What extender for Canon 500mm F4 IS L II ?

[Go Wild]

Hello everyone!

I wonder if someone can help me in this decision.

I am going to to buy the Canon 500mm F4 IS L II and also a teleconverter to be able to improve my focal distance.

I´m a wildlife photograhper so distance is always a big thing. The perfect lens probably would be a 600mmm, or a 800mm, but I have not the budget for thems. I do have for the 500mm

I had the previous 500mm (version 1) and just loved the lens. But sometimes do feel short. I had also a 2x teleconverter from kenko but never convinced me so it was really rare to use.

My doubt here is what to buy, the 1,4x III teleconverter or the 2x III teleconverter

- 1.4X is better in quality, as i seen in posts doesn´t loose so much detail in photos as the 2x does. But does it really justifies having "only" a 1.4x? It gives you an importan gain in distance?

- 2x really gives you a significant improve in distance, you get a 1000mm and in 7D markII give´s me about 1600mm witch is insane! However i am really worried about posts that saying you loose a lot of detail. Just dont want that...

I now, i now, there are not perfect solutions, but that concerns me...So i was looking for some advice of someone that really have the field experience with these combos. With the 500 F4 II or another telephoto lens II (400mm or 600mm.

I am going to the north pole in June, and there especially the polar bears can be quite in a distance, so the 2x is the preference...but if it takes a lot quality in image can be better to have a 1.4 and make a small crop?

I think its important to refer that i dont care with internet quality, i DO care about print quality

Hope you can help me on this one, i am really confused...
Thank very much!

 

[Greatland]

I own the 600 version II and have owned the 500 version II as well. I purchased the Canon extenders, version III and I highly recommend them as they are the only Canon extenders that I have ever used that I wasn't disappointed with. However, even with your 500mm version II lens and the version III extenders you will see some slight softening with the 2x teleconverter in version III...with my 1.4 teleconverter in versiion III I see virtually no degradation in the quality of my shots. I shoot wildlife and I like to go big...I try to stay away from my version III extender for enlarged stuff....

 

[Go Wild]

I own the 600 version II and have owned the 500 version II as well. I purchased the Canon extenders, version III and I highly recommend them as they are the only Canon extenders that I have ever used that I wasn't disappointed with. However, even with your 500mm version II lens and the version III extenders you will see some slight softening with the 2x teleconverter in version III...with my 1.4 teleconverter in versiion III I see virtually no degradation in the quality of my shots. I shoot wildlife and I like to go big...I try to stay away from my version III extender for enlarged stuff....

Hello greatland, thanks for your help! So, you think it is better to stick with the 1.4 instead of the 2x? Because for me, the final quality really it´s the point. I prefer to have a not so enlarged animal in frame, but to realy have quality print. However... the 1600mm are really a temptation!!!

 

[jmphoto]

+1 for the 1.4x
Have the complete combo. Besides perceived softness, I find real world "accurate" AF half as likely with 2x. Depending on your body, there may be fewer AF options with 2x-read the fine print. Certainly, start with 1.4x.

 

[Go Wild]

+1 for the 1.4x
Have the complete combo. Besides perceived softness, I find real world "accurate" AF half as likely with 2x. Depending on your body, there may be fewer AF options with 2x-read the fine print. Certainly, start with 1.4x.

Thank you jmphoto!! I have the 5D markIII and the 7D markII. I know that from the 2x the AF is slower and it´s dificult in BIF. I equally shoot mammals and birds, and for mammals it´s not a big issue. I maybe going for the 1.4x the only doubt is that if it reaally matters the gain in distance of the 2x comparing to the 1.4x, and what is the real loss in image quality.
At this moment i am more convinced to get the 1.4x...And to pray that polar bears can get close!!

 

[rancho_runner]

I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.

 

[Go Wild]

I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.

Hello rancho_runer! Thank you for your help. I guess i am convinced to buy the 1.4x although i recognize the importance of the reach of the 2x but i am really not in the mood to loose image quality, or to loose the shot because of the AF. For that, i stick with a 1000$ lens, a Tamron or a Sigma. Again, of course the ideal was a 600 and the 1.4x but can´t reach that budget and i also make soccer matches and the 500 is already sometimes too long. 600 would kill that works to me...

