Canon 70-200 MKII f/2.8 and which 2x extender

[philthejuggler]

Any tried the MKii and MKiii 2x converters on the 70-200 Mkii and have an opinion on differences?

Heard the new extenders were optimised for the new 300 & 400mm - not sure if there is a performance difference on the 70-200?

Thanks

Phil

 

[HoppyUK]

Have a look on www.the-digital-picture.com - lots of comparisons on there. Mk3 is better, but there's not much in it (check the edges).

 

[EMA747]

Phil I have the 2x mkIII on my 70-200 mkII. I tried it for the first time this week and I am pleased with the results.

Have a look at my flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysolaini/ the ones of the fire crews, starting from the one from the one after the warship up to the orange "body" are all taken with the 2x mkIII on the 70-200 on my 1DmkIV. Not very good examples but you might get a bit of an idea.

 

[philthejuggler]

Have a look on www.the-digital-picture.com - lots of comparisons on there. Mk3 is better, but there's not much in it (check the edges).

Many thanks - annoyingly I can't work out how to compare Extender III vs Extender II on the same lens sample - I think he found some copy variation which might account for more diffence than the difference between the extenders!

Phil I have the 2x mkIII on my 70-200 mkII. I tried it for the first time this week and I am pleased with the results.

Have a look at my flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysolaini/ the ones of the fire crews, starting from the one from the one after the warship up to the orange "body" are all taken with the 2x mkIII on the 70-200 on my 1DmkIV. Not very good examples but you might get a bit of an idea.

I'm sure the quality is fine with the MKIII and it looks fine in your shots, thanks. Trying to work out whether it is worth the extra over the MKII. The MKII is pretty good, but I sold it when I didn't use it much, however I could do with one for a holiday next year!

I also PM'd Canon Bob who has both and I quote: "Much better?....no. I've got a MkII and III and there's no obvious difference until you put it on full frame and then the MkIII might be better at the edges on a test setup but real world or a 1.3 crop and they're identical to my eyes."

I think I might save some cash and get the MKII!

Phil

 

[HoppyUK]

Many thanks - annoyingly I can't work out how to compare Extender III vs Extender II on the same lens sample - I think he found some copy variation which might account for more diffence than the difference between the extenders!

<snip>

Try this Phil http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 wide open f/5.6 with Mk2 extender left and Mk3 right. Toggle arrow in the middle.

Not much in it sharpness wise, but the other thing is AF speed that's been tweaked. Very hard to measure these things but if it was me, and bearing in mind the overall cost of your outfit, for a couple of hundred quid extra I'd want to know everything was as good as it could be.

 

[philthejuggler]

Try this Phil http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 wide open f/5.6 with Mk2 extender left and Mk3 right. Toggle arrow in the middle.

Not much in it sharpness wise, but the other thing is AF speed that's been tweaked. Very hard to measure these things but if it was me, and bearing in mind the overall cost of your outfit, for a couple of hundred quid extra I'd want to know everything was as good as it could be.

I don't know how you did that, but well done!

Yes - the MKIII does look slightly better. I don't use longer focal lengths all that often, so there is still a debate, but it does lean me slightly more to the MKIII.

Phil

 

[George]

There is a substantial, and as far as I know, largely unknown advantage in using a mk3 extender with the new series of Canon telephotos, and this includes the 70-200 mk2.

I was having substantial back focusing problems using the 2x with my 70-200 mk2 and sent the lot back to Elstree together with my 1Ds 3 and 7D.

I was told they can adjust with the software they have to correct these problems, and indeed they have.

When I asked if the same could be done with my mk1 300mm 2.8 I was told no. and I had to set this up with my bodies using micro focus adjustment.

Both the new 1.4x and 2x mk3 adaptors threw the focus point in my lenses out considerably, although all is now well.

 

[EMA747]

Phil when I got the mkIII a few weeks ago with the 70-200 I got a good price from Kerso of £369 for the extender so I decided to go for it. I was originally going to buy a 70-200 for general use and a 100-400 for aviation but read a number of people saying the mkII 70-200 with the new extender was 99.9% identical to the 100-400. In that respect it made the price of the extender a bargain. I've not tested it on anything other than those shots mentioned so I can't really say if it's true what they say about it being as good as the 100-400.