July 29, 2014, 07:31:30 AM

Author Topic: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?  (Read 4586 times)

rudiholt

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 09:09:22 AM »
I have the 2x III. I find it to be really soft. So soft that I don't really want to use it. I get a better shot from a 70-200 2.8 II and cropping then I do using the 2X. Also focus is affected on some lenses and i also found that you need to shoot at F9 or more for the image to be very sharp. I would get the 1.4 over the 2 anyway day.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 09:09:22 AM »

alexturton

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • I shoot what i find interesting; nothing else
    • View Profile
    • My flickr
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2014, 09:29:55 AM »
neither.

The IQ + loss of light with a 2x is a non starter for me. 1.4x is ok, but blank sheet of paper I'd go with a sigma 120-300 2.8 instead of a 70-200 + 1.4x.
Bodies: 5d mk iii, 60d
Primes: 24L 1.4, Sigma 35 1.4, 40 pancake, 50L 1.2, 85L 1.2 ii, 8mm fisheye, lensbaby, 100L macro.
Zooms: 16-35 2.8 ii, 24-70 2.8 ii, 70-200 2.8 is ii, 120-400

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2436
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2014, 11:07:24 AM »
The 1.4x doesn't give you as much boost as you'd hope but has little effect on IQ or AF speed, so it's still great to have.  The 2x is great for the big whites, but makes the 70-200 awkward from an ergonomic standpoint and compromises IQ a fair amount.  I'd get the 1.4x - it makes a great "short" wildlife lens with the 70-200.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

Vern

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2014, 11:07:45 AM »
I have both 1.4 and 2 III's and only use the 2X with the 300 2.8 II as an easy to carry 600 5.6. The IQ is good enough with this combo, but I don't like the 2X with any other lens b/c the IQ is too degraded. The best option, of course, is to have a lens w the right native focal length, but the 1.4X adds a little reach w/o too big a detriment if you start w a great lens like the 70-200 2.8 II.
1Dx, 5DMKIII, 600 II, 300 II, 200 f2, 135 f2, 85 1.2 II, 100 2.8 IS, 24TS II, 70-200 II, 24-70 II, 16-35 II

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2176
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2014, 01:17:04 PM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2436
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2014, 01:20:25 PM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year?  I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2176
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2014, 02:05:52 PM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year?  I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

Last year I used it when I shot some football games and recently when I shot my daughter skiing... but usually for what I do.. I'm close enough that the 70-200 is plenty long enough....
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2014, 02:05:52 PM »

Kerry B

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2014, 03:54:38 PM »
Unless you have the new Mk11 big prime lenses I would forget the 2 x extender, I have the Mk11 300f2.8 lens and both Mk111 extenders work brilliantly. The 1.4 extender is far more useful and can be used on many lenses with good results. The thing with extenders you really do need good glass to get the most out of them.
Canon 5d mkiii, Canon 1d mk1v, Canon 300f2.8 IS mkii, 70-200f2.8 Mkii IS, 24-105f4, 1.4 mkiii extender and 2 x extender mkiii

Ripley

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2014, 11:52:36 PM »
There are several good posts here that give perspective and share experience. Thanks for the input everyone, I appreciate it. If I was going to pull the trigger tonight I would get the 1.4x, and I probably will when the next venue appointment comes in.

5Diii | 24-70L ii | 70-200L ii | 600EX-RT x 2 | ST-E3-RT

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2014, 11:59:29 PM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year?  I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2176
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2014, 05:20:11 AM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year?  I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.

I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better.  I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade.  It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2436
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2014, 09:12:05 AM »
I picked up the 1.4 mkii.  I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well.  I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.
There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year?  I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.

I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better.  I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade.  It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.
I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens ;)  Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos, mainly because it can use AFMA data from what I've read, and with the 300 2.8 IS II, there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2014, 12:30:59 PM »
I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better.  I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade.  It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.

That's very sound logic. And $ 150 compared to $ 450 is a pretty good price!
Of course, you are really good with used lens purchases and sales, the best I can find is around $ 200.

I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens ;)


LOL- even my Mk III doesn't match my lens, so I guess that won't matter for me :)

Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos...

I did hear about that- I am guessing that wouldn't affect me. I would be able to afford a Mk III long before I can afford a Canon supertele... :D

there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2014, 12:30:59 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2436
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2014, 04:23:34 PM »
there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.
Thanks for the reply and I'm sure the lighting is every bit as harsh there.  The CA with the Mk II isn't bad at all and yes, it can be corrected in post, but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear.  This is especially true with osprey wings against a gray sky and things like that.  I do a fair bit of macro with my 180L and that is actually where I've seen the biggest difference between the 1.4x II and III.

Also, the other thing that I've noticed (and meant to mention) is that the flare resistance with the Mk III seems better.  In bright light, it seems to hold contrast better than the Mk II.  This isn't something most reviewers would test, but it's what I've seen. 

They are subtle differences and probably not worth the extra money considering how much extra money it is.  The only thing that is probably worth the money are the extra screws and better construction.  With a $7k camera on one side and a $7k lens on the other, more screws holding it all together is definitely better!

For the 1.4x, unless you have a Mk II supertele (and money to burn), it's not worth the huge difference in cost.  The 2x extenders are much different, however and worth it, even with the 70-200s, 135, 180,  100-400 and others.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2014, 04:49:09 PM »
there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.
Thanks for the reply and I'm sure the lighting is every bit as harsh there.  The CA with the Mk II isn't bad at all and yes, it can be corrected in post, but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear.  This is especially true with osprey wings against a gray sky and things like that.  I do a fair bit of macro with my 180L and that is actually where I've seen the biggest difference between the 1.4x II and III.

Also, the other thing that I've noticed (and meant to mention) is that the flare resistance with the Mk III seems better.  In bright light, it seems to hold contrast better than the Mk II.  This isn't something most reviewers would test, but it's what I've seen. 

They are subtle differences and probably not worth the extra money considering how much extra money it is.  The only thing that is probably worth the money are the extra screws and better construction.  With a $7k camera on one side and a $7k lens on the other, more screws holding it all together is definitely better!

For the 1.4x, unless you have a Mk II supertele (and money to burn), it's not worth the huge difference in cost.  The 2x extenders are much different, however and worth it, even with the 70-200s, 135, 180,  100-400 and others.

Great advice as always, Mackguyver! Thanks!
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2014, 04:49:09 PM »