier this year so it's likely the 100-400 will get even less use.

Couple of examples, both at 1600ISO/F5.6 (so F4 on the lens) using the 70-200 and 1.4x. Unfortunately these are only 700px images, the 2nd one is printed large and hanging on the wall.

[rottie102]

Ah what the hell, who are we kidding... I knew I will buy it anyway.
Just ordered both, I'll share my experience with you.

Samyang and TiltShift were out of question, I mainly shoot quickly moving people and dogs so need autofocus. I never shoot stars so performance in that regard is not important to me either.

I have the Sigma 150-500 but that thing is so big I never take it with me, that's why I like the idea of the 2x TC for those moments "just in case", even if it won't give me spectacular quality.

Edited by rottie102 on Sunday 22 June 12:08

[nellyleelephant]

RobDickinson said:

Probably depends a lot on both copies and the autofocus.

From what I have seen its very close to the 100-400L in quality though a bit behind in AF and ahead in IS.

Maybe, I got better results with a cropped image from a mk2 1.4 (5D3 and 500 f4, so pretty good quality AF wise)

I could well of had a duff 2x of course!

[mikef]

rottie102 said:

Also, I want to buy a 2x TC to be used with 70-200 f/2.8 IS, what's Pistonheads experience/opinion on that? x1.4 is not worth the hassle IMO so x2 is the only option I consider.

The MkIII x2 TC and 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII work well in combination, but you can't use the lens hood (vignetting)