Canon EF 1.4x II vs EF 1.4x III

[eos650]

Can anyone here provide photographic comparisons between the Canon EF 1.4x II and EF 1.4x III that actually show the EF 1.4x III is really as sharp or possibly better that the EF 1.4x II?

I see all sorts of claims that say the 1.4x III is slightly sharper and has higher contrast, but I have yet to see a photographic comparison that actually proves that.

I looked at the comparisons between these two teleconverters on the digital picture for both the 200mm f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II at 200mm. In both cases I believe the 1.4x II is actually sharper and higher contrast, regardless of the conclusions they drew.

I already have a 1.4x II but am considering a second 1.4x teleconverter, since I frequently carry two or three bodies. I was leaning to the 1.4x III, but I have yet to see any comparison or claims from Canon that would convince me to spend the extra money.

 

[Canon1]

This isnt exactly a field comparison, but I ran a FOCAL test comparing these two TC's with a 500mm IS version I lens. Graphs are below. My tests (repeatable) showed that the version III was about 2-3% sharper then the version II. Hardly worth the cost with this older lens.

If you are pairing with a Version II supertele then the cost to upgrade is well worth it, not for the IQ, but rather the AF performance is far far superior with the III.

From strictly an IQ standpoint I don't personally believe it is worth it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Can anyone here provide photographic comparisons between the Canon EF 1.4x II and EF 1.4x III that actually show the EF 1.4x III is really as sharp or possibly better that the EF 1.4x II?

I see all sorts of claims that say the 1.4x III is slightly sharper and has higher contrast, but I have yet to see a photographic comparison that actually proves that.

I looked at the comparisons between these two teleconverters on the digital picture for both the 200mm f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II at 200mm. In both cases I believe the 1.4x II is actually sharper and higher contrast, regardless of the conclusions they drew.

I already have a 1.4x II but am considering a second 1.4x teleconverter, since I frequently carry two or three bodies. I was leaning to the 1.4x III, but I have yet to see any comparison or claims from Canon that would convince me to spend the extra money.

I think I posted a careful test chart here a long while back.

III is just slightly sharper center frame, but you have to look hard at 100% or even 200%, it's really pretty close

it is definitely sharper at FF edges and corners and has much less CA there, maybe like 3x less (although this sort of CA does correct pretty well in RAW programs)



the kenko teleplus dgx pro 300 is pretty good, just a touch worse center frame and edges than the III and i'd dare say better than the II (I have never tested the kenko yet for sports type AF though, no idea how it handles that compared to the canon tcs which are designed to adjust af precision) since it definelty has better FF edges and corners than the II

 

[sagittariansrock]

I briefly owned the 1.4x II and now have the III. The former showed CA with my 135L and my TS-E 17mm, and the newer one doesn't. Unfortunately, I am well behind archiving my photos so can't pull out examples too quickly.
I haven't seen claims regarding sharpness and contrast, though, and haven't specifically checked myself. I believe Macguyver said they are quite at par optically unless you are using one of the great whites.
Hope it helps.

 

[eos650]

I plan to use the teleconverter on a 400mm f2.8L IS II and 1DX, 5DIII, etc.

I shoot a lot of sports, so fast and accurate focus is important. You don't often get a second chance. The speed and accuracy is supposed to favor the 1.4x III. I've seen the claims that it's faster, but no numbers to back them up and the 1.4x II works quite well.

For this particular application I am not too concerned about the corners. Sharper corners is better, but not a priority.

To my eyes, looking at the center and mid-frame, this comparison on tdp favors the 1.4x II, but they are close. Unfortunately, they don't have a comparison, using the 400mm. I guess it could be my eyes, or maybe tdp the setup needed a bit of AFMA. That's why I am hoping to find more examples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

$200 is not a lot of money in a relative sense and I'll probably bite on the 1.4x III, but am just trying to make an informed decision, before I commit.

 

[Canon1]

I plan to use the teleconverter on a 400mm f2.8L IS II and 1DX, 5DIII, etc.

I shoot a lot of sports, so fast and accurate focus is important. You don't often get a second chance. The speed and accuracy is supposed to favor the 1.4x III. I've seen the claims that it's faster, but no numbers to back them up and the 1.4x II works quite well.

For this particular application I am not too concerned about the corners. Sharper corners is better, but not a priority.

To my eyes, looking at the center and mid-frame, this comparison on tdp favors the 1.4x II, but they are close. Unfortunately, they don't have a comparison, using the 400mm. I guess it could be my eyes, or maybe tdp the setup needed a bit of AFMA. That's why I am hoping to find more examples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

$200 is not a lot of money in a relative sense and I'll probably bite on the 1.4x III, but am just trying to make an informed decision, before I commit.

Since you are using it with a II lens.... don't hesitate. I don't have a number to back up my claim, but the VIII Tele is a world of difference with regard to AF speed and responsiveness over the VII TC.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Since you are using it with a II lens.... don't hesitate. I don't have a number to back up my claim, but the VIII Tele is a world of difference with regard to AF speed and responsiveness over the VII TC.

