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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Sep 2012 (Wednesday) 19:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Extender 1.4 vs 2 III

 
Photomaybe
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 26, 2012 19:09 |  #1

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....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Christina.DazzleByDesign
Goldmember
Avatar
1,973 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2012
     
Sep 26, 2012 20:09 |  #2

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


5D3 | 7D | 85L II | 70-300L | 24-105L | Nifty Fifty | 600EX-RT_______________
| Facebook (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear List |Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photomaybe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 26, 2012 20:20 |  #3

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #15047497 (external 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....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,713 posts
Likes: 117
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Sep 26, 2012 20:41 |  #4

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.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 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
I'm too sexy for my lens
3,623 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1069
Joined Oct 2010
     
Sep 27, 2012 00:46 as a reply to  @ Tapeman's post |  #5

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

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=42530075 (external 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?


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,242 posts
Likes: 72
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 27, 2012 01:25 |  #6

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.

Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - EXPOSUREMANAGER (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xhack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,283 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Lothian
     
Sep 27, 2012 01:37 |  #7

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.


~ Wallace
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eyal
Senior Member
569 posts
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 27, 2012 02:55 |  #8

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).


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
Avatar
2,394 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 27, 2012 10:24 as a reply to  @ Eyal's post |  #9

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.


5D4 w/BG-E20, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, Sigma 50 f/1.4
Full List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
1,418 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: CA
     
Sep 28, 2012 15:59 |  #10

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #15049710 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Data_Android
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Florida USA
     
Sep 28, 2012 20:21 as a reply to  @ Andrew_WOT's post |  #11

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=1090071


For sale
Nothing at this time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rendil
Member
Avatar
111 posts
Joined May 2012
Location: Stockton
     
Sep 29, 2012 04:32 |  #12

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253 (external 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

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i813.photobucke​t.com …529197_n.jpg?t=​1348910854 (external link)

Gear List//Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Sep 29, 2012 05:54 |  #13

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253 (external 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.


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 Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photomaybe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 29, 2012 12:22 |  #14

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118 (external 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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
1,418 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: CA
     
Sep 29, 2012 14:35 |  #15

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118 (external 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.




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

6,120 views & 0 likes for this thread
Extender 1.4 vs 2 III
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 4bosing
729 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.