Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?

[Ripley]

I shot a play a few weeks ago and my 70-200mmii/5Diii performed admirably, but I found myself wanting a little more reach in the outer aisles of the theater. I've been thinking about getting a teleconverter for awhile but I'm not sure which one to get. I'm leaning towards the 1.4x because I don't think I really need a ton more reach (no wildlife, just events), I don't want to sacrifice much IQ if any at all, and I don't really like the thought of giving up two stops. It's hard to resist the extra reach of the 2x though seeing as how they cost the same price! The IQ penalty is probably my primary consideration but I've read varying testimonies regarding the 1.4 versus the 2x.

What's your advice based on your experience with both? I did a few forum searches and didn't find any threads that had the input I was looking for... please post up a link if you know of one. Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[Eldar]

I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x. IQ loss is minimal with the 1.4x and, as you say, you lose 2 stops with the 2x. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 1.4x.

 

[sagittariansrock]

70-200 II with 2x III on a 5DIII, cropped to about 50% I think.
IQ was fine as far as I am concerned, but that is subjective.
1.4x wasn't so useful for me as I can just crop it anyway, and I wanted to make up the loss of magnification by going FF.

Finally mustered some courage to post pictures here Critiques and criticisms will be welcome, thanks!


Backyard birds 1 by deepclicks, on Flickr


Backyard birds 2 by deepclicks, on Flickr

 

[drjlo]

The IQ penalty is probably my primary consideration but I've read varying testimonies regarding the 1.4 versus the 2x.

There was an article on line once (gone now) that compared the Canon 1.4x III, 2x III, and Kenko's. Canon's 1.4x III did not have any better IQ than Kenko, but Canon 2x III was clearly better than third party 2x TC.
I have the Kenko 1.4x, Kenko 2x, and Canon 2x III, and I would say Canon 2x clearly has better IQ than Kenko 2x, and if stopped down to f/8 on 70-200 f/2.8 II (with adequate shutter speed), the Canon 2x comes very close to the 1.4x in IQ.

So I would recommend getting Canon 2x III as the relative best buy, but if you're worried about 2x IQ loss anyway, also buy the Kenko 1.4x which is excellent and cheaper.

 

[Loswr]

70-200/2.8L IS II with 1.4xIII vs. 2xIII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

 

[Click]

I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x.

Same here.

 

[Ripley]

70-200/2.8L IS II with 1.4xIII vs. 2xIII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Thanks for the link Neuro. Comparing the 1.4 to the 2.0 is interesting. Comparing the bare lens to the lens with teleconverters is depressing...

 

[privatebydesign]

1.4 no question if loss of IQ is your primary concern.

 

[tron]

1.4 no question if loss of IQ is your primary concern.

+1, 1.4xIII by all means to get maximum possible IQ. You got your 70-200 2.8 II for this very reason I assume.

 

[Mediabug]

I do own the Canon 2X converter. I have used it with my 70-200 F2.8L IS II. I have Rebel T2i body. The issue becomes the cameras ability to focus in anything but really bright surroundings. The 2X also really degrades the image. If I were to do it over, I would have gotten the 1.4X, but only since I now know how much the 2X degrades the image. Now having said all of that, in specific cases, like outside in bright sunlight, you can get decent images. Good luck

 

[Arctic Photo]

Hi, I got the 2x, I picked that up for reach. I was aware of the loss of IQ that people have mentioned here, but I have to say I still get quite nice pictures out of it. I use it with my 70-200 2.8 IS Mk2 on a 5D MkIII. I can live with the 2 stop loss as I only use it and plan to use it in daylight. The AF slows down significantly, or I should say, it tracks a lot having a hard time finding the subject. Get the 1.4x if these things are a concern for you.

 

[greger]

Get the1.4 extender and after using it for a couple of years I was ready for the 2X. Pictures with my 70-200 f4 and
The 1.4 are excellent. I found the 2X pics were softer and needed more sharpening. As I had o manually focus with
The 2X I purchased the 100-400 L zoom lens which I like very much. There are other posts on CR that have covered
This topic in depth. Good Luck!

 

[Eagle Eye]

I had the 1.4x II and 2x II. Sold the latter because it degraded the image too much. That said, I'm planning on selling the former and buying a 2x III. Go to www.the-digital-picture.com and compare the image quality of your lens with the teleconverter to something like the 100-400L. It's really a toss up on the image quality front, in my opinion. For you, the 2-stop penalty may be the deciding factor. I use my 70-200 f/4 IS for landscapes, so I'm shooting at f/16 and down anyway.

 

[jprusa]

I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x.

Same here.

Same here

 

[Don Haines]

I do own the Canon 2X converter. I have used it with my 70-200 F2.8L IS II. I have Rebel T2i body. The issue becomes the cameras ability to focus in anything but really bright surroundings. The 2X also really degrades the image. If I were to do it over, I would have gotten the 1.4X, but only since I now know how much the 2X degrades the image. Now having said all of that, in specific cases, like outside in bright sunlight, you can get decent images. Good luck

That's on a crop camera.... I did tests on a 60D to see how much detail you could resolve on a target 25 meters away. The most detail was with the 70-200 and a 1.4X, then the bare lens, and then with the 2X.....

When I did the test with a 5D2, the most detail was with the 2X, then the 1.4X (to be fair, not much difference), and then the bare lens.

 

[rudiholt]

I have the 2x III. I find it to be really soft. So soft that I don't really want to use it. I get a better shot from a 70-200 2.8 II and cropping then I do using the 2X. Also focus is affected on some lenses and i also found that you need to shoot at F9 or more for the image to be very sharp. I would get the 1.4 over the 2 anyway day.

 

[alexturton]

neither.

The IQ + loss of light with a 2x is a non starter for me. 1.4x is ok, but blank sheet of paper I'd go with a sigma 120-300 2.8 instead of a 70-200 + 1.4x.

 

[mackguyver]

The 1.4x doesn't give you as much boost as you'd hope but has little effect on IQ or AF speed, so it's still great to have. The 2x is great for the big whites, but makes the 70-200 awkward from an ergonomic standpoint and compromises IQ a fair amount. I'd get the 1.4x - it makes a great "short" wildlife lens with the 70-200.

 

[Vern]

I have both 1.4 and 2 III's and only use the 2X with the 300 2.8 II as an easy to carry 600 5.6. The IQ is good enough with this combo, but I don't like the 2X with any other lens b/c the IQ is too degraded. The best option, of course, is to have a lens w the right native focal length, but the 1.4X adds a little reach w/o too big a detriment if you start w a great lens like the 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[jdramirez]

I picked up the 1.4 mkii. I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well. I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.