Yeah, with a super-tele Mark II only, Canon does claim that it offers better AF over other TCs. Haven't verified it myself, but I will be glad to do so if someone gives me their super tele mark II (to keep).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I plan to use the teleconverter on a 400mm f2.8L IS II and 1DX, 5DIII, etc.

I shoot a lot of sports, so fast and accurate focus is important. You don't often get a second chance. The speed and accuracy is supposed to favor the 1.4x III. I've seen the claims that it's faster, but no numbers to back them up and the 1.4x II works quite well.

For this particular application I am not too concerned about the corners. Sharper corners is better, but not a priority.

To my eyes, looking at the center and mid-frame, this comparison on tdp favors the 1.4x II, but they are close. Unfortunately, they don't have a comparison, using the 400mm. I guess it could be my eyes, or maybe tdp the setup needed a bit of AFMA. That's why I am hoping to find more examples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

$200 is not a lot of money in a relative sense and I'll probably bite on the 1.4x III, but am just trying to make an informed decision, before I commit.

See now this is why I always say that I take TDP with a big grain of salt. They have the 1.4x III clearly looking worse wide open on that lens, but that sure does not match the findings of most others. At worst, it should merely look the same, not so clearly worse in the center and middle of the frame.

Anyway Canon says the III offers improves AF precision used with 400 2.8 II. I can't recall if that was for one shot only for for AI Servo too.

 

[mackguyver]

I briefly owned the 1.4x II and now have the III. The former showed CA with my 135L and my TS-E 17mm, and the newer one doesn't. Unfortunately, I am well behind archiving my photos so can't pull out examples too quickly.
I haven't seen claims regarding sharpness and contrast, though, and haven't specifically checked myself. I believe Macguyver said they are quite at par optically unless you are using one of the great whites.
Hope it helps.

That's right - on most lenses (e.g. the 70-200 f/2.8 II) the differences are very subtle, with the III having just a tiny bit less CA but on the series II big whites, you can see more improvements in CA reduction and the contrast is noticeably better. Sharpness is slightly improved as well, but that probably has to do with the reduced CA and improved contrast. The AI servo performance is improved with the series II lenses as well because of the mk III extenders ability to use AFMA calibration and faster CPUs for better speed. I didn't notice much increase in speed, but the AI servo accuracy is much higher. The distortion is also somewhat lower with the series II lenses as they were designed together with the idea that the distortion would essentially be cancelled out when they were combined. This is also the case with the 1.4x II and the 70-200 f/4 IS - when combined, the essentially have 0 distortion - according to conversation I've had with DxO's engineers and what I have seen with my own eyes.

I have also noticed improvements on my 180L macro photos as you can see here:
The Digital Picture 180+1.4x II vs 1.4x III

and the best comparison is probably this one, even though it's not on a series II lens, the 200 f/2 is still one of Canon's sharpest:
The Digital Picture 200 f/2 IS +1.4x II vs 1.4x II

I guess the final word is that the improvements are subtle, but worth the money if you have invested in the very best lenses. If you don't the money may not be worth it. The improvements on the 2x II vs III are more substantial.

 

[eos650]

I plan to pick up a 1.4x III. I expect it will be as good or better that than the 1.4x II. If not, I'll return or sell it

Thanks everyone for you input.

 

[Aichbus]

I actually own the 1.4II, the 1.4III and the already mentioned Kenko Telepro. I could do a field test with the three, but am too busy for that. But I can say that the Kenko is the best value for money. It has even an advantage over both Canon extenders and I wonder why nobody ever mentioned that: It doesn't add barrel distortion. The 1.4II does it and the 1.4III does it to a lesser extent. But the Kenko performs best in this area. The Kenko has the added advantage that I can use it with my 70-300 L and my 6D and not lose autofocus. I use the 1.4III with my 600 L IS II to have a better autofocus performance and also because Digital Photo Professional has lens correction data for this combo, which of course isn't the case with the Kenko. But if you have the 1.4xII consider the Kenko, it might save you quite some money!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I actually own the 1.4II, the 1.4III and the already mentioned Kenko Telepro. I could do a field test with the three, but am too busy for that. But I can say that the Kenko is the best value for money. It has even an advantage over both Canon extenders and I wonder why nobody ever mentioned that: It doesn't add barrel distortion. The 1.4II does it and the 1.4III does it to a lesser extent. But the Kenko performs best in this area. The Kenko has the added advantage that I can use it with my 70-300 L and my 6D and not lose autofocus. I use the 1.4III with my 600 L IS II to have a better autofocus performance and also because Digital Photo Professional has lens correction data for this combo, which of course isn't the case with the Kenko. But if you have the 1.4xII consider the Kenko, it might save you quite some money!

It depends as to whether the distortion is an advantage or not. The Canon TC were designed to give inverse distortion to some of the super-tele I believe. So end result might potentially be less distortion with the Canon TCs paired with the pariticular super-tele each was most aimed at.