LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Extender 1.4 vs 2 III

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 26 Sep 2012 (Wednesday) 19:09   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Photomaybe
Hatchling
Joined Sep 2012
4 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I actually know there is an answer her somewhere , but I looked for awhile and did not see it apparently.
I have a 5DMKIII with a 70-200 MKII lens and I need more reach and I can not afford a 400mm 2.8 as I do not rob banks nor make that much money.
So I thought about the new teleconverters,but how much am I going to loose in quality.
I spoke to a Canon Techie and he said the 2x III was really good.Then I spoke to another more experienced photographer and he said the 1.4 and crop was better.
So I am confused as they both cost the same ,but I want to be able to sell these photo's of Dressage.
Any help out there please....

Post #1, Sep 26, 2012 19:09:38




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Christina.DazzleByDesign
Goldmember
Christina.DazzleByDesign's Avatar
Joined Mar 2012
1,973 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I don't use a TC, but I did learn a bit about them when I was thinking of getting one. In the end I sold my 70-200 2.8 II and got a 70-300L instead - as it was the perfect range I needed for shooting Dressage, myself! (Yay for equestrian shooters :p) after moving from crop to the 5D3 as well.

From what I've heard, the new 2XIII is a lot better than the 2XII, but its still going to give you a greater loss in IQ and AF speed than a 1.4X would do. The 1.4XIII is good, but I've heard not that much of an upgrade from the 1.4XII

I guess it comes down to what range you want. If you really need 400mm (which is a bit overkill IMO for this sport, unless you aren't the official photographer at these dressage shows and you have to stand far from the ring for whatever reason.) Then the 2XIII is for you. When Im at the shows and not the official photog, I still find that Im able to stand close enough that 300mm covers me plenty.

...and welcome to POTN! :D

Post #2, Sep 26, 2012 20:09:14


5D3 | 7D | 85L II | 70-300L | 24-105L | Nifty Fifty | 600EX-RT_______________
| Facebook | Websiteexternal link | Gear List |Flickrexternal link |

LOG IN TO REPLY
Photomaybe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
Joined Sep 2012
4 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #15047497external link
I don't use a TC, but I did learn a bit about them when I was thinking of getting one. In the end I sold my 70-200 2.8 II and got a 70-300L instead - as it was the perfect range I needed for shooting Dressage, myself! (Yay for equestrian shooters :p) after moving from crop to the 5D3 as well.

From what I've heard, the new 2XIII is a lot better than the 2XII, but its still going to give you a greater loss in IQ and AF speed than a 1.4X would do. The 1.4XIII is good, but I've heard not that much of an upgrade from the 1.4XII

I guess it comes down to what range you want. If you really need 400mm (which is a bit overkill IMO for this sport, unless you aren't the official photographer at these dressage shows and you have to stand far from the ring for whatever reason.) Then the 2XIII is for you. When Im at the shows and not the official photog, I still find that Im able to stand close enough that 300mm covers me plenty.

...and welcome to POTN! :D

Thank you so much,I really love horses and the opportunity came for me to be part of some big shows.I really appreciate your comment.I agree 300mm was plenty when I shot before in the old days....

Post #3, Sep 26, 2012 20:20:17




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Tapeman's Avatar
Joined Jan 2004
3,281 posts
Twin Cities
[MORE/SHARE]

If you want to get to 400 mm, how mant choices do you have? I used my 70-200 2.8L IS I with both MKII converters and was happy with the results. I now have better ways to get to 400 mm. Converters are a great value.

Post #4, Sep 26, 2012 20:41:32


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII,
2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2. Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perfectly ­ Frank
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2010
1,925 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

This guy's using the 2xIII and getting good results...

http://forums.dpreview​.com ...rum=1029&message=42​530075external link

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and used it with the Kenko 2x. But the IQ took to much of a hit, so I ebayed the Kenko. But I'd expect the Canon 2xIII to be much better.

Perhaps rent before buying?

