Canon Extenders

Minch

Minch

Messages
45
Name
Aidan Mincher
Edit My Images
No
I was considering purchasing an extender for my Canon EF 70-200mm F4 and see there are 1.4x and 2x variations in the canon range together with multiple versions of each.

Does anyone know what the difference is between a mk1 and mk3 version of the 2x extender for example?

(by the way I will only be manually focusing with the extender as I know there are limitations with the F4 and extenders and hunting in auto focus)
 
The later extenders where/are optimised to work with later lenses so if you have an "old" lens there would be little point in replacing a early extender with a later extender, or so I have read. I believe also the latest extenders send more information to later camera bodies, so again if you have an "old" body getting a newer extender may not be of any benefit.
There were minor changes to the later extenders ability to resolve better IQ but by all accounts they were only minor and older lenses didnt really benefit.
AF might be slightly better (speed wise) with new lens/body combos and possibly more AF points available with later bodies.

For instance I believe late zooms with late extenders on a 5D4 have more AF points available than the same combo fitted to a 5D3
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
The later extenders where/are optimised to work with later lenses so if you have an "old" lens there would be little point in replacing a early extender with a later extender, or so I have read. I believe also the latest extenders send more information to later camera bodies, so again if you have an "old" body getting a newer extender may not be of any benefit.
There were minor changes to the later extenders ability to resolve better IQ but by all accounts they were only minor and older lenses didnt really benefit.
AF might be slightly better (speed wise) with new lens/body combos and possibly more AF points available with later bodies.

For instance I believe late zooms with late extenders on a 5D4 have more AF points available than the same combo fitted to a 5D3
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt, I have a 5D III and own the non IS version of the 70-200mm F4 so going for a mk1 v mk3 probably wouldn't make much difference, except to my pocket.
 
The MkII's had changes to reduce internal reflections and hence improve contrast.......whilst a MkIII would be of little benefit with your lenses, a MkII would probably be better than a MkI.

Bob
 
I've used a 2x Mk2 on a 70/200 F4 (so F8) and it seemed to work ok, but IQ does drop off quite a bit, a 1.4 though works very well (my Lens is the IS version). If it's just for a try the teleconverters are ok, if you want a longer lens for more general use then the 300 or 400 primes are a much better solution or even the 100/400 mk1, which tbh since I got mine the 70/200 hasnt seen much action.
 
Last edited:
I have the 2.0 II and the 1.4 II. The 2.0 rarely gets used (some lunar work) as IQ suffers a little. The 1.4 gets used a bit with my 100-400 mkII, i certainly wasn't going to pay the extra for the mk III just so the colour matched my lens :).
 
Cheffievrs said:
I found the 2x ii to be utter rubbish on my super tele primes.. But the mk iii version is night and day better, and i can get some very good results.
Click to expand...
Mmm, that good eh, i might have to get one and do some comparison shots. If it's that good i might actually use it :LOL:.
 
Cheffievrs said:
I found the 2x ii to be utter rubbish on my super tele primes.. But the mk iii version is night and day better, and i can get some very good results.
Click to expand...
Agree with this - I had a 1.4 mkii and didn't like it at all - I've now got version iii 1.4 and 2x and they are night and day better - I use them on my 400 f2.8 but by chance yesterday I tried the 2x on my 70-200 f2.8 and they are pretty good
 
Cheffievrs said:
I found the 2x ii to be utter rubbish on my super tele primes.. But the mk iii version is night and day better, and i can get some very good results.
Click to expand...
Not wishing to hijack the thread. I had heard that iq was not affected when using an extender but I would beg to differ. I have a 1.4 Mk2 extender and have used it with my 300mm 2.8 prime and there is a noticeable difference in iq. I have used it for rugby, football and cricket, so it has been used in many different light situations.

I have used at cricket in bright conditions for an hour, taken it off and shot without it. You can definitely notice a difference.
 
The version III Extenders work at their best on version II L lenses. Weatherproofing as well as electronic communications and lens coatings are apparently improved on the III versions too.

