17-40L with kenko 2x teleconverter?

[samueltan902]

thinking of getting a kenko 2x tc, will it be able to af? and will the teleconverter be able to af with a 70-200 f4 L if i get it in the future?

 

[Spotter]

Quick answer: No.

Why would you want to use a 2X teleconverter on a 17-40L??

If you need the reach, use a 1.4x converter on the 70-200 f4.

 

[rgy1993]

i dont think you can use teleconverters with anything below 70? im not too sure though...

even then i think probably stay away from the 2x converter i hear that image quality is pretty badly affected by them... the 1.4x canon ones are still decent though i think

 

[Daedalus Trent]

thinking of getting a kenko 2x tc, will it be able to af? and will the teleconverter be able to af with a 70-200 f4 L if i get it in the future?

erm..why?:think:

 

[samueltan902]

so meaning it wouldnt be able to use with a 17-40L? and can the 2x be use with the 70-200?
wan to use it as i dont need that kind of telezoom for now .

 

[samueltan902]

so means that i shouldnt get a kenko 2x tc even if im getting a 70-200 in th future?

 

[ianwurn]

Erm, I think folks use teleconverters (Either 1.4x or 2x) to extend the telezoom range of the long zooms. Like the 70-200 etc..... This effectively trades aperture stops and some clarity, sharpness for reach. 200mm at the long end being extended to 280mm equivalent.....

We're probably scratching our heads (At least I am) trying to understand why you are thinking of mating the 17-40L with a 2x to make it 34-80mm and probably lose AF and some clarity along the way. If you are looking for the reach, might make more sense to invest in a mid range to long zoom ?

:dunno:

 

[samueltan902]

ok . what im thinking of doing is that , as im doing more wide angle's now , i can get the tc to have an extra reach and also and as i can get the 2x tc at quite a good price imo, so next time when i get the 70-200 oso can use it. but after the comments and thinking through , decided not to have the 2x tc and mayb get a flash instead.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

ok . what im thinking of doing is that , as im doing more wide angle's now , i can get the tc to have an extra reach and also and as i can get the 2x tc at quite a good price imo, so next time when i get the 70-200 oso can use it. but after the comments and thinking through , decided not to have the 2x tc and mayb get a flash instead.

yea, the flash isn't gonna give you extra reach but it's a far wiser choice than getting a TC to put on a 17-40 :think:

Cos your gonna get a 34-80 f/8 lens, L or not, is so thrashy you can get something way better for less than $300? :dunno:

 

[Snoweagle]

so means that i shouldnt get a kenko 2x tc even if im getting a 70-200 in th future?

U can still use the 2X TC with 70-200 but do note for Canon is that the f/4 version can only AF with 1.4X while the f/2.8 version can AF using both.

 

[samueltan902]

so , would the 2.8 or 4 be a btr all rounder telephotot lens?

 

[Snoweagle]

so , would the 2.8 or 4 be a btr all rounder telephotot lens?

To me, they're the same except for 1 stop extra on the f/2.8.

 

[Octarine]

so , would the 2.8 or 4 be a btr all rounder telephotot lens?

Check the weight and decide what you want to carry all around. F/2.8 is more than just a number at the lens label...