Canon TC 1.4x, is there a difference?

Just wanted to know, is there difference between the original and the MKII? What is it and how much is it if there is. I want to get one this week.........

Cheers

Some say the only difference is the weather-seal. Some say the glass has been improved. I'd get the II and be done with it.

As RFM stated Mk II is weather sealed Mk I is not. The Mk I 1.4 & 2X cannot be stacked, the Mk IIs can (I don't think that is a huge consideration to most). I have a 300 2.8 non IS lens so I picked up a 1.4 Mk I & 2X Mk I for the lens. My reasons were that these TCs were designed for this lens. Maybe you should consider the lens and purchase the appropriate series of TC for your lens.
Cheers,
Rob

What is the appropriate 1.4x for the 700-200 f/2.8? my next and probably final lens will be either the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 300 f/4L IS or the 400 f/5.6L.

Is your 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or non-IS

Only the IS version is weather sealed,. again,. this is the only difference in the T-cons. So if you want a T-con that will mainitain the weather seal on a weather sealed lens.. then the MkII would be the appropriate choice.

Otherwise it's not much of an issue.

I believe the Mk I series was produced when non IS lenses were around. The Mk II was manufactured concurrent with the "IS" lenses. Both will work on any lens. Views differ as to the sharpness of each series.......big surprise there.
Cheers,
Rob

CDS, no IS.

I think will just get the MKII and stay safe. That way I know it will work with any future lenses as well...
I also read AF won't work on the 100-400, is this true?

Thanks

1.4 TC and the 100-400 = NO AF on a 20D

Actually PR has a 1D MkII and a 10D so;

100-400mm + 1.4X TC + 1D MkII = YES AF!

100-400mm + 1.4X TC + 10D = NO AF

Check the T-con thread in the EOS Sticky for all your AF Vs. No AF questions

There is a compatibility chart for these TC's. Each is different and allows complete compatibility with some lenses and limits it with others. I checked it on the B&H Photo site.

Chances are I will buy a 300 prime, but was just wondering.
I like the 100-400, but hear the image of the prime is far superior, and is also cheaper. Mind you I don't plan on using the 10D with any of my long lenses because it for motorsports and why would I use the 10D if I have a 1D?

Thanks guys

We've got a better chart right here
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=41922

Ya ours is better, I was a little confued with the one at B&H because it doesnt give you all the information.

I almost forgot to ask. Is there a significant difference between the Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or whoever else makes a 1.4 tc? Is there one that is as good or almost the same as the Canon? any sites that compare these?

I'm on a tight budget ATM, so I want to consider all my options.

Wrong. The image quality of the 400 primes can be better, but not always. And it is definitely not FAR superior. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison.

The main difference between the 100-400 and the primes is the the AF is faster. I have the less expensive 400 f5.6 in addition to the 100-400. The AF is faster and more sensitive than the 100-400, especially in low-light OR low-contrast situations. That is a weak point on the 100-400 and sometimes it'll AF-hunt, but in spite of it's weaknesses, you'd have to pry the 100-400 from my cold, dead hands to get it away from me.