I maybe start with the 1.4 and then later, maybe give a try with the 2x. I really don´t like using teleconverters but with this III generation, with the improvements of the construction and image quality, i took the decision to give them a try. Because reach is trully important in wildlife.

I am hoping to read other opinions but i guess my decision is for the 1.4x

One final consideration, in real life, or in final photo not numbers reading, is it big the diference betwen the reach of the 1.4x and the 2x?

Thanks a lot!

 

[takesome1]

I had the 500mm F/4 original version and was happy with the 1.4x II and not the 2x II. I was never happy with the 2x.

Then over a year ago I traded up to the 500mm F4 II and the 1.4x III and 2x III. I hoped the 2x III with the new lens would give me the IQ I wanted for prints with this new combo. The 2x III never has. I hardly ever use the 2x III because of this.

Another thing to consider is the body you are using, maybe you said and I overlooked it. The old "crop factor" argument used to be more "hype" than "help" but it can be a real thing with the new 7D II vs the 5D III and older bodies. Over the older bodies the 7D II's resolution can let you be 10 -15% farther away and get comparable if not equal IQ on a shot cropped equally on a subject. But there is a caveat to this, it is only a benefit if you can not get equal framing with the FF body and you are cropping your FF picture to meet the size of the 7D II. In most other situations the FF picture will be far superior if you do not have to crop, so to me this is a big negative for the crop body. If you crop 100% of the time the crop is the way to go. Otherwise, it is not. To solve this dilemma though one just buys a 5Ds R and there is no crop benefit.

 

[Go Wild]

I had the 500mm F/4 original version and was happy with the 1.4x II and not the 2x II. I was never happy with the 2x.

Then over a year ago I traded up to the 500mm F4 II and the 1.4x III and 2x III. I hoped the 2x III with the new lens would give me the IQ I wanted for prints with this new combo. The 2x III never has. I hardly ever use the 2x III because of this.

Another thing to consider is the body you are using, maybe you said and I overlooked it. The old "crop factor" argument used to be more "hype" than "help" but it can be a real thing with the new 7D II vs the 5D III and older bodies. Over the older bodies the 7D II's resolution can let you be 10 -15% farther away and get comparable if not equal IQ on a shot cropped equally on a subject. But there is a caveat to this, it is only a benefit if you can not get equal framing with the FF body and you are cropping your FF picture to meet the size of the 7D II. In most other situations the FF picture will be far superior if you do not have to crop, so to me this is a big negative for the crop body. If you crop 100% of the time the crop is the way to go. Otherwise, it is not. To solve this dilemma though one just buys a 5Ds R and there is no crop benefit.

Hello Takesome!

Thank you for your post. You´ve just confirmed my suspicious...Tha is my fear about the 2x...the loss of quality in final image. One point more to the 1.4x!

That´s an interesting point you mentioned so let me go a little offtopic. Yes, i mentioned in one answer before, I own a 5D3 and a 7D2. From my experience, i use the both bodys according to some factors:

- If i shoot mammals or animals that don´t give me much (or fast) action, i use the 5d3.
- If i shoot fast action, i use 7D2
- If i need that extra reach, i use the 7D2, or else the 5D3 is the chosen.
- If light is great preferencialy i use 7D2, if not the 5D3.

In resume. What you said it´s true, image quality is by far better in 5D3 than in 7D2. Although, in good light, 7D2 can deliver excelent results if you have an excelent lens. I find it a trully "normal" camera with not so good lenses (i tested with tamron 150-600, didn´t liked the combo.) In addiction, you DO have to nail the exposure in 7D2 or else you can ruin totally the photo. I find it very impressive the lack of margin i have in 7D2 in post. Once you try to retouch the photo the quality goes all way down...Not talking of course in minor adjustmens.
With the 5D3 it´s a entirely new world. Amazing quality, with great margin to post production and cropping. Normally I do prefer to crop a 20% of the photo in 5D3, than to use a crop camera. However....The 6fps and a baaaaad buffer in 5D3 does make a difference in wildlife when you shoot action! In that...uffff the 7D2 just blows away! And also the AFsistem in 7D2...its just great!!



