Canon 1.4x or 2x Extender?

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,615
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
New edit:
I've changed the title to include the 2x extender as I'm considering both now.

Lens is used for wildlife - small and large birds, birds in flight, various sizes of mammal.
Looking through my photos, using the 100-400mm II, 400mm isn't enough in some cases as I want to fill the frame. So I'm considering either the 1.4x or 2x.

Camera is the Canon R5.

Also, which version would you buy if you're buying your first one? Either I, II, or III ?


Original post:
Been thinking about a 1.4x extender for the 100-400mm with the Canon R5.

Which version would you buy if you're buying your first one? Either I, II, or III ?
 
Last edited:
I use a 1.4 mk2 with the 100-400 mk 2 and the results have been pretty decent. AF speed is a tad slower but not that you would really notice.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Been thinking about a 1.4x extender for the 100-400mm with the Canon R5.

Which version would you buy if you're buying your first one? Either I, II, or III ?
Click to expand...
I've got a III and can't say I've noticed any slow down in autofocus with my R3 and 100-400mkii - I also had a version I convertor a few years ago and it was noticeably slower.
 
Definitely the mk 3 better image quality
they are designed for and work best on prime lenses though :)
 
Last edited:
I've used the 1.4 II on my 100-400mm and R7 recently and I'm not that impressed. Seems to be a decent drop in IQ and focus is (to me) noticeably slower. I'm not sure if the sensor out resolves the older extender? I am trying to lighten my load so tried the 100-400 and 1.4 rather than lugging my 500 f4 about.

I plan to try the 100-400 with the 1.4 III and hopefully it will improve matters.

So in summary i wouldn't recommend (based on my experience) the 1.4II

Neil
 
First five pics in this post on here were taken by me with the 100-440mkii and III version of the convertor

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Grizzly bears, fox kits and short tailed weasel

Few pics from Yellowstone last week 10-06-2023_Yellowstone_1177 by David Young, on Flickr 10-06-2023_Yellowstone_1454 by David Young, on Flickr 10-06-2023_Yellowstone_1583 by David Young, on Flickr 10-06-2023_Yellowstone_1637 by David Young, on Flickr 09-06-2023_Yellowstone_1004 by David...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Edited original post
 
I have used both TCs Miii with the 100-400 mii and the 1.4x was seamless, you couldn't really tell it was there operationally.
The 2x did soften the image and did impact AF speed noticeably .
I've also used both with the 300mm f/2.8 IS L mii and again the 1.4 was seemless and the impact of the 2X was much reduced and I was very happy to use it for the extra reach.

deffo buy the Miii version.
 
Last edited:
The usefulness of teleconverters for small aperture 5.6 lenses is questionable.
I use the third version of 1.4 at 100-400 II with R6, the autofocus is surprisingly fast.
I use 800/11 lens instead of 2x
I would also prefer a crop body instead of 1.4x, but the R7 doesn't have a good autofocus, maybe when the second version comes out I will think about it.
 
I sometimes use an EF 1.4x III with an EF 100-400mm II on a 7DII. It's OK, but AF is noticeably slower, widest aperture becomes f/8 at the long end and only the centre focus point is available. So most of the time I don't use the TC, especially if the light is less than really good, just pushes the ISO up too high.

I wouldn't even entertain a 2.0x TC on a 100-400. It is probably different on an R5, but on my 7DII, that lens combination will result in f/11 at the long end and won't autofocus. Even if it did, it would be considerably slower.
 
NOT Canon but I have used Fuji's 1.4and 2x converters behind their 100-400. I still have and use the 1.4x but the 2x just didn't cut it for me.
 
Use a 1.4 MKIII with no issues but can safely say im impressed with the RF800 f11 on my R3 over using the MKIII 2x on my 300 f2.8 IS L MKII plus the weight saving is incredible.
 
Last edited:
I really am considering one of the extenders now. Just been to RSPB Leighton Moss for the second time and 400mm isn't enough. I would buy a prime lens and extender if I could.

But for now, an extender for the 100-400mm will have to suffice.

I do know the 2x is rubbish compared to the 1.4x, but is 660mm (or what ever it is), actually worth the extra 200mm?
 
Dael_Pix said:
I really am considering one of the extenders now. Just been to RSPB Leighton Moss for the second time and 400mm isn't enough. I would buy a prime lens and extender if I could.

