Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 16 Jan 2018 (Tuesday) 08:05
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1.7X TC- much needed

 
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,265 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Jan 17, 2018 17:08 |  #31

Archibald wrote in post #18542536 (external link)
Maybe what we need is a zooming tele-extender! ;-)a

Exactly; I have thought that for a long time. It should click, though, so it can't change by brushing against it. You just dial in the maximum magnification that does not impede AF too much.

My 7D2 and 400/4DO II IS autofocuses so much better with the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4 than with the 2xIII in marginal light and contrast, it isn't funny. I suspect it breaks down rather abruptly somewhere in between there, and I'd like to dial in and figure out what factor allows the most magnification with the least hunting. I very seriously doubt that 1.5x and 2x AF is similar!




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
ShadowHillsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Schoharie, NY
Post has been edited 1 month ago by ShadowHillsPhoto.
Jan 17, 2018 17:47 |  #32

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543029 (external link)
But Nikon has offered a 1.7x converter for years, and it is very popular amongst Nikon shooters who use supertelephoto primes.

If Nikon has been doing it successfully for so long, then why would it be nonsense to hope for Canon to follow suit?

.

The reason Nikon has a 1.7x converter is because previously they couldn't build a decent 2x to save their lives. I've heard the latest version is much better, but going back to previous generations, if they had been able to match what Canon was doing with 2x converters I doubt the 1.7x would exist.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543338 (external link)
However, the Canon 2x is horrible when it comes to autofocus acquisition and speed

To be fair though, your experience is all based on the older version 1 400 2.8, right? And maybe the older 2xII as well? The 2xIII converter paired with one of the Mark II primes is far from horrible. Especially on a 1DX or 1DXII.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryWSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TerryWSmith's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Oregon
Jan 17, 2018 17:54 |  #33

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543338 (external link)
The 1.4x Canon has no noticeable effect on autofocus speed or initial focus acquisition when I use it with good fast glass. . When paired with my 400 f2.8, it works marvelously for birds in flight.

However, the Canon 2x is horrible when it comes to autofocus acquisition and speed, even when used with the same 400 f2.8 lens.

Presumably, a 1.7x extender would provide some middle ground between the "perfect" AF of the 1.4x and the "horrible" AF of he 2x.

.

Exactly why this thread was started.

T.


Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryWSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TerryWSmith's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Oregon
Jan 17, 2018 17:57 |  #34

I have had great success with TCs but it takes technique- the 2X admittedly is harder to get result and much slower when it comes to focus. Hence
the conversation about the 1.7 even a 1.6.
Attached images have exif data attached

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 17, 2018 18:08 |  #35

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543357 (external link)
To be fair though, your experience is all based on the older version 1 400 2.8, right? And maybe the older 2xII as well? The 2xIII converter paired with one of the Mark II primes is far from horrible. Especially on a 1DX or 1DXII.

With the previous IS version (not the current IS mark 2).

With both the Canon v2 and v3 2x extenders - absolutely no difference whatsoever in either optical quality or in AF performance. I believe that the v3 only performs better when paired with the latest v2 supertelephotos.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
ShadowHillsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Schoharie, NY
Jan 17, 2018 18:47 |  #36

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543372 (external link)
With both the Canon v2 and v3 2x extenders - absolutely no difference whatsoever in either optical quality or in AF performance. I believe that the v3 only performs better when paired with the latest v2 supertelephotos.

I disagree regarding the IQ, it's not earth shattering but in my experience the 2xIII produces a better image than the 2xII. You are right though that the AF gains are only realized when paired with the Mark II lenses, but that's kind of my point regarding this entire thread. You and Terry both feel that Canon "need" a 1.7x in their lineup because you find the 2x lacking, the only problem with that is that you aren't actually talking about their current lineup. With a Mark II lens, a 1DXII, and a 2xIII converter, having a 1.7x no longer looks like such a necessity.