Thank you so much for your contribution!

 

[GuyF]

I've got the Kenko 1.4x and 2x as well as the Canon mk3 1.4x and 2x. With my 5D3 + 500mm IS II there is very little between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x with regard to sharpness. The Canon is maybe slightly faster to focus and track moving objects but it is hard to say for sure. Also the Canon has some weather sealing.

The Kenko 2x is quite soft and not as sharp as the Canon 2x (although the Canon is also soft compared to the 1.4x). Due to the lens now being f8 with the 2x, neither are good for tracking fast action.

If you've got the money for the 500mm mk II, just get the Canon as it was designed for use with the big whites.

Having both makes of TC allows me to stack both 2x to give me 2000mm which is useful for shots of the moon.

 

[KarstenReis]

Just a thought if you haven't settled on the lens yet. If you aren't against used, look into used 600 mkII. I got mine for about the price of a new 500II and couldn't be happier. If you're in the US look at LensAuthority. It's where Lens Rentals two year old lenses and cameras go for sale.

I would echo other's here and start with the 1.4 then go to the 2x if you feel like you aren't getting enough reach. The 2x only get's you center point which makes tracking anything moving quickly difficult. Definitely go for Canon v3 teles.

 

[Go Wild]

I've got the Kenko 1.4x and 2x as well as the Canon mk3 1.4x and 2x. With my 5D3 + 500mm IS II there is very little between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x with regard to sharpness. The Canon is maybe slightly faster to focus and track moving objects but it is hard to say for sure. Also the Canon has some weather sealing.

The Kenko 2x is quite soft and not as sharp as the Canon 2x (although the Canon is also soft compared to the 1.4x). Due to the lens now being f8 with the 2x, neither are good for tracking fast action.

If you've got the money for the 500mm mk II, just get the Canon as it was designed for use with the big whites.

Having both makes of TC allows me to stack both 2x to give me 2000mm which is useful for shots of the moon.

Hello GuyF i am definitly go for the Canon ones, not only because of the "better" performance, but also because of the "weather sealing" that the series III give me.

Thank you!!

Just a thought if you haven't settled on the lens yet. If you aren't against used, look into used 600 mkII. I got mine for about the price of a new 500II and couldn't be happier. If you're in the US look at LensAuthority. It's where Lens Rentals two year old lenses and cameras go for sale.

I would echo other's here and start with the 1.4 then go to the 2x if you feel like you aren't getting enough reach. The 2x only get's you center point which makes tracking anything moving quickly difficult. Definitely go for Canon v3 teles.

Hello Karsten, although i´m not from USA, i live in Portugal, i am not against the 2nd hand lenses, my first 500mm was a 2nd hand one. But, at this moment the 600mm its not option for me, because has written before, i also make some sports jobs, football (soccer) and the 600 it´s just too much long! The 500mm itself it´s in the limit...so i must have the 500mm because its the lens that give me the possibility to make the 2 worlds, sports and wildlife. Also it´s very dificult to get one used in these days around here. But it´s not an option. I will stick with the 500mm. I think i got my decision, I will go for the 1.4x and then if the 1.4 doesn´t reach my needs, i get the 2x.

I thank you all for your opinions, they were quite important for my decision. However if someone still wnat to contribute i will apreciate!

 

[gary samples]

1,4x III
you will never be sorry !

 

[Go Wild]

1,4x III
you will never be sorry !

Thank´s Gary! Another vote for the 1.4X I guess it´s the winner! I do loved to get that extra reach of the 2x, but the image quality prevails for me. Gues 1.4x is the answer!

 

[rancho_runner]

I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.

Hello rancho_runer! Thank you for your help. I guess i am convinced to buy the 1.4x although i recognize the importance of the reach of the 2x but i am really not in the mood to loose image quality, or to loose the shot because of the AF. For that, i stick with a 1000$ lens, a Tamron or a Sigma. Again, of course the ideal was a 600 and the 1.4x but can´t reach that budget and i also make soccer matches and the 500 is already sometimes too long. 600 would kill that works to me...

