Canon 2X extender : Mk2 vs Mk3 on 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

[bonvoyage]

I Have 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, and i need to extend the zoom range
Is it worth buying 2x EF Extender III over a used  2x EF Extender II

I have read in reviews that Mk3 offers gud IQ vth IS2 lens (70-200  f/2.8L IS II USM) where I couldn't find any reviews of Mk3 attached on IS lens.

 

Body: 5D Mark III

Please provide your valuable suggestions.

Thank you

[East Wind Photography]

It should work fine..maybe slightly better IQ.  However a Canon tech told me that the 2XIII was designed for the newer MKII lenses.  Will work with the older ones though.

Personally I would get the MKIII extender.  It's better built with more screws on the mount plate.

I Have 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, and i need to extend the zoom range
Is it worth buying 2x EF Extender III over a used  2x EF Extender II

I have read in reviews that Mk3 offers gud IQ vth IS2 lens (70-200  f/2.8L IS II USM) where I couldn't find any reviews of Mk3 attached on IS lens.

 

Body: 5D Mark III

Please provide your valuable suggestions.

Thank you

[R1-7D]

I too am curious about the difference in IQ between the Extender II and III, and whether or not it is worth it for me to upgrade to the III.

[photo212]

I did not find much difference of the 2x II versus III on my older lenses.

First of all, the IQ with the 2X is not great. Good, and it serves a purpose, but not great. I prefer using the 1.4X and cropping. I believe this provides superior IQ to the 2X.

I had hopes the 2X III would be an noticeable improvement on my older 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, and 500mm f/4L IS - all the original, no Mk II.

Sadly, the 2X converters see almost no use for me. I suggest you get the 1.4X III and crop when needed.

[rs]

Comparison of the two TC's:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

When I had the mk I version of this lens, I had both the 2x II and the 1.4x II. Even tripod mounting the lens and using remote live view to manual focus it, at no apertures was the 2x combo sharper than the 1.4x hand held and cropped. I sold the 2x before I upgraded to the 70-200 II, but I suspect the extra sharpness of the new lens will largely negate that effect. However, don't underestimate the power of cropping with a 1.4x TC compared to being too ambitious with TC's.

With the 1.4x TC, the 70-200 II is bristling with detail wide open at any zoom setting.

[Rienzphotoz]

I know this does not answer your question and your requirement for an extender is probably based on having a small size solution ... I considered buying the 1.4x III extender but gave up the idea because, I feel that with just a little more money I can get a DSLR that will give me better reach (1.6 vs 1.4) + an added bonus of having an extra body as back up. The 1.4x III extender costs $470 ... but for $50 more, one can get a T3i.

[Lnguyen1203]

I had the 2X II and the 2X III with a 300 f2.8 IS, the 2X III is marginally better.  Now I shoot with the 500F4 II and the image with the 2X III is quite good, perhaps as good as the 300f2.8 IS with the 1.4x II, which is quite good.

I have also shot with a borrowed 70-200f2.8 IS with a 2x II and the IQ is quite acceptable.  If you are trying to save money, buying a used 2x II is not a bad idea me think.

[vmk]

2x iii image quality isn't that good.
several people suggested 1.4x

[ChilledXpress]

I've own both but rarely use them... they are last ditch effort items. Regardless of mkII or III, I have never enjoyed the images from either of them. The difference between II and the III is marginal at best. I only use them on the 300mm f/2.8 now and I hate to even use it on that lens. It is one of them few that can take the hit and still look acceptable.

[RMC33]

I've own both but rarely use them... they are last ditch effort items. Regardless of mkII or III, I have never enjoyed the images from either of them. The difference between II and the III is marginal at best. I only use them on the 300mm f/2.8 now and I hate to even use it on that lens. It is one of them few that can take the hit and still look acceptable.

I feel the same way with my longer tele's too. Tossing the 1.4 on my 70-200 IS gave me images I would just toss. I have not tried on the MKII 70-200 yet but I will say I sold my 2x about a month after buying it because of the degradation to IQ.

[jsavage21]

In testing, the 2X mk3 converter offers substantial image quality improvements when attached to any Canon lens over the mk2 version. The auto focus improvements in the 2x mk3 are only on the new mk2 super telephotos however, not the 70-2002.8mk2.

The 1.4X mk3 offers negligible improvement over it's mk2 predecessor, but it will offer the same auto focus improvements on the mk2 super telephotos.

I still use the 1.4 mk2, but have upgraded to the 2x mk3, and combined with my 300mm2.8 and 500mmf4, image quality is very good.

[tron]

In testing, the 2X mk3 converter offers substantial image quality improvements when attached to any Canon lens over the mk2 version.

Can you please elaborate? Canon does not mention optical improvements.

Which lens did you use to compare EF2X II with EF2X III ?

Did you test wide open?

Did you compare the quality at the center, the edges or both?

Sorry for so many questions but I have EF2X II and if there is not much improvement in IQ I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

Thanks

[East Wind Photography]

So as I mentioned before the MKIII extenders were designed around the MKII lens optic design.  The Mark II extenders were designed around the Mark I lens designs.

MKIII is not about optical improvement other than it was designed optically for the mkII series of lenses.  So it would be safe to say that the Mkiii extenders will work better on MKII lenses than a mkII extender.

In testing, the 2X mk3 converter offers substantial image quality improvements when attached to any Canon lens over the mk2 version.

Can you please elaborate? Canon does not mention optical improvements.

Which lens did you use to compare EF2X II with EF2X III ?

Did you test wide open?

Did you compare the quality at the center, the edges or both?

Sorry for so many questions but I have EF2X II and if there is not much improvement in IQ I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

Thanks

[jsavage21]

Here's a great online review with some very good sample comparisons. I would say a very accurate review by Greg Brasco.

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2011/01/the-new-canon-teleconverters-image-quality-comparison/

[ChilledXpress]

In testing, the 2X mk3 converter offers substantial image quality improvements when attached to any Canon lens over the mk2 version. The auto focus improvements in the 2x mk3 are only on the new mk2 super telephotos however, not the 70-2002.8mk2.

The 1.4X mk3 offers negligible improvement over it's mk2 predecessor, but it will offer the same auto focus improvements on the mk2 super telephotos.

I still use the 1.4 mk2, but have upgraded to the 2x mk3, and combined with my 300mm2.8 and 500mmf4, image quality is very good.

I beg to differ here...