Post #5, Sep 27, 2012 00:46:47 as a reply to Tapeman's post 4 hours earlier.


flickrexternal link
smugmugexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
Joined Aug 2007
10,050 posts
San Jose, California
[MORE/SHARE]

If at all possible, get the 300/4 IS...

Then, since you are using a full frame camera you might also want to get the 1.4X (either the Mark II or Mark III, doesn't matter) to use with it.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/7350494210_2cc2144636_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5309/5662609416_c9fb9a40ed_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5229/5662046795_45f76265dc_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6020/6011191895_66abff4a52_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8029/8004826620_328dc96ee6_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/8004825444_7243cc2478_z.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8320/8004821099_88c3d54e3e_z.jpg

I will use either my 70-200/2.8 IS Mk I or the 300/4 IS with 1.4X (II)... but I don't use either with 2X. I only use that on 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS. Too much IQ loss on the 70-200. Though I understand the 70-200/2.8 IS II with the 2X III is better... some people will use it... others won't

Check for some examples and maybe some discussion of the combo on the Lens Photo Sample Archive subforum.

Post #6, Sep 27, 2012 01:25:55


Alan Myers
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3) & other cameras, various lenses/access. - FLICKRexternal link - PRINTROOMexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
xhack
Goldmember
xhack's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
1,281 posts
Edinburgh, Lothian
[MORE/SHARE]

I had the x2 MkII on extended loan for a couple of race meetings and was not impressed. It was barely acceptable on the 200 2.8 with huge edge softness; it was frankly rubbish in partnership with the 70-200 2.8 IS. My x1.4 MkII was quite acceptable on both lenses.

I did an unusual thing last month when I bought the x2 MkIII purely on the basis of reviews here and elsewhere. I am not disappointed; it easily matches the IQ of the x1.4 on both lenses. All extenders are going to give an IQ hit to some extent - this version is the least bad I've tried.

Post #7, Sep 27, 2012 01:37:25


~ Wallace
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Eyal
Senior Member
Joined May 2011
559 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

There was a question about exactly this not so long here.
You can check it here.

The bottom line is that the 70-200 with a 2x will be F/5.6, and it will be much worst if you compare it to the 400mm F/5.6 which is pretty cheap (at least compared to the 400 F/2.8 you compared earlier).
There is also the 300 F/4, and with a 1.4x you get mpore than 400mm, and still better than the 70-200 with a 2x.

The main problem of the 2x, at least with moving targests, is the AF speed. Its very slow. And yes, there is an IQ loss (makes everything soft unless you go down to F/8). Using the 1.4x is much better: faster AF and better IQ.

Myself, currently I'm using a friend's 300mm F/4 IS with his 1.4x II extender (I'm trying to convince him to sell them to me), and it is so much faster than my 70-200 with the 2x III. I get a 420mm effective reach at F/5.6 on the 5D3, and my 70-200 stays on the 1D4 (so I get 91-260 + 430 reach or 70-200+390/546 if I switch).

Post #8, Sep 27, 2012 02:55:34


5DMarkIII+Grip | Extender 1.4x III / 2x III
16-35mm F/2.8L II | 24-70mm F/2.8L II | 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II
Σ 50mm F/1.4 | 85mm F/1.2L II | 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro | 135mm F/2L | 300mm F/2.8L IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
yourdoinitwrong
Goldmember
yourdoinitwrong's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
2,394 posts
Indiana
[MORE/SHARE]

There are several examples on this forum of people getting good results with the 1.4x III, unfortunately I was not one of them. I recently purchased the 1.4 for use with my 70-200 and was very disappointed with the outcome. The shot were very, very soft and I could achieve sharper results by cropping shots taken without the extender. It may have been a problem with the one I bought but I decided I will go a different route to get more reach. The 2x will have even more of an IQ hit. Maybe I'm too picky but extenders don't deliver what I need.

It was not my favorite lens because of the variable aperture and push-pull zoom but it looks like I will be getting another 100-400. The 70-300L is also tempting but doesn't come with a tripod collar and I prefer using a monopod for sports. The 300 f/4 prime is a great lens but for my needs I like the versatility of a zoom.

