Which 1.4x TC to pair with the 100-400 MkII

I'm looking into, hopefully, upgrading to the 100-400 MkII sometime this year and am expecting to add a 1.4 to it since the 7DII now supports F/8 AF. I know that the long-standing advice for 1.4x was to go with the Kenko over the Canon part, but I'm curious if that wisdom still holds true with the introduction of the MkIII versions of Canon's TCs.

What say you all?

Thanks,
-E

I'd go with the Canon 1.4X III.
The Kenko has served me well with other lenses, but I hear the Canon 1.4X III and the 100-400mkII are a match made in heaven.

I had the 1.4x II before I bought the 100-400 II. I bought the 100-400 II and the 1.4x III at the same time but for the life of me I couldn't tell the difference between the 1.4x II and the 1.4x III. I ended up exchanging the 1.4x III for some other gear I wanted.

Hey Eric,
It's so obvious, get Canon 1.4 TC III. Don't slap your 1800 bucks lens with cheapo TC and not getting the maximum result. I've been using this combo for BIF and very happy with the results.

Like I said in the other thread, when you buy $$$ Armani suit, you don't buy the shoes from Payless store. Yes it will work, but c'mon hehehe.

Besides, you can get the used or refurb one for 300 or less.

Feel free to correct me, but I thought I read somewhere that optically, the II and III were identical. The difference was something, perhaps in the electronics, that was useful only for the Canon super-teles.
j-p

From the-Digital-Picture.com review: Link

"The image quality differences most easily noticed between the 1.4x II and the 1.4x III are:

The 1.4x III has less barrel distortion than the 1.4x II. This makes the center-of-the-frame details slightly smaller in a comparison. This difference will be most noticeable in the top crop shown in the ISO 12233 chart tool.

Anomalous dispersion glass elements are used in the Series III extenders to reduce chromatic aberration and increase resolution and contrast. The CA difference between the II and III is quite noticeable – pay close attention to this difference in the bottom ISO 12233 crops.

Less noticeable are the resolution and contrast differences, but some comparison examples do show improvements.

The Series III extender includes some durability improvements.

The lens mount pin and lens mount stopper pin are improved for higher endurance and there are now 7 (instead of 4) screws holding the rear lens mount to the body. "

Supposedly better AF on Super-Telephotos as well.

I own both and the differences are minimal.
Performance on the MKII lenses is touted to be better.
The advantages of the MKIII may become more noticeable on newer (future) lenses as well.
I would bite the bullet and spring for Canon's latest version.

Thank you, All! That is basically what I was suspecting, but wanted to confirm; it'll be a little bit before the trigger gets pulled and hopefully I can catch a refurb deal when the time comes.

alliben wrote in post #17881841
Feel free to correct me, but I thought I read somewhere that optically, the II and III were identical. The difference was something, perhaps in the electronics, that was useful only for the Canon super-teles.
j-p

I had to see where that thought came from. Here's something from another forum,

"I emailed Chuck Westfall with this very question last January. Here is his reply:

As of now, I have not had the time to compare the image quality of the new 100-400 version II with 1.4X III vs. 1.4X II. However, our information from Canon Inc. in Japan does not indicate any special optical advantage for either version of the EF Extenders when used with EF zoom lenses. In fact, the only instance in which the Type III Extenders are stated to be a better optical match than earlier models occurs when the Type III Extenders are used with the IS II prime lenses from 300mm to 600mm. Based on that, plus my personal experience with the EF 1.4X II and III on other EF zoom lenses such as the 70-200/2.8L IS II, I wouldn't expect any significant difference in image quality for either of those extenders when used with the new EF 100-400mm IS II lens.

If you hear anything different, please let me know.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Advisor, Technical Information
ITCG Prof Bus Strategy Plan Division

I ended up trading my 1.4x2 for the 1.4x3 using the proceeds from used lens sales. Can't say I see any real difference on the 100-400II, just taking Brian's TDP 70-200 II comparison as gospel. He also compared the two extenders on the 100-400 v1 without any discernible difference. I think the lens, sensor density, and shooting circumstances have to be perfect to detect a difference. Tough call as to whether its worth it.

