Canon Extender 1.4ii or iii?

[tonyz]

Hi - Long time follower of the forums - first post.

I know there are so many discussions about the two canon 1.4 extenders - but most seem to relate to longer lenses - I can't seem to find an answer to this - I have a 5D3 and 70-200f4IS and really want to know if its worth using an extender on this combo or just cropping the pictures to get a better result.

and if so - would the version iii be much better with this combo and worth the extra $$?

Many thanks

tony

 

[rpt]

Hi - Long time follower of the forums - first post.

I know there are so many discussions about the two canon 1.4 extenders - but most seem to relate to longer lenses - I can't seem to find an answer to this - I have a 5D3 and 70-200f4IS and really want to know if its worth using an extender on this combo or just cropping the pictures to get a better result.

and if so - would the version iii be much better with this combo and worth the extra $$?

Many thanks

tony

I got the III version. Mainly because I wanted to extend my 100-400 to 560. If you are planning to get a longer lens don't buy the extender. The III is supposed to be better but I did not try them out before purchasing so I can't vouch for that.

 

[jdramirez]

I use my ii on a 70-200f2.8L is mkii and I was pleased with the results. image quality wasn't noticeably impacted and while I lost a stop of light, I actually had a shallower depth of field because of the added focal length.

people will say the iii is better and I'm sure it is, but both deserve an A grade, but maybe the iii gets an a+

 

[Menace]

AF is faster in III than II whilst IQ is fairly similar in my experience.

Is there any way you can try both first hand before pulling the trigger?

 

[YuengLinger]

I have the III and it is great, both optically and performance-wise.

Actually, I only used it a couple of times, just testing it more than anything. Now I realize I'm never going to use it enough, as I am focused on portraits and weddings and don't have time to do any nature stuff.

Hoping to sell it. Didn't think the purchase through.

 

[Loswr]

You can see an optical comparison on the TDP ISO 12233 charts. In general, lenses perform better with the Tele converter if you can stop down at least one stop from wide open, so you might want to check the charts at f/8 as well.

I think the MkII to MkIII improvement in IQ was more substantial for the 2x than the 1.4x. The main reason I upgraded my 1.4xII was for the better AF precision with my 600 II.

In my opinion, with the exception of supertele lenses, TCs are for occasional use, and not routine use. If you'll need 280mm a lot, I'd consider the 70-300L or 100-400L.

 

[mackguyver]

I didn't think I'd see much difference, but I have to say that it is more of an improvement than I expected. The corners are sharper with the III, and CA is less as well. Is it night & day? No. If you plan to use it a lot (with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS / f/4 IS or super telephotos), it would worth it, but otherwise your money is better spent elsewhere. As Neuro said, the AF speed and accuracy, mainly from AFMA data, is the primary reason to go with the III over the II, but only if you're using the Mark II telephotos or (possibly) the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but Canon's statements on this lens and the Mark III extenders are conflicting and inconclusive.

 

[tonyz]

Thanks for all your comments/help

Unfortunately no decent camera shops nearby to try one out - but may just bite the bullet and pick up an extender ii used for around $200 as it was just to give me the occasional extra reach I had on a crop previously - dont think i can justify the 450 for the mark iii...

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks for all your comments/help

Unfortunately no decent camera shops nearby to try one out - but may just bite the bullet and pick up an extender ii used for around $200 as it was just to give me the occasional extra reach I had on a crop previously - dont think i can justify the 450 for the mark iii...

If you're just going to use it occasionally with the 70-200 f/4 IS, you'll be more than happy with it. It's a great match to that lens and I used that combo a ton when I had it.

 

[jsavage21]

Using the 1.4 on the 70-200f4 is just fine, you of course lose some light and a very slight bit of image quality, but still acceptable.
As far as the 1.4 mkII vs. mkIII is concerned, I've tested both and there is virtually no noticeable difference optically, at least to warrant the purchase of the mkIII in my opinion. Components have been improved for autofocus with new super telephotos is the main advantage of the mkIII. Now with the 2X converter there is a big difference between mkII and mkIII versions optically.

 

[jhpeterson]

I've had the ii versions of both the 1.4 and 2x converters for many years. While I generally use them only on longer lenses, especially my 300/2.8, I have also put them on the 70-200.
While I haven't tried it yet, I'm inclined to go along with the view of others here, in that the 1.4x iii is only a very slight improvement in terms of IQ over the ii. The results I've had with the ii are excellent matched with my 300, and very good on the 70-200 (both the original and ii versions of the 2.8 IS, as well as the 4 model).
On the other hand, the 2x ii with the 300 was only fair to good, and absolutely terrible with the 70-200 (the earlier 2.8 IS, anyway). It became much better with version iii, though still not at the same level of the 1.4x. If you ever consider buying a 2x, it's money well spent getting the latest edition.

 

[JPAZ]

I've used the 1.4 iii on my 70-200 f/4 IS and it works pretty well. In good light, I've also had acceptable results with it on the 100-400. I've not used the ii version but for occasional use, it is a reasonable option.I have to agree that if you plan to use the 300mm range frequently, consider the 70-300 or a 300 f/4. Watch the Canon site for refurb sales to save some $ on the TC.