|
Field-test of the Canon Extender
EF 1.4x.
In issue No: 41, the Canon Extender
EF 2x was reviewed. Here, the results with the Extender EF 1.4x are shown. Personally
speaking, I prefer the EF 2x version to the EF 1.4x, and seldom use the latter in
most of my assignments. I did use the EF 1.4x occasionally in conjunction with the
2x type but very often, the latter was utilized more frequently and the former ended
up inside the vest or lens pouch.
Having said that, many EOS users prefer the EF 1.4x version over the EF 2x, believing
that the former to have better image quality than the latter. The price difference
between the two (the 1.4x costs more) fuels this misconception among EOS users. The
reason for this is that the EF 1.4x is actually more difficult to design, correct
for aberrations and produce than the EF 2x version.
The main aspect of any teleconverter or extender is to multiply the focal length
of the prime lens in use, in the case of the EF 1.4x and EF 2x, by 1.4 and 2 times
respectively. They are basically color-corrected magnifiers employing multi-coated
glass elements despite the heavy-duty constructions used, which are similar to the
L-series EF telephoto lenses.
What both the EF 1.4x and EF 2x do is magnifying the central part of the prime lens
in use, by their respective multiplying factors. They do not really "increase"
the focal length of the prime lens, which is usually the term used by many when describing
the usage of teleconverters/extenders. They magnify the image seen through the prime
lens to resemble that of a longer focal length's angle-of-view.
|
 |
The Canon Extender EF 1.4x |
|
 |
The overall lengths of the 2x (left)
and 1.4x |
|
| |
|
|
 |
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is one of the
usable lenses |
|
 |
Usable with many of the white-colored
EF lenses |
|
As the EF 2x multiplies the image seen by the prime lens by two times, it is not
unusual to see that the final quality may be slightly off in certain conditions as
compared to those captured with the same prime lens fitted with the EF 1.4x, which
only magnifies it by a factor of 1.4 times.
Any of these so-called deteriorations of image quality is similar to enlarging a
central part of a 35mm negative to a 101x12 inch print and then compare it with another
10x12 print from the same film that shows the whole frame intact. I am sure we will
find the cropped print to have slightly less definition as well as more evidence
of the grainier pattern of the film used, right? Well, that is basically what an
extender or teleconverter does to the prime lens, giving you the magnified viewpoint
of the prime lens that it is fitted into.
<<
Back to Main . 1 . 2
. 3 . |
| |
|