Canon extender comparison
- Thread starter jon ryan
- Start date
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I did a review of the 2xTC III here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=421246
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=421246
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
I've a 1.4TC III and have been very pleased with it.
I looked at the mkII and III and was very undecided for quite a while. I was looking at new for both of them so the difference in price was around £100-120 (I think) and I decided for that bit extra, it was worth getting the most up to date TC, which was supposed to work better with some of the brand new lenses that were out - and the wife agreed so who am I to argue
I looked at the mkII and III and was very undecided for quite a while. I was looking at new for both of them so the difference in price was around £100-120 (I think) and I decided for that bit extra, it was worth getting the most up to date TC, which was supposed to work better with some of the brand new lenses that were out - and the wife agreed so who am I to argue
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, I've never used the Canon MKII, but I understand the MKIII is an improvement to the MKII (from what I've read)
I've used the MKIII for cricket (on a 300mm F2.8) and it's great, mainly because most of the shots I want I can focus on the wicket, i.e. I'm not chasing fast moving subjects, because you do take a hit in focus speed/focus lock regardless of which version you use.
I was pleasantly surprised on how good the IQ was across the apertures, particularly at f5.6
£400 is a lot for what it is, you can probably get it a bit cheaper shopping around or second hand.
I think the MKII would probably be your best bet, if it's not coming out of your bag that often.
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
If it's of any help Jon, picking up on what Les said, I have used my 1.4 on my 300F4 and was chasing Superbkes and 125cc @ Oulton Park and had no problems at all...
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll second that, with a 1.4TC you take far less of a hit in focus tracking/lock than with a 2.0TC. You do take a hit (compared to no TC), but it's only slight.
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unless you got a 300 F2.8L
Nah. Why be cheap about it? 600 4 would do the trick, as long as I can afford the wheelbarrow to cart it around.
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Your gonna feel a lot of pain if you want to get a 2x converter on any zoom lens
ok for static subjects
on a dull day with anything moving you will be very disappointed
works pretty well on fast primes but zoom lenses it just does not do it
ok for static subjects
on a dull day with anything moving you will be very disappointed
works pretty well on fast primes but zoom lenses it just does not do it
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Predominantly static shots Jon. A 2x converter will reduce the AF speed to 25% of normal whilst a 1.4x is 50% of normal. The MKIII's will be slightly quicker on the MKII telephotos. Of course, 50% or 25% of a very snappy lens will still be snappy.
Most servo AF is following a subject and ultimate AF speed is unlikely to be an issue and it's only when you spot and grab that increased AF speed is important.
Bob
Most servo AF is following a subject and ultimate AF speed is unlikely to be an issue and it's only when you spot and grab that increased AF speed is important.
Bob
- Messages
- 11,618
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have had the 2x Mk II and now have the 2x Mk III. There is a huge difference between the two with the Mk III being much better. It's very good on the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and works extremely well on the 300mm f/2.8.
I can't speak for the 1.4 versions
I can't speak for the 1.4 versions
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I've done a lot of testing extenders/TCs for Advanced Photographer magazine. Canon MkIIIs, Nikons, Sigmas and Kenkos - 1.4x, 1.7x Nikon, and 2x
Shooting a car (easy target, good detail to lock on to and hold) in servo mode coming straight towards the camera at 50mph (Canon 5D3 70-700 Mk2, Nikon D700 70-200 VRII) I found no reduction in AF performance, even when the car was very close and closing extremely fast. I was suitably amazed - 80%+ hit rate with or without TCs.
The explanation is Canon's stated reduction in AF speed with TCs only relates to the camera's AF acquisition time, that is deliberately slowed. But that is measured in ms, and it's the time taken for the lens to shift into position that takes the longest time by far, and that is unaffected.
The other very important factors are camera AF set up, and technique. If you choose a difficult target, either for the camera to lock on to or the photographer to hold reliably, you're not really testing just the affect of the TC.
The other surprising discovery was that sharpness was very equal between all brands of TC. I could pick out a 1.4x from a 2x easily enough, with 1.7x sitting inbetween, but choosing between say Canon and Kenko was very difficult unless you looked at the edges (and they're often out of focus anyway, with typical action subjects). The sharpness you get is 90% decided by the quality of the mother lens, rather than the brand of TC. All it is doing is magnifying the centre of the image it receives.