Post #9, Sep 27, 2012 10:24:28 as a reply to Eyal's post 7 hours earlier.


7D2 w/ BG-E16, 7D w/ BG-E7, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.8
Full List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2010
1,417 posts
CA
[MORE/SHARE]

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #15049710external link
There are several examples on this forum of people getting good results with the 1.4x III, unfortunately I was not one of them. I recently purchased the 1.4 for use with my 70-200 and was very disappointed with the outcome. The shot were very, very soft and I could achieve sharper results by cropping shots taken without the extender. It may have been a problem with the one I bought but I decided I will go a different route to get more reach. The 2x will have even more of an IQ hit. Maybe I'm too picky but extenders don't deliver what I need.

It was not my favorite lens because of the variable aperture and push-pull zoom but it looks like I will be getting another 100-400. The 70-300L is also tempting but doesn't come with a tripod collar and I prefer using a monopod for sports. The 300 f/4 prime is a great lens but for my needs I like the versatility of a zoom.

I have 1.4 MKII and 2x MKIII, both required some significant MFA tinkering on 7D and 5DMKIII. After adjustment it's all great.
Give it a try if you still have it.

Post #10, Sep 28, 2012 15:59:21




LOG IN TO REPLY
Data_Android
Member
Data_Android's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
86 posts
Florida USA
[MORE/SHARE]

I use a Kenko 1.4x on my 70-200 f/4 is, when I need the extra reach and I'm very pleased with the results.

A couple of shots: http://photography-on-the.net .../showthread.php?t=1​090071

Post #11, Sep 28, 2012 20:21:46 as a reply to Andrew_WOT's post 4 hours earlier.


For sale
Nothing at this time

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Rendil
Senior Member
Rendil's Avatar
Joined May 2012
111 posts
Stockton
[MORE/SHARE]

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253external link
I actually know there is an answer her somewhere , but I looked for awhile and did not see it apparently.
I have a 5DMKIII with a 70-200 MKII lens and I need more reach and I can not afford a 400mm 2.8 as I do not rob banks nor make that much money.
So I thought about the new teleconverters,but how much am I going to loose in quality.
I spoke to a Canon Techie and he said the 2x III was really good.Then I spoke to another more experienced photographer and he said the 1.4 and crop was better.
So I am confused as they both cost the same ,but I want to be able to sell these photo's of Dressage.
Any help out there please....

Unless your a real pixel peeper you should be fine, I read that the only real big difference between the 2x mk ii and mk iii was color casting. Sometimes the mk ii can give you hints of greens or blues where the mk iii is better at avoiding this (just what i read).

Here's uncropped/unedited image with t3i 70-200 mk ii + 2x TC mk ii

IMAGE: http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz51/Rendil420/394517_329859793776154_402529197_n.jpg?t=1348910854

Post #12, Sep 29, 2012 04:32:20


Gear List//Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
hollis_f's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
10,420 posts
Sussex, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253external link
I have a 5DMKIII with a 70-200 MKII lens and I need more reach and I can not afford a 400mm 2.8

But your combination of a 70-200 + 1.4xTC isn't 400 f2.8 - it's 400 f5.6 which is a lot cheaper.

Post #13, Sep 29, 2012 05:54:22


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Websiteexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Photomaybe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
Joined Sep 2012
4 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118external link
But your combination of a 70-200 + 1.4xTC isn't 400 f2.8 - it's 400 f5.6 which is a lot cheaper.

I realize that and am considering,but I do like the zoom ability as I am a one camera person at the moment.

THANKS.

Post #14, Sep 29, 2012 12:22:32




LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2010
1,417 posts
CA
[MORE/SHARE]

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118external link
But your combination of a 70-200 + 1.4xTC isn't 400 f2.8 - it's 400 f5.6 which is a lot cheaper.

I am sure you meant 2x TC with 1.4x that that would be 280mm F4.

Post #15, Sep 29, 2012 14:35:28




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
3,032 views & 0 likes for this thread
Extender 1.4 vs 2 III
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00095 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
785 guests, 594 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Nicole.johnson

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.