January 22, 2018, 11:50:55 AM

Author Topic: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender  (Read 10776 times)

photojoern.de

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
  • See more in http://photojoern.de
    • Photography: Berlin, Landscape, Urbanscape, Travel...
I just received the Canon extender 1,4 Mark 3 version and hoped to improve my focal length of my combo 5 DS R and Canon 100-400 II L f4,0-5,6 to 560 mm f8,0. I compared photos with the Canon extender to photos with the Kenko 1,4 extender versus crops without the extender? Which combination is the best? I would say: none of the extenders did the job properly.
What do you think?
Did I miss anything? Do you have a better experience with any of the converters? See sample pictures and my methodology here:
http://photojoern.de/gear/canon-extender-14-real-world-test-canon-14-iii-vs-kenko-14-dgx-mc4/
Photography is painting with light. A great photo creates a strong feeling, i.e. "I would love to have been there, in that very magic moment."

canon rumors FORUM


hendrik-sg

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
I did similar Trials with a 7dii, 1.4iii and 100-400ii, with the 7dii having similar Pixel density as your 5ds.

I hardly did get more Resolution than with the bare lens. with extender there is a loss from the extender, much decreased AF Performance, half shutter Speed or 2x ISO, and difraccion should begin to show up even at f8.0. On top it's more difficult to compose a Picture specially under time preassure.

So i got better results with the bare lens, just because the the risk of ruining an shot for any of the above reasons is much less. On the small display of the camera the exeeded range is looking spectacular of course.

generally, People (or at least me) tends to use extenders to much, in all than perfect lighting conditions cropping is less spectacular, but gives better results, at least for my possibly poor skillls.

Differet game was with a loaned 500 4.0 ii of course, here the 1.4x and even the 2x extender gives a benefit, but this is a different class of lens.

I kept the 1.4x for my 5d3, there it keeps is's promise, and replaces the (loaned) 7dii, at least for static subjects, and emergency use, but not for tracking BIF of course.

candc

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1261
the canon extenders are good with the supertele primes. i have several brands of extenders that i have used with a variety of lenses and i have gotten mixed results. i don't have the combo you are using but i would have expected a bit better results with the canon 1.4xiii. there are copy variations with extenders just like lenses. with most lens/extender combos you will get significantly better iq if you stop down 1 stop.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6426
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
If you are using a crop camera, or a FF camera with a high pixel count, you need an insanely sharp lens (big whites) to get more reach with a teleconverter. As nice as the 100-400 II is, it's not good enough so your results are what I would expect.

The best camera is the one in your hands

jasny

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Was AFMA done WITH the extender?

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3258
I've tested the 100-400mm II ± 1.4xTC III ad nauseam on the 5DS R and 7DII. I've used charts, sitting birds, and brick walls and there is no doubt for me the extender does increase resolution.

Here are some typical shots of mine from the 5DS R, combining a brick wall and a chart. I think my bare lens is sharper than yours and you can see from the charts that the resolution increases with the 1.4xTC. Having said that, I tend to use the bare lens because I am an opportunistic bird photographer and put on the TC only when I think it will help. Top one is 400mm, bottom 560mm.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 01:25:29 PM by AlanF »
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 22019
Was AFMA done WITH the extender?

And without, for that matter... 

If you're going to rely on AF for a lens sharpness (generally a bad idea, although I acknowledge the 'real world' intent), you should at least start with properly adjusted lenses. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM


AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3258
Here are some bird shots. I regularly shoot a peregrine falcon which roosts about 45m up the University Library at about a distance of about 60m. Here in descending order the 5DS R with my second copy of the 100-400mm II, the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x TC, on the same occasion, and the 100-400 at 560mm and the Sigma 150-600mm at 600mm on its very first outing. They are A1 Servo but that is all part of the real world test (and hand held, to boot, which favours the shorter lenses).
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13859
Your test method did not mention manual focus or live AF, so we assume autofocus.  If that's the case, you are testing autofocus accuracy, not the lens or TC.

A test needs to remove all variables, have accurate exposure, and no vibration.  That is much more difficult than it seems at first, trucks and automobiles, even at a distance shake the ground and houses.

I've been involved with labs that sink piling into bedrock 200 ft down out in the desert away from traffic in order to reduce vibration levels for sensitive tests.  That's extreme, but it also shows that vibration and movement is always there.  My lab used a  4 X 10 ft X 6 inch thick plate mounted on special shock absorbers for optical measurements with our bench.