Not that I'm going to complain if they introduce one, heck I might even buy one. I just take issue with the idea that it's required because the 2x isn't good enough. That simply isn't the case when looking at the current lineup.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryWSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TerryWSmith's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Oregon
Post has been edited 1 month ago by TerryWSmith.
Jan 17, 2018 19:13 |  #37

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543389 (external link)
I disagree regarding the IQ, it's not earth shattering but in my experience the 2xIII produces a better image than the 2xII. You are right though that the AF gains are only realized when paired with the Mark II lenses, but that's kind of my point regarding this entire thread. You and Terry both feel that Canon "need" a 1.7x in their lineup because you find the 2x lacking, the only problem with that is that you aren't actually talking about their current lineup. With a Mark II lens, a 1DXII, and a 2xIII converter, having a 1.7x no longer looks like such a necessity.

Not that I'm going to complain if they introduce one, heck I might even buy one. I just take issue with the idea that it's required because the 2x isn't good enough. That simply isn't the case when looking at the current lineup.


I think you make a very good point, since I have neither a version 2 lens or a 1DX I cannot weigh in.
You do give me possibly the idea to rent a 2XIII and give it a go. My main intent was using the 1.7X with
my 5DIII and paired with my 500F4 VI ..

T.


Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by Tom Reichner. 4 edits done in total.
Jan 17, 2018 19:14 |  #38

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543389 (external link)
You and Terry both feel that Canon "need" a 1.7x in their lineup because you find the 2x lacking . . .

I just take issue with the idea that it's required because the 2x isn't good enough.

That was not my premise at all. Are you sure that that statement you just made about me takes into account all of the things I have said in this thread, or are you just basing it on my last one or two posts about autofocus performance?

For instance, did you read this earlier post of mine (below), where I extol the image quality that I achieve with the 2x extender?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543130 (external link)
Do you use your tele-extender in the way it was intended to be used, on a big fast expensive supertelephoto prime? . My belief is that most people who have problems with tele-extender image quality are trying to use them on little lenses or even on zooms. . Either that or they are trying to handhold a big lens, when they should be on a real solid tripod with a smooth precision head, and exercise excellent long lens technique.

When I use tele-extneders - even the 2x - the results I get are quite good - magazine covers and two page spreads and big 24 by 36 inch prints that look great with nice sharply resolved detail. . And that's because the optics are actually quite good, especially when used on a proper lens and especially if you stop down by at least 2/3 of a stop.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 17, 2018 19:29 |  #39

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543389 (external link)
I disagree regarding the IQ, it's not earth shattering but in my experience the 2xIII produces a better image than the 2xII.

Have you used the 2x v3 on a version one IS supertelephoto?

When you say that the IQ of the v3 is better than the v2, I think that might only apply when used with the latest versions of the lenses, and does not apply for all of us who are using the older lens versions.

It makes no difference on my 400 f2.8 IS v1, even when viewed at over 100% on my 5k monitor. No difference at all that is perceptible to the human eye.

How it performs with the v2 supertelephotos is completely immaterial to me because I do not use it with those lenses.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 17, 2018 19:31 |  #40

TerryWSmith wrote in post #18543403 (external link)
I think you make a very good point, since I have neither a version 2 lens or a 1DX I cannot weigh in.
You do give me possibly the idea to rent a 2XIII and give it a go. My main intent was using the 1.7X with
my 5DIII and paired with my 500F4 VI ..

T.

Terry -

No need to rent a 2x v3. I'll be glad to loan you mine. Just PM me with your mailing address and I'll send it to you. Keep it for a month or three and give it some good workouts. I'll be fine using my v2 because there is no difference at all when used with my gear.

Rental rates - for everything - are ridiculous.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
ShadowHillsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Schoharie, NY
Jan 17, 2018 20:16 |  #41

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543412 (external link)
Have you used the 2x v3 on a version one IS supertelephoto?

