Extender II or III questions

I am quite fond of using the TC 1.4X and TC 2X (both version II} with my EF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM (NOT version II) for Wildlife Photography. I am told that I should see a noticeable IQ improvement with especially the TC 2X III. Anybody made the comparison?

Recently an EF 100-400mm L IS USM arrived in the family, which I tried with the TC 1.4X II with rather promising results. This triggered the following questions:
Has anybody made a direct comparison of the performance (IQ, AF…) of the EF 100-400mm L IS USM II with the TC 1.4X II and TC 1.4X III ? Is there a genuine benefit in purchasing version III?
For completeness: The Cameras involved are the 7D and 7D MKII.
I appreciate your inputs,

Thanks in advance

Yes and the consensus was that there was very little difference in IQ on the 1.4, the difference was more about AF speed with some lenses.

The 2x was different, the mk III provides a noticeable IQ difference as well as AF speed.

This is all contingent on my memory being correct on past discussions though.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18787748
Yes and the consensus was that there was very little difference in IQ on the 1.4, the difference was more about AF speed with some lenses.

The 2x was different, the mk III provides a noticeable IQ difference as well as AF speed.

This is all contingent on my memory being correct on past discussions though.

^^^^^^This^^^^^^
I use a 1.4II and no difference s tat I can see

I have a sigma 2.0 that seams to do as good a job as the 2.0 III from a couple of posts that I have seen. But I rarely ever use the 2.0. I see enough of image breakdown when I crop in that I just dont use it

umphotography wrote in post #18787789
^^^^^^This^^^^^^
I use a 1.4II and no difference s tat I can see

I have a sigma 2.0 that seams to do as good a job as the 2.0 III from a couple of posts that I have seen. But I rarely ever use the 2.0. I see enough of image breakdown when I crop in that I just dont use it

Let me ask something here.

Do you step back twice as far from the subject when you put a 2x on, when you'd rather be at the original perspective?

Otherwise, I can't make any sense out of your statement. From the same perspective, the shot with the 2x needs to be cropped half as much, as without it. A 2x shot downsized to 50% has so much more color resolution and so little potential for color moire. A 2x shot also overrides the problem when you try to crop from JPEGs, where fine details are often scrubbed by noise reduction. 2-pixel-wide details make it through the NR much better than 1-pixel-wide ones. The only major negative to me about a quality TC as opposed to harder cropping is possible loss of AF speed, accuracy, or function. If you have a dirty sensor, then I guess a TC can also make the dirt shadows deeper, even if smaller in overall size relative to the subject size).

TC also makes the effect of an AA filter smaller on the subject, without increasing alaising, but actually decreasing aliasing.

I found less CA with version III. Also with newer lenses like your 100-400 II will benefit with faster AF speeds.

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

A few other threads.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1130578

https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1126​403/

guus verheijen wrote in post #18787735
I am quite fond of using the TC 1.4X and TC 2X (both version II} I am told that I should see a noticeable IQ improvement with especially the TC 2X III.

Whoever told you that is full of it. . The differences between the v2 and v3 tele-extenders are only realized with the v2 and v3 lenses.

There have been a ton of online sources that have all said this from the very start of the v3 extenders. . Whoever told you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and shouldn't be listened to or paid any attention to. . I hate it when unknowledgeable buffoons lead others astray.
.

guus verheijen wrote in post #18787735
I am quite fond of using the TC 1.4X and TC 2X (both version II} with my EF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM (NOT version II) for Wildlife Photography. I am told that I should see a noticeable IQ improvement with especially the TC 2X III. Anybody made the comparison?

Yeah, I have the same lens as you.

I have shot my 400 f2.8 IS version 1 with both the 2xv2 and the 2xv3. . No difference at all. I only bought the v3 because it was a really good deal and I could resell it for a profit.


.

AF speed and accuracy has a massive effect on IQ.

I replaced my 1.4x v2 with the v3 and did notice an improvement in CA and image quality straight away. I'm using it on my 600 f4 is mk1 it's hard to tell I have it on its so much better and worth upgrading. If you don't you will always be thinking about it.

Not a noticeable difference between VII and VIII.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18790159
Whoever told you that is full of it. . The differences between the v2 and v3 tele-extenders are only realized with the v2 and v3 lenses.

There have been a ton of online sources that have all said this from the very start of the v3 extenders. . Whoever told you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and shouldn't be listened to or paid any attention to. . I hate it when unknowledgeable buffoons lead others astray.
.

Yeah, I have the same lens as you.

I have shot my 400 f2.8 IS version 1 with both the 2xv2 and the 2xv3. . No difference at all. I only bought the v3 because it was a really good deal and I could resell it for a profit.

.

Tom please correct me if I have read your post wrong, but are you saying that there is no difference (AF/IQ) between the Mk2 and Mk3 Canon 2 x extenders on Mk1 lenses?

The reason I ask is that this markedly goes against my (and a couple of others) experiences. Note none of the lenses (300 F2.8 L IS, 300 F4 L IS, 600 F4 L IS, 500 F4 L IS, 800 F5.6 L IS - manual focus, 400 F2.8 L IS etc etc) were Mk2 variants and none of the cameras (according to Canon) were capable of benefiting from the enhanced AF performance of the 2 x Mk3 extender. Yet, in all cases, the Mk2 extenders were sold ASAP due to the IQ and (slight but significant) AF improvements of the Mk3.
Naturally on the latest cameras and lenses the Mk3 extenders are even better - but even on the older stuff the 2 x Mk3 extender is MUCH better than the Mk2 in my, and a few others, experience.

With the 1.4 it is somewhat different as the Mk2 is better in the centre of the image, though with new gear, the Mk3 is better overall,

ed rader wrote in post #18790231
AF speed and accuracy has a massive effect on IQ.

I see no reason to mix maximum possible IQ and AF success. Does a system with a razor-sharp manual focus lens have no IQ?

It pains me to see how much of people's reporting of their disappointing experience of TCs does not isolate AF from optics.

Even if AF and optics are separated, many people still don't seem aware of the difference between a TC exposing the main lens' weakness and showing more diffraction at the pixel level, vs added aberrations from the TC. The former is a good thing, really, whether people immediately realize it or not, with their pixel-level standards. The latter actually subtracts a little bit from the TC use, but for some purposes, more pixels-on-subject is useful, even if some small amount of global or micro contrast is lost.

filam wrote in post #18790273
I replaced my 1.4x v2 with the v3 and did notice an improvement in CA and image quality straight away. I'm using it on my 600 f4 is mk1 it's hard to tell I have it on its so much better and worth upgrading. If you don't you will always be thinking about it.

This is not commonly reported, as I remember, so perhaps there was something wrong with your 1.4xII? Sometimes TC front elements start to unscrew and loosen, or maybe it passed QC inspection the afternoon of a retirement party at the factory.

digital paradise wrote in post #18790285
Not a noticeable difference between VII and VIII.

We're up to seven and eight already?