100-400 ii and 1.4x, difference between ii and iii?

Hi folks,

Canon extender 1.4x version ii is 2/3 (used) or 1/2 (new) of version iii. Based on direct experience, is it worth going for the mark iii ? Which are the (noticeable) differences?

The extender is for a 100-400 mark ii.

Thanks
Francesco

Version II is sharper in the middle. Version III is sharper out from the middle.

Version III is meant to work with version II lenses. It provides two things that I know of. First is faster focusing. Second is more/better access to f/8 AF points on camera that have f/8 AF points.

Autofocus is available on all points with the version III, not so with the VII using that lens and the 5DIV.
I don't think it makes a difference with the 5DsR.

Tapeman wrote in post #18304159
Autofocus is available on all points with the version III, not so with the VII using that lens and the 5DIV.

Version 7 ?

My guess is version II, as in v II, V II, VII. If there is a 7, I missed 4, 5, & 6, too.

fplstudio wrote in post #18303996
Hi folks,

Canon extender 1.4x version ii is 2/3 (used) or 1/2 (new) of version iii. Based on direct experience, is it worth going for the mark iii ? Which are the (noticeable) differences?

The extender is for a 100-400 mark ii.

Thanks
Francesco

I own the version ii 1.4 extender and I'm generally satisfied with the results I'm obtaining. Here is a review from the digital picture site of the version iii which offers a brief description of the differences between the ii and iii which (I think) is helpful. I have no need to "upgrade" but if I didn't own one I would probably buy the version iii if I had to choose between the two.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …r-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

My feeling with the 5D3 was there was little to no difference. It wasn't until I had a fully up to date AF system (5D4 or 1Dx2) that the MkIII T-Cons appeared to make any difference.
As far as i know, the 5Ds is the same AF as 5D3.

I have used both 1.4II and 1.4III with the 100-400 II on 1D4 and 7D2. I see no difference in performance or results.

Considering the 80D offers more AF points at f8 with the TCIII combined with the 100-400 II and you are enquiring about using it on that lens it would seem like the TCIII would be worthwhile. You may not get an advantage now but most people who buy that lens keep it so any future body you buy will probably have extra AF points available.

Choderboy wrote in post #18304767
I have used both 1.4II and 1.4III with the 100-400 II on 1D4 and 7D2. I see no difference in performance or results.

Considering the 80D offers more AF points at f8 with the TCIII combined with the 100-400 II and you are enquiring about using it on that lens it would seem like the TCIII would be worthwhile. You may not get an advantage now but most people who buy that lens keep it so any future body you buy will probably have extra AF points available.

It would really make my day if the camera that replaces my 7D2 had good f/8 AF at all points (and f/11 center-point as a bonus). I can compare the 7D2 to the D500 and be jealous of the high-ISO noise, but I think the main thing I lament about the 7D2 is the poor f/8 AF ability; useless for BIFs, and prone to hunt in one-shot center-point when lighting or contrast are low, or the scene around the AF point has multiple depths, as in trees and bushes.

It is depressing using lenses that are optically worthy of tele-conversion, but the AF ability is lost or drops off precipitously with the TC(s).

80D/100-400Lc/1.4x II. 1 f/8 AF point. Totally useless on anything moving. Canon could not improve f/8 AF between the 2009 1DIV and the 2016 80D? Horse-hockey. Thanks Sherman.

Bassat wrote in post #18304974
80D/100-400Lc/1.4x II. 1 f/8 AF point. Totally useless on anything moving. Canon could not improve f/8 AF between the 2009 1DIV and the 2016 80D? Horse-hockey. Thanks Sherman.

I think it needs to be all new parts for the effect. As mentioned, 80D w/ 100-400mm V2 w/ 14.x MkIII = f/8 AF on all points. I can see how it would be difficult for a 2016 AF system to retroactively force a lens with a 1998 AF system to do things it was never intended to.

As for 7D2, it is just a matter of it's being just a little too old. The only Bodies that can do this thus far are 1Dx2, 5D4, and 80D. Sad, as the 7D2 is positioned as the APS-C AF leader, and certainly held that crown for some time, but everything evolves.
For me, the AF improvement in the 5D4 is the reason why it has totally bumped the 7D2 out of the line-up for birding. That AF improvement totally trumps any "pixels on target" advantage IMHO.

I think sample pictures help. The first is my neighbors house at 50 mm ("normal" size), the second was shot with my 7D ii and the 100-400 with the 1.4x version ii and the third is a crop. The AF questions notwithstanding, i'm happy with the results and see no reason to upgrade to the 1.4 version iii. Of course if there a 5D IV in my future i might change my mind

Heres the crop--I'll have to learn how to post more than two images in a single post

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18305257
That AF improvement totally trumps any "pixels on target" advantage IMHO.

... but if you are willing to give up pixels-on-target, you can just not use the TC, or use 1.4x instead of 2x, etc) on the 7D2. In order for the 5D4 to be superior to the 7D2 for AF, it has to outperform the 7D2 with an extra 1.4x TC. Being "better at f/8" isn't good enough. Being better at f/8 than the 7D2 is at f/5.6 is what is necessary, IMO.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18305507
... but if you are willing to give up pixels-on-target, you can just not use the TC, or use 1.4x instead of 2x, etc) on the 7D2. In order for the 5D4 to be superior to the 7D2 for AF, it has to outperform the 7D2 with an extra 1.4x TC. Being "better at f/8" isn't good enough. Being better at f/8 than the 7D2 is at f/5.6 is what is necessary, IMO.

No, it doesn't,. but that's a matter of opinion.

The reason I shot the 1D series exclusively for 10 plus years over any 1.6x with higher pixel density holds true with the 5D4 as well,.. better AF and better IQ trumps pixel density.

This of course is my opinion, but it is what I believe and that's how I've been doing it since the EOS 1D.