One other thing I did with the test that might be significant - they were all shot at 200mm and f/5.6 to make direct comparisons, adjusting the zoom accordingly. This increased depth of field of course, but it was very easy to identify the exact position of sharpest focus on the tarmac. The point here is really that if you compare say a 300mm lens without TC and then add a 2x, that makes the focusing task twice as critical before you start.
Shooting a car (easy target, good detail to lock on to and hold) in servo mode coming straight towards the camera at 50mph (Canon 5D3 70-700 Mk2, Nikon D700 70-200 VRII) I found no reduction in AF performance, even when the car was very close and closing extremely fast. I was suitably amazed - 80%+ hit rate with or without TCs.
The explanation is Canon's stated reduction in AF speed with TCs only relates to the camera's AF acquisition time, that is deliberately slowed. But that is measured in ms, and it's the time taken for the lens to shift into position that takes the longest time by far, and that is unaffected.
The other very important factors are camera AF set up, and technique. If you choose a difficult target, either for the camera to lock on to or the photographer to hold reliably, you're not really testing just the affect of the TC.
The other surprising discovery was that sharpness was very equal between all brands of TC. I could pick out a 1.4x from a 2x easily enough, with 1.7x sitting inbetween, but choosing between say Canon and Kenko was very difficult unless you looked at the edges (and they're often out of focus anyway, with typical action subjects). The sharpness you get is 90% decided by the quality of the mother lens, rather than the brand of TC. All it is doing is magnifying the centre of the image it receives.
One other thing I did with the test that might be significant - they were all shot at 200mm and f/5.6 to make direct comparisons, adjusting the zoom accordingly. This increased depth of field of course, but it was very easy to identify the exact position of sharpest focus on the tarmac. The point here is really that if you compare say a 300mm lens without TC and then add a 2x, that makes the focusing task twice as critical before you start.
- Messages
- 2,803
- Name
- Simon (Prefer 'Si')
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm going to disagree with you on this one Chris (with caveats)!
Your keeper rate will be lower with the 2x converter but if your technique is good, you can still get good images from it on dull days.
Here's an example from a couple of weeks ago...
Almost On my 300mm f/2.8 the 2x converter is fine and the reduction in AF speed isn't a problem as long as you account for it and the same goes for my 70-200mm f/2.8 II
I borrowed a friend's 1.4x MKII the other week and found it to be excellent... I'm dithering over whether to get the MKII or the MKIII now.
- Messages
- 2,626
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm going to disagree with you on this one Chris (with caveats)!
Your keeper rate will be lower with the 2x converter but if your technique is good, you can still get good images from it on dull days.
Here's an example from a couple of weeks ago...
On my 300mm f/2.8 the 2x converter is fine and the reduction in AF speed isn't a problem as long as you account for it and the same goes for my 70-200mm f/2.8 II
I borrowed a friend's 1.4x MKII the other week and found it to be excellent... I'm dithering over whether to get the MKII or the MKIII now.
Cannot agree with it (2x) working well with a 70-200mm zoom for fast moving subjects sure you will get some images out of it but I could not even begin to imagine using it for anything of a serious nature where you must get the shots
and as I said earlier the 2x works well with the fast primes... light years ahead of using it with a zoom lens
the 1.4x converter does work well with a converter but the 2x is completely different beast altogether
and would not even consider taking out for serious use with my zoom lenses.. and no way would I be encouraging someone to buy that option
- Messages
- 2,803
- Name
- Simon (Prefer 'Si')
- Edit My Images
- No
All things being equal, I would tend to agree with you but there are a few factors to consider.
1. Can you afford to go for the glass over the converter? If the answer's no, then the TC is a viable option.
2. Is it going to get used a lot?
3. Is it going to be used for professional use where nailing the shot is a must?
4. Does your output format mean that the reduction in image quality from using the TC would be noticeable?
Cheers,
Si
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's not the case, Richard, the lens AF drive motor speed is reduced by the % factors I stated earlier. I have no way to measure the body's acquisition time but it very obvious that the lens motor speed is reduced.
Bob
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm just repeating what Canon's top tech guy told me Bob. Usually reliable, but not infallible I guess
I don't see why the AF drive speed should be reduced, once the focus point has been pre-determined, unless it's monitoring as it moves by way of confirmation? Maybe this changes if you switch between focus priority and speed priority? I was on speed priority.