But for now, an extender for the 100-400mm will have to suffice.

I do know the 2x is rubbish compared to the 1.4x, but is 660mm (or what ever it is), actually worth the extra 200mm?
Click to expand...


IF you're anywhere near a dealer who stocks both (and are on good enough terms with them to let you!), take a few test shots with both converters and see which shots turn out better - cropped 1.4x or 2x.
 
If you’re considering a 1.4x TC, get the EF 1.4x III. Any effect on IQ is slight, but it does slow focusing speed noticeably on the 100-400mm II. I’m based in Cheshire. If I’m going to Leighton Moss anytime in the near future, I’ll PM you and you can try mine.
 
A teleconverter essentially magnifies...everything, including the optical shortcomings inherent to the lens design! Some lenses show off their shortcomings more with a teleconvertor attached than others...the earlier Canon 100-400 was an example of that. The later version is better in that regard. The 2x teleconvertor magnifies more than the 1.4x teleconvertor...keep that in mind; pros and cons in the same product (2x), 'closer' but more optical decline...why the 3x teleconvertor is seldom found any longer.
 
Last edited:
I've owned the whole lot of them, over the years. Canon's original 1.4x and 2x followed by mk ii and currently mk iii.
Each gen have been marginally better than the prev but you've to try real hard to see that.
Although I've owned them, I've never much used them other than to convince myself to buy longer glass! The best parings had been on a 300/2.8. Personally I would not fit an extender to anything with max aperture smaller then 4, but I have no experience with mirrorless cameras.
As already pointed out, AF speed is compromised esp in poor light.

Interesting observation by Gadget-Guy in post no.13 regarding the 800/11 vs 300/2.8 x2.
 
I have both 1.4x and 2x M3 versions and R5. They get the most use with 100-400 M2 and I find they work well.

That said, and you may not want to hear it, there is a big risk that you will be disappointed if you get one and try at LM based on the example images you posted elsewhere. It looks like the birds are just too far away. I would be looking for a different location where it's possible to get closer to the subjects.
 
I have just watched a YTube video on EF iii teleconverters with the Canon R5 and they both work well on the EF 400 DO and EF 300 2.8 ii . . . This video at 01hr 02m 55s concludes it is only by pixel-peeping unedited images that a difference can be seen. I don't know if I can post a link here so you'll have to copy and paste this text into the YTube search bar " Canon EF 400mm f/4 IS ii DO vs. EF 300mm f/2.8 IS ii L for Bird Photography: 4 Months of Experiments ". For other lenses he did conclude in one trial set that with high Mega Pixel cameras it is better to crop in. I have not seen a video of all lenses. YTuber and Pro photographer Jared Polin has recommended to not use teleconverters. I personally have the 1.4x iii for my 300 2.8 ii and it is sometimes a bit worse than cropping in and sometimes the same as not cropping in so at least I can frame tighter with the 1.4x iii and not crop with it allowing me to fill the frame better and use all my sensors pixels. Phew, okay that's all I can say other than my 1.4x iii has a huge gouge on the back element (thus I got it cheap) and it does not affect image quality all unless on closest focus at a bright scene where a slightly dark shadow can be seen top right corner if you are looking for the issue. I got mine as a tester and I am happy with it and I use it.
 
I have had both with my 300 2.8.

The 1.4 is instant AF and tack sharp. Wonderful combo. The 2x isn't so much. Still good but its best on gimbal or for birding.
 