I maybe start with the 1.4 and then later, maybe give a try with the 2x. I really don´t like using teleconverters but with this III generation, with the improvements of the construction and image quality, i took the decision to give them a try. Because reach is trully important in wildlife.

I am hoping to read other opinions but i guess my decision is for the 1.4x

One final consideration, in real life, or in final photo not numbers reading, is it big the diference betwen the reach of the 1.4x and the 2x?

Thanks a lot!

Hi Go Wild, the difference imho between 1.4x and 2x is pretty substantial, and worth the effort is some cases.
As per the sharpness of the 2x III+500II combination, here is one handheld decent example (using a 7D II)

 

[slclick]

I just stumbled upon this....http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/ef_extenders_pt1.shtml

 

[Go Wild]

I just stumbled upon this....http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/ef_extenders_pt1.shtml

I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.

Hello rancho_runer! Thank you for your help. I guess i am convinced to buy the 1.4x although i recognize the importance of the reach of the 2x but i am really not in the mood to loose image quality, or to loose the shot because of the AF. For that, i stick with a 1000$ lens, a Tamron or a Sigma. Again, of course the ideal was a 600 and the 1.4x but can´t reach that budget and i also make soccer matches and the 500 is already sometimes too long. 600 would kill that works to me...

I maybe start with the 1.4 and then later, maybe give a try with the 2x. I really don´t like using teleconverters but with this III generation, with the improvements of the construction and image quality, i took the decision to give them a try. Because reach is trully important in wildlife.

I am hoping to read other opinions but i guess my decision is for the 1.4x

One final consideration, in real life, or in final photo not numbers reading, is it big the diference betwen the reach of the 1.4x and the 2x?

Thanks a lot!

Hi Go Wild, the difference imho between 1.4x and 2x is pretty substantial, and worth the effort is some cases.
As per the sharpness of the 2x III+500II combination, here is one handheld decent example (using a 7D II)

Hello both!1 Well, now you have mixed these again!! I really like the appearance of your photo, although you did notice a little bit of sharpness loss it is not really what i expected. I thought it was more noticeable ths sharpness lost.
Well, my only concern about the 1.4x is that don´t get me enough reach and the 2x could give me "that" reach.
I don´t think it is a biig diference in focal distance between the both, but the numbers make you think....

in fulframe:
with 1.4 = 700mm
with 2x = 1000mm

In APSC with 7D2

with 1.4x = 1120mm
with 2x = 1600mm

Well...and 1600mm it´s just...insane! Could give you so much reach! Thing is...does the reach compensate the quality lost? Does it justifyes the difference between the 1120mm (1.4x) and the 1600mm (2x)... I guess it depends on the situations...damn....Not an easy answer...suppose the ideal is to buy both....but money dont grow in trees....

 

[rancho_runner]

Go Wild, my advice would be to start with the 1.4x, the combination is suitable to everyday usage; the 2 X may be special, but just in some situation and with a lot of patience/effort. In both cases, remember to AFMA the combination, or you'll see much more softness and IQ degradation.

 

[Freddie]

I use them both. Usually, the 1.4X TC III is on the 100-400 and the 2X TC III is on the 500. The 1.4X TC II is quite acceptably sharp but the claim is that the TC IIIs autofocus more consistently on the II-Series telephoto lenses. The 2X TC II never worked at all well for me so I sold it years ago. The new 2X TC III works very well for me on the 500. Attached is a sample image from the 7D MK II using the Canon 500L f/4 II + Canon 2X TC III. Shot wide open @ f/8, uncropped. I have tons more from a trip to Arizona last week. The only restriction with the 2X TC III is the lack of autofocus on lenses slower than f/4.

 

[Halfrack]

FWIW - https://www.lensauthority.com/t/camera-systems/canon/lenses/canon-branded-lenses?utf8=%E2%9C%93&product_sort=descend_by_variant_price&per_page=48

A used 200-400 for $8,105 to $9k. Toss on a 1.4x indoors, but while out in the mess, you can slide in the builtin 1.4x, and as a zoom you have as many framing options as you want.