5D MKIII w 70-200 2.8II using a 1.4x vs 2x extender

[helpful]

I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.

Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.

It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses.  But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.

[briansquibb]

For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X.

Only if the iso is 800 or less .....

[rsk7]

I have the 1.4xII and the 2.0xIII with the 70-200 2.8II and the 5D3. The 2.0xIII is slightly softer than the 1.4xII and noticeably slower to focus. With the 1.4xII I barely see any difference in softness or focus speed.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine.  For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.

[Razor2012]

I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.

Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.

It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses.  But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.

Hmmm, that's good to know, ty.

[Razor2012]

I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine.  For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.

Or just a straight 400 5.6.

[Aaron78]

^^^^^ Plan on carrying a tripod then, the 400 F5.6 has no IS and being F5.6, it's a slow lens as well.

[briansquibb]

^^^^^ Plan on carrying a tripod then, the 400 F5.6 has no IS and being F5.6, it's a slow lens as well.

For shooting BIF then IS will not be required

[sublime LightWorks]

I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.

Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.

It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses.  But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.

I must disagree with this.  I've shot the 7D with this combo and got excellent results. I'll post a few tomorrow in a follow up posting. They are just a hair less in IQ compared to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L. I own both, and if I need the extra stop at the far end, I have no problem shooting the TC combo.

[Razor2012]

Some comparitive shots will be nice.

[Northstar]

i have the 70-200 is ii w/ 2x iii.  it is very good.  you lose very little in IQ, and just a little in AF.  of course you miss 2 full stops, but if you have good lighting it shouldn't matter too much.

here's an image of a heli that flew by while I was out and about the other day testing this combo....

handheld - jpeg
straight out of camera, only cropping done
heli was about 450 yards away

what do you think, is this is a sharp combo or not?

[Razor2012]

i have the 70-200 is ii w/ 2x iii.  it is very good.  you lose very little in IQ, and just a little in AF.  of course you miss 2 full stops, but if you have good lighting it shouldn't matter too much.

here's an image of a heli that flew by while I was out and about the other day testing this combo....

handheld - jpeg
straight out of camera, only cropping done
heli was about 450 yards away

what do you think, is this is a sharp combo or not?

Hey that looks pretty sharp to me, especially @450 yds.

[bkorcel]

I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine.  For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.

Not really.  I compared both and the 70-200 II with 2X extender was sharper and focused faster than the 100-400 also much less focus hunting.  100-400 at the 400 end loses so much light and contrast that AF has a tough time especially with things like flying birds.  I got about 10% in focus shots with the 100-400 on flying birds.  70-200 with 2X was at 80% in focus.

[bkorcel]

Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender?  Thanks!

I've used the 2x on the same lens with a 1D IV and the results were quite honestly appalling, the pictures were unusable both due to loss in IQ and because AF became so sluggish that nothing remotely in motion could lock/track. The 1.4 I've used and that worked ok on a 1D II, I think. But the 2X is terrible. I returned it the next day and proceeded to rent a  400 2.8 when I needed it  

So, my advice don't get the 4X.

I've had my doubts about the 2x right from the beginning, so if I get any extender it will be the 1.4III.

You will end up with both.   

[Frankie T Fotografia]

I shot this 4 hours ago with the same exact combination (5D Mk III, 2x Extender Mk III, 70-200 II). I cropped it all the way down to 1.6 Megapixels 300dpi and did some sharpening to it (maybe a little too much sharpening). I like this camera/extender/lens combination.