I think it would be wonderful if someone did a side by side with the two extenders and posted the results."

I have the Canon 1.4x III and think it gets great IQ. However, the TC slows down the AF, so that doing BIF with the TC on the 100-400 II is difficult. In fact I have given up trying. The 7D2 has great cropability, so as an alternative to the TC, consider cropping.

I tried to do some tests some time back to compare the TC with cropping, but the results were indeterminate. What they seemed to show was that if you are hand-holding your rig, then there is no significant difference. I thought about repeating the tests on a tripod. But I hardly ever use a tripod - so the results would not be that useful to me in practice.

Archibald wrote in post #17882189
I have the Canon 1.4x III and think it gets great IQ. However, the TC slows down the AF, so that doing BIF with the TC on the 100-400 II is difficult. In fact I have given up trying. The 7D2 has great cropability, so as an alternative to the TC, consider cropping.

I tried to do some tests some time back to compare the TC with cropping, but the results were indeterminate. What they seemed to show was that if you are hand-holding your rig, then there is no significant difference. I thought about repeating the tests on a tripod. But I hardly ever use a tripod - so the results would not be that useful to me in practice.

Yeah, I don't shoot from tripod either, so that's not a real solution for me, either (but I don't do a ton of BIF anyway). My presumption is that given the AF speed of the newer model, the hit from using the TC will be minimal enough to keep it on par with the current lens.

LV Moose wrote in post #17881853
From the-Digital-Picture.com review: Link

"The image quality differences most easily noticed between the 1.4x II and the 1.4x III are:

The 1.4x III has less barrel distortion than the 1.4x II. This makes the center-of-the-frame details slightly smaller in a comparison. This difference will be most noticeable in the top crop shown in the ISO 12233 chart tool.

Anomalous dispersion glass elements are used in the Series III extenders to reduce chromatic aberration and increase resolution and contrast. The CA difference between the II and III is quite noticeable – pay close attention to this difference in the bottom ISO 12233 crops.

Less noticeable are the resolution and contrast differences, but some comparison examples do show improvements.

The Series III extender includes some durability improvements.

The lens mount pin and lens mount stopper pin are improved for higher endurance and there are now 7 (instead of 4) screws holding the rear lens mount to the body. "

Supposedly better AF on Super-Telephotos as well.

I noticed CA on my 1.4 II and I then I found that article that confirmed it wen I was researching the 1.4 III. I bought it and sold my 1.4 II and 2X II.

Archibald wrote in post #17882189
I have the Canon 1.4x III and think it gets great IQ. However, the TC slows down the AF, so that doing BIF with the TC on the 100-400 II is difficult. In fact I have given up trying. The 7D2 has great cropability, so as an alternative to the TC, consider cropping.

I tried to do some tests some time back to compare the TC with cropping, but the results were indeterminate. What they seemed to show was that if you are hand-holding your rig, then there is no significant difference. I thought about repeating the tests on a tripod. But I hardly ever use a tripod - so the results would not be that useful to me in practice.

Same lens and I have tried it successfully for BIF but never use it for that. I lose too many fun focusing options. Here it is on my 1.4 III which I had to MFA to +14 for whatever reason. It is +3 at 400 without the TC.

Snydremark wrote in post #17882233
Yeah, I don't shoot from tripod either, so that's not a real solution for me, either (but I don't do a ton of BIF anyway). My presumption is that given the AF speed of the newer model, the hit from using the TC will be minimal enough to keep it on par with the current lens.

I would use it more on tripod if I had a gamble head and the conditions were right. One day I'll invest in the head but not until I go 500mm or more with a prime.

I tried a Used Canon 1.4ll from Adorama, & though it worked quite well, I returned it due to cosmetic 'mars", & bought a 1.4lll.

I think they both work equally well, though the lll has a better build quality, and I can certainly attest to it's Image quality with this lens.

The only other consideration with the Canon's, is if in the future you get one of the primes that communicate with the TC, you'll need the 1.4lll

Leigh