Has anyone traded the canon 2x tc mk2 for the mk3 or know anyone that has.

Russdaz1

Russdaz1

Messages
303
Name
Darren Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering if its worth the upgrade?

Not sure the difference.
 
It is if it's to be used on the longer prime lenses, huge increase on image quality. I use my 1.4 on my 70-200 F2.8 and it's very good. I also have the 2.0 and it works well on my 300mm f2,8.
Only negative is you can't stack the Mk III's
 
I wouldn't be stacking, would take my 400mm f4 do, to f11. But 800mm f8 is long enough for my needs.
 
Yes - me.

I was very disappointed with my Mk2 and other examples that I tried after buying it. On the lenses I had then (300 F4 L IS and 600 F4 L IS) it was outperformed by cropping with my 1.4 extender.

The 2 x Mk3 is a much better performer. Naturally there is some loss of IQ but it is very much less than the Mk2 and the AF is a touch better even though it shouldn't be according to Canon on my Mk1 lenses and 1DX Mk1.

To me it is a simple decision, get the Mk2 and rarely (if ever) use it or get something useful like the Mk3.
 
Russdaz1 said:
I wouldn't be stacking, would take my 400mm f4 do, to f11. But 800mm f8 is long enough for my needs.
Click to expand...

There is a member on here the uses that lens with both MkIII converters

@George
 
johnf3f said:
Yes - me.

I was very disappointed with my Mk2 and other examples that I tried after buying it. On the lenses I had then (300 F4 L IS and 600 F4 L IS) it was outperformed by cropping with my 1.4 extender.

The 2 x Mk3 is a much better performer. Naturally there is some loss of IQ but it is very much less than the Mk2 and the AF is a touch better even though it shouldn't be according to Canon on my Mk1 lenses and 1DX Mk1.

To me it is a simple decision, get the Mk2 and rarely (if ever) use it or get something useful like the Mk3.
Click to expand...


Thanks, yeah I have both mk2 versions, and from what you and else where it’s sounds like changing the mk2 2x is a worth while option. Like you at had it for years never really used until the 400mm f4. But I am now changing it for a second hand mk3 based on what I have heard, as it’s quite a cheap option.
 
The biggest difference I can see between those is the printable size of the images.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well I just picked up a mk3 version of the 2x tc. and tell you its an improvement. in AF selection with the mk2 you single point 4 point af. with the mk3 you get full selection of completely af points on the 1dx mk2.
 
Sorry guys, I've not been on the forum for a bit due to travelling........yes I have the 400 DO mk2 and the mk3 1.4 and 2x.

The 1.4 is permanently connected to the 400 (obviously giving me 560mm f5.6) and I'd say the performance in terms of the AF (with a 1Dx mk2) is virtually indistinguishable from the prime lens, everything works extremely well, full af point selection etc and IQ excellent.
Using the 2x does give a slight drop in performance (esp if you pixel peep!!) and a slowdown in af, but is still perfectly useable for the majority of cases and again gives full af point selection.

I did have the mk2 TCs originally but upgraded to the mk3 as soon as they came out, and IMO the upgrade is really worth doing for most lenses but especially with the mk2 (and mk3) super teles.

BTW the 1.4 works well with the mk 2 100-400 as well, giving a useful and light 560mm.

George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top