Fixer said:
I have just watched a YTube video on EF iii teleconverters with the Canon R5 and they both work well on the EF 400 DO and EF 300 2.8 ii . . . This video at 01hr 02m 55s concludes it is only by pixel-peeping unedited images that a difference can be seen. I don't know if I can post a link here so you'll have to copy and paste this text into the YTube search bar " Canon EF 400mm f/4 IS ii DO vs. EF 300mm f/2.8 IS ii L for Bird Photography: 4 Months of Experiments ". For other lenses he did conclude in one trial set that with high Mega Pixel cameras it is better to crop in. I have not seen a video of all lenses. YTuber and Pro photographer Jared Polin has recommended to not use teleconverters. I personally have the 1.4x iii for my 300 2.8 ii and it is sometimes a bit worse than cropping in and sometimes the same as not cropping in so at least I can frame tighter with the 1.4x iii and not crop with it allowing me to fill the frame better and use all my sensors pixels. Phew, okay that's all I can say other than my 1.4x iii has a huge gouge on the back element (thus I got it cheap) and it does not affect image quality all unless on closest focus at a bright scene where a slightly dark shadow can be seen top right corner if you are looking for the issue. I got mine as a tester and I am happy with it and I use it.
Click to expand...
The debate about optical magnification with some IQ loss vs. digital crop could be one of the endless "It depends!" debates
  1. With digital cropping to achieve 1.4x magnification equavalent, you are throwing away 29.6% of the frame (1/1.4 = .714)
  2. If you use a good teleconvertor, we know (from tests published almost two decades ago by photozone.de that the 70-200mm f/2.8 would have reduction of MTF of about -10% when used with the Canon 1.4x teleconvertor
...and a 10% loss of detail is better than a 30% loss of detail. This next comparison is purely hypothetical because I do not recall an equivalent test (with vs. without teleconvertor) for a lens like the Canon 100-400 (v.1) which was acknowledged to not do will with a teleconvertor...

  1. With digital cropping to achieve 1.4x magnification equavalent, you are throwing away 29.6% of the frame (1/1.4 = .714)
  2. If you use a good teleconvertor, we can speculate that the Canon 100-400mm v1 would have reduction of MTF of about -25% when used with the Canon 1.4x teleconvertor
...and a 25% loss of detail is still better than a 30% loss of detail. It seems the optical path is still better than the digital pixel decimation of postprocess cropping, as detail is lost...detail can not be extrapolated away like pixel aliasing. It would take an optical magnification with a really bad teleconvertor to exceed the lost of cropping off 30% of the pixels!
 
Last edited:
wiltw said:
The debate about optical magnification with some IQ loss vs. digital crop could be one of the endless "It depends!" debates
  1. With digital cropping to achieve 1.4x magnification equavalent, you are throwing away 29.6% of the frame (1/1.4 = .714)
  2. If you use a good teleconvertor, we know (from tests published almost two decades ago by photozone.de that the 70-200mm f/2.8 would have reduction of MTF of about -10% when used with the Canon 1.4x teleconvertor
...and a 10% loss of detail is better than a 30% loss of detail. This next comparison is purely hypothetical because I do not recall an equivalent test (with vs. without teleconvertor) for a lens like the Canon 100-400 (v.1) which was acknowledged to not do will with a teleconvertor...

  1. With digital cropping to achieve 1.4x magnification equavalent, you are throwing away 29.6% of the frame (1/1.4 = .714)
  2. If you use a good teleconvertor, we can speculate that the Canon 100-400mm v1 would have reduction of MTF of about -25% when used with the Canon 1.4x teleconvertor
...and a 25% loss of detail is still better than a 30% loss of detail. It seems the optical path is still better than the digital pixel decimation of postprocess cropping, as detail is lost...detail can not be extrapolated away like pixel aliasing. It would take an optical magnification with a really bad teleconvertor to exceed the lost of cropping off 30% of the pixels!
Click to expand...
One thing you have not mentioned is the image quality when SHRINKING the image to fit all the image into a 4k or 8k monitor size :exit:
 
Fixer said:
One thing you have not mentioned is the image quality when SHRINKING the image to fit all the image into a 4k or 8k monitor size :exit:
Click to expand...
Not 'forgotten' ...entirely different issue than optical mag vs. digital pixel reduction to same effective magnification, and zooming in to chimp the result.

But I see all these 'here are some photos taken with wonderful (new camera X), and the forum only suppots 1600 x 1600 pixel files in the transfer? :headbang:
 
Last edited:
wiltw said:
But I see all these 'here are some photos taken with wonderful (new camera X), and the forum only suppots 1600 x 1600 pixel files in the transfer? :headbang:
Click to expand...
Hahah indeed ! No matter how amazing the image it still has to be conveyed to the viewers via monitor or print, I guess there is a lot of variance there!
 
But many shots are hosted on Flickr (other hosting sites exist!) so a click through can see the whole story - it just needs scrolling around to see it...
Don't forget that the majority of snaps these days are looked at on a 6" wide (at best) phone screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top