Yes, the 500mm. Of course I only had one copy of the 2xIII and one of the 2XII to try, so I can't rule out copy variation with the limited sample size. Even so, if you do a quick search for reviews of the 2xIII you'll find that I'm far from being the only person that has found the 2XIII to have an edge.




LOG IN TO REPLY
monty28428
Cream of the Crop
monty28428's Avatar
9,960 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Jul 2007
Carolina Beach
Jan 17, 2018 20:24 |  #42

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543414 (external link)
Terry -

No need to rent a 2x v3. I'll be glad to loan you mine. Just PM me with your mailing address and I'll send it to you. Keep it for a month or three and give it some good workouts. I'll be fine using my v2 because there is no difference at all when used with my gear.

Rental rates - for everything - are ridiculous.

.

Very nice of you Tom!!

I vote for a 'Where's the 2x III' list :-) (like where's nifty!).




LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
48,049 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by CyberDyneSystems. 3 edits done in total.
Jan 17, 2018 21:49 |  #43

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543357 (external link)
To be fair though, your experience is all based on the older version 1 400 2.8, right? And maybe the older 2xII as well? The 2xIII converter paired with one of the Mark II primes is far from horrible. Especially on a 1DX or 1DXII.


Tom Reichner wrote in post #18543372 (external link)
With the previous IS version (not the current IS mark 2).

With both the Canon v2 and v3 2x extenders - absolutely no difference whatsoever in either optical quality or in AF performance. I believe that the v3 only performs better when paired with the latest v2 supertelephotos.


Yes, the differences in AF performance are only noticeable with the V2 lenses , BUT to really get the best perfoamnce you also need the AF system found ONLY in the very latest bodies. (1Dx2 and 5D4)
All others, (yes even a 1Dx) you won't get the full benefit of the V2 lens / MarkIII T-con combo. Without the right body, the playing field is so different that we aren't talking about the same game.


ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #18543440 (external link)
Yes, the 500mm. Of course I only had one copy of the 2xIII and one of the 2XII to try, so I can't rule out copy variation with the limited sample size. Even so, if you do a quick search for reviews of the 2xIII you'll find that I'm far from being the only person that has found the 2XIII to have an edge.

My results were less like yours and more like Tom's,. before I had a V2 500mm, I had both versions of the 2X and found them to be near identical when used with the Gen 1 IS 500mm and a less than state of the art body like the 5D3 or 1D4 or 7D2. No AF improvement, no IQ improvement. However, I was always quite happy with my MKII 2X T-con on the 500mm.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
I'm too sexy for my lens
Joined Oct 2010
Jan 18, 2018 00:10 |  #44

A 1.6 or 1.7 extender does interest me.

I photograph air shows using my 300 f2.8 IS II, much of the time with the 1.4xIII or 2xIII.

With the 1.4x the decrease in IQ and AF performance is nearly imperceptible.

With the 2x IQ and AF does take a hit and my keeper rate decreases, but I can still come away with some good shots.

If (and that's a big if) the 1.7x provided better IQ & AF than the 2x, then it may be a benefit for me. I'd have more FL over the 1.4x, yet still retain pretty good IQ & AF.


My flickr albums (external link)
My Best Aviation Photos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
graham121
Senior Member
graham121's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Pakenham, VIC, Aus
Post has been edited 1 month ago by graham121.
Jan 18, 2018 02:17 |  #45

TerryWSmith wrote in post #18543018 (external link)
Very True but I would estimate the bulk of lenses out there in use are 600 and 500 F4, 400 F2.8 and 300 F2.8.

T.

I now see where you are coming from re your target audience for the 1.7x, that being the big white telephotos.

However I have to question them being the bulk of the lenses out there....surely there would be more 400F5.6, 100-400 F5.6 and 1x0-x00 glass out there than Big Whites?


A coupla bodies and a few lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,236 views & 38 likes for this thread
1.7X TC- much needed
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00137 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.09s
Latest registered member is dkiom
922 guests, 477 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017