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3258
Come on guys! These aren't measurements to a thousandth of 1% but estimations of the usefulness of a 1.4xTC in practice. I use vibration-free optical benches for our ultra-sensitive experiments, but I don't take one out with me on a hike. Here we are talking about practical photography in the real world. When I do test lenses, I always take at least 10 shots to look at the variation - repeat measurements are crucial in all testing.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Kerry B

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2016, 02:39:51 PM »
I have done a fait bit of testing the Canon 1.4 + 2 x extenders mkiii. Here are the results of tests undertaken on a 7dmkii. I mounted the camera on a tripod and used the Canon 300f2.8ii lens. I kept the same distance between all shots. I used A1 servo mode with high speed framing to replicate what I shoot normally. I am pleased with the results.
Canon 5d mkiii, Canon 7d mkii, Canon 300f2.8 IS mkii, Canon 70-200f2.8 Mkii IS, Canon 100-400 mkii, Canon24-105f4, Canon 1.4 mkiii extender and 2 x extender mkiii

LSeries

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • Jussi Lind's Nature Photography
Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2016, 04:54:02 PM »
I have done a fait bit of testing the Canon 1.4 + 2 x extenders mkiii. Here are the results of tests undertaken on a 7dmkii. I mounted the camera on a tripod and used the Canon 300f2.8ii lens. I kept the same distance between all shots. I used A1 servo mode with high speed framing to replicate what I shoot normally. I am pleased with the results.

The 300 f/2.8L II is known to take extenders really well.

CanonFanBoy

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1786
  • Dang!
Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2016, 05:02:33 PM »
Here are some bird shots. I regularly shoot a peregrine falcon which roosts about 45m up the University Library at about a distance of about 60m. Here in descending order the 5DS R with my second copy of the 100-400mm II, the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x TC, on the same occasion, and the 100-400 at 560mm and the Sigma 150-600mm at 600mm on its very first outing. They are A1 Servo but that is all part of the real world test (and hand held, to boot, which favours the shorter lenses).

Beautiful bird. My favorite.

But, I think the test is more towards your holding technique rather than a comparison between the various combos.

I think your holding technique is far better than mine.
5D Mark III, Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 Di VC, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, m42 screw mount lenses, 600EX-RT (x7), Streaklight 360ws.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2016, 05:02:33 PM »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3258
Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2016, 06:11:17 PM »
The Swedish site objektivtest.se measures MTFs on an optical bench like lensrentals does. This is the type of test the purists like, with no artefacts from a camera. It has measured the MTFs of the 100-400mm II and 300mm f/2.8 II ± 1.4xTC III.

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-ef-100-400-mm-f45-56-l-is-ii-usm-test/
http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-14x-iii-test/

There is only a 10% hit for a 40% gain in focal length.

The 2xTC on the 300mm is not as good a result. The contrast is hit by some 20% - the 20 cycles/mm. But there is a huge hit at 30 cycles/mm, which is a measure of resolution, of about 30%

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-test/

My 300/2.8 II + 2xTC was brilliant on my 5D3 but not on my 7DII and 5DS R, and I prefer to use it with the 1.4xTC. I am looking forward to a 5D4 with larger pixels for the 600mm lenses I have.


5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

photojoern.de

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
  • See more in http://photojoern.de
    • Photography: Berlin, Landscape, Urbanscape, Travel...
Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2016, 04:33:26 AM »
Thanks for the replies so far.
Quote
If you are using a crop camera, or a FF camera with a high pixel count, you need an insanely sharp lens (big whites) to get more reach with a teleconverter. As nice as the 100-400 II is, it's not good enough so your results are what I would expect.
Sorry, but I do not get that point. Doesn´t sound logical for me. And the resolution if the 100-400 II is already really great, only inferior to very few prime big glasses.
In general, I believe from the replies and tests, that either photographers are also not really happy with the extenders, or they use them with results that show minimal improvements.

Regarding the point of "camera shake" etc.: Yes, I do sports photography with the 100-400, usually not landscape. So there is always minimal camera shake, but then there is exposure time of 1/320 and shorter for a non-moving object, a monopod like support and the 4-stop IS. It won´t get sturdier in real world applications. My opinion.

Re autofocus: yes, I used the autofocus, not the manual focus. And yes: I did not have the time of adjusting the autofocus to the combo of 100-400 plus extender. So there is a possibility that the extender needs a different adjustment for the autofocus, other than the bare lens.

Still, my conclusion is for now: using 400mm and then cropping gives me more speed / less ISO plus more flexibility compared to extender usage.
Photography is painting with light. A great photo creates a strong feeling, i.e. "I would love to have been there, in that very magic moment."

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Extenders compared: Canon 1,4 III vs Kenko 1,4 DGX MC4 vs no extender
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2016, 04:33:26 AM »