Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 09 Jan 2019 (Wednesday) 04:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Extender II or III questions

 
guus ­ verheijen
Hatchling
5 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: The Netherlands
     
Jan 09, 2019 04:23 |  #1

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,044 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4748
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 7 days ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Jan 09, 2019 05:31 |  #2

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. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,401 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2178
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 09, 2019 08:00 |  #3

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18787748 (external link)
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


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,529 posts
Likes: 312
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 09, 2019 08:45 |  #4

umphotography wrote in post #18787789 (external link)
^^^^^^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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,236 posts
Likes: 7274
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 10, 2019 04:36 |  #5

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 (external link)

A few other threads.

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

https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1126​403/ (external link)


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,727 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3269
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 12, 2019 13:15 |  #6

guus verheijen wrote in post #18787735 (external link)
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 (external link)
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.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,986 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 369
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 12, 2019 15:01 |  #7

AF speed and accuracy has a massive effect on IQ.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
filam
Senior Member
Avatar
445 posts
Gallery: 260 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3155
Joined Jun 2011
Location: uk
Post edited 4 days ago by filam.
     
Jan 12, 2019 16:04 |  #8

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.


Canon 7Dmk2
Canon 600mm f4L IS USM - Canon 50mm f1.8II
Canon 580 EXII
Gitzo GT5532S Tripod- Wimberly WH-200 mkII
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,236 posts
Likes: 7274
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 12, 2019 16:11 |  #9

Not a noticeable difference between VII and VIII.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,982 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 607
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
Post edited 3 days ago by johnf3f.
     
Jan 12, 2019 17:41 |  #10

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18790159 (external link)
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,


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,529 posts
Likes: 312
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 13, 2019 05:27 |  #11

ed rader wrote in post #18790231 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,529 posts
Likes: 312
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 13, 2019 05:36 |  #12

filam wrote in post #18790273 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,529 posts
Likes: 312
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 13, 2019 05:37 |  #13

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

We're up to seven and eight already? ;-)a




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

386 views & 3 likes for this thread
Extender II or III questions
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?
Register to forums
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 dandare
838 guests, 405 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.