Extender 1.4 vs 2 III

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....

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) 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!

Christina.DazzleByDesi​gn wrote in post #15047497
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) 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!

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....

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #15049710
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.

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: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1090071

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253
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

Photomaybe wrote in post #15047253
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.

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118
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.

hollis_f wrote in post #15057118
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.