What I do know though is, in a situation I have used before and that has beaten lesser cameras (car heading straight to camera at 50mph) it did not trouble the cameras, lenses and telecons I used as above. I was so surpised that's why I phoned Canon as a know the guy there. It was frankly an amazingly good performance, accurate (easily within the DoF zone) even at close range. 50mph is 22m per second, or 3.7m between frames at 6fps. With the last couple of frames, the car was only 10m and 6m away, but it still held focus at this incredibly rapid closing speed with the lens shifting a long way between shots.
That's how it was explaned to me. Sorry I can't show the pictures but they're not my copyright.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm just repeating what Canon's top tech guy told me Bob. Usually reliable, but not infallible I guess
I don't see why the AF drive speed should be reduced, once the focus point has been pre-determined, unless it's monitoring as it moves by way of confirmation? Maybe this changes if you switch between focus priority and speed priority? I was on speed priority.
It's an easy test with a relatively slow focussing lens like the 180/3.5L or 200/2.8L. Try it naked and then try with an Extender fitted and the reduction in lens drive speed is very obvious.
Bob
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I hear what you're saying Bob, maybe it's lens dependent too. Both those lenses are very old designs, the 200L from 1991 and 180L from 1996, and a slow-focusing macro too. We also know that MkIII extenders work faster with newer lenses.
I dunno. Not disputing your findings, just looking for answers.
- Messages
- 1,653
- Name
- Gavin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry to bump this thread...
But I've got a similar question to the OP and am not sure it's been answered, (not for my scenario's).
I don't have any fast fast lenses (not at any decent focal length anyway), but I've tried to use my 2xTCII on the 100-400 before and have consistently been disappointed... with the images being no better than if I had just cropped a non-TC image a lot harder.
To that end, my TC is now just sat there not doing anything.
To get over this hurdle I bought a 300-800 5.6, but of course curiosity got to me, and I put the TC on that instead... a 1600 f16 But I found exactly the same thing, I could crop a non-TC image to reach a very similar result.
With regards to focussing, I would typically be using it to shoot static/slow moving objects where fast refocusing is not necessary... and infact at these aperatures the AF doesn't work anyway.
So, would the 2xTC3 provide better results than the rather disappointing TC2?
But I've got a similar question to the OP and am not sure it's been answered, (not for my scenario's).
I don't have any fast fast lenses (not at any decent focal length anyway), but I've tried to use my 2xTCII on the 100-400 before and have consistently been disappointed... with the images being no better than if I had just cropped a non-TC image a lot harder.
To that end, my TC is now just sat there not doing anything.
To get over this hurdle I bought a 300-800 5.6, but of course curiosity got to me, and I put the TC on that instead... a 1600 f16
But I found exactly the same thing, I could crop a non-TC image to reach a very similar result.With regards to focussing, I would typically be using it to shoot static/slow moving objects where fast refocusing is not necessary... and infact at these aperatures the AF doesn't work anyway.
So, would the 2xTC3 provide better results than the rather disappointing TC2?
- Messages
- 1,653
- Name
- Gavin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sorry Richard, but tbh, I couldn't really follow your post #17. :|
I'm not concerned with AF speeds, as I'll be in MF territory, and I couldn't see the direct comparison of the TCII vs TCIII in your post, which is what the OP and my post were more specifically looking for.
I'm not concerned with AF speeds, as I'll be in MF territory, and I couldn't see the direct comparison of the TCII vs TCIII in your post, which is what the OP and my post were more specifically looking for.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
This bit
"The sharpness you get is 90% decided by the quality of the mother lens, rather than the brand of TC. All it is doing is magnifying the centre of the image it receives."
- Messages
- 1,653
- Name
- Gavin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, then what is the benefit of the 3 over the 2, since there is a lot of praise over how much better it is.
I guess that's what I'm trying to understand...
I get a similar image with the II as I do when I crop heavily, so would a 3 improve on that?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok, then what is the benefit of the 3 over the 2, since there is a lot of praise over how much better it is.
I guess that's what I'm trying to understand...
I get a similar image with the II as I do when I crop heavily, so would a 3 improve on that?
Sharpness difference between Mk2 and Mk3 Canon extenders is minimal. Won't make any difference on your 300-800mm. Can't you just get a bit closer?
There is a slight improvement in edge sharpness and AF performance is improved with some Canon lenses, mainly the new Mk2 mega-primes.