Another factor is which camera body you use as not all will allow Autofocus or a full range of AF zones.

I am totally satisfied with the 2x III on my Canon 500mm F/4L II IS - Here is my album on Flickr for you to judge for yourself :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/albums/72157685377629534

I also have an album of shots @700mm with the 500mm F/4L II + 1.4x III combo :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/albums/72157687683325302

The 1.4x III works well on the Canon 100-400mm L II and even my 2x III is fully functional on that lens when mounted on my EOS R + EF Adapter although at F/11 max aperture.
 
^ Good post and I think it also depends on what one wants against what one can afford and what one will put up with.
 
That's some great info guys. Both mine are now going up for sale to fund the 1.4 III.
 
My thoughts. 2 x Mk1 or Mk2 - little or no use regardless of the lens series. 2 x Mk3 is much better and is actually useful on pretty much any Canon F4 lens and an great on the F2.8 models whether they are Mk1 or Mk2 versions and yes the AF works better on Mk1 lenses even though Canon do not claim this. The Mk3 just degrades IQ much less, focuses a touch better and gives keepers - the Mk2 is a bit sketchy here.
 
I cannot comment on the Mark III versions but I have owned both Mark 1 and Mark 2 versions of the 1.4 and 2. I quickly opted out of the 2X due to the two aperture stops lost. I found this very restrictive in practice.

I was disappointed with the Mark 1 1.4x which did affect IQ. However I was delighted with the Mark 2 version of the 1.4x. The loss of one stop was not an issue and I did not notice any loss in IQ when using this with the Canon 70-200l f4 or the 70-300L.
 
While this thread is alive with very useful comments regarding the performance of the canon extenders I have just purchased a 70-200 F4 IS USM mark 1 what are thoughts on which 1.4 converters to use with this lens MK1or 2?

Thanks in advance for any feedback
 
I had exactly that lens and in my experience I would strongly recommend the Mark 2 1.4 converter over the Mark 1 having used both extenders on that very lens. The IQ was significantly better with the Mark 2
 
Thanks guys its on my Xmas list as of today!
 
Lots of mention of the 2x converters degrading IQ too much but I believe that the statements need some qualification for others to use them as a judgement.

Sticking a 2x on a zoom and shooting wide open, trying to capture feather detail on a dull day will give far more cause for disappointment than sticking one on a 300/2.8 and grabbing f/11 shots of Airbus 320's flaring over the threshold.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Lots of mention of the 2x converters degrading IQ too much but I believe that the statements need some qualification for others to use them as a judgement.

Sticking a 2x on a zoom and shooting wide open, trying to capture feather detail on a dull day will give far more cause for disappointment than sticking one on a 300/2.8 and grabbing f/11 shots of Airbus 320's flaring over the threshold.

Bob
Click to expand...

.... Exactly what I was about to post too.

Stick a 2x III on a version II prime L lens and the results are far from disappointing.

I already had a 1.4x III (bought secondhand here on TP Classifieds) but had heard nothing but criticism of the 2x regarding image quality and so was completely put off until I came across a wildlife photographer on Flickr who occasionally uses one and then my interest was rekindled and I bought one. I have used it far more often than I thought I would, in fact more often than with either the 1.4x or without any Extender. I have an album of 500mm + 2x shots on Flickr, so please judge for yourself but please note that they are nearly all shot on a tripod and that helps :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/albums/72157685377629534

HDEW whom I often buy from, offer the Canon Extenders :

https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/extender-lens-22-c.asp

HTH
 
Last edited:
Canon Bob said:
Lots of mention of the 2x converters degrading IQ too much but I believe that the statements need some qualification for others to use them as a judgement.

Sticking a 2x on a zoom and shooting wide open, trying to capture feather detail on a dull day will give far more cause for disappointment than sticking one on a 300/2.8 and grabbing f/11 shots of Airbus 320's flaring over the threshold.

Bob
Click to expand...
Good post as usual Bob.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top