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

[mackguyver]

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.

There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

 

[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.

There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

Last year I used it when I shot some football games and recently when I shot my daughter skiing... but usually for what I do.. I'm close enough that the 70-200 is plenty long enough....

 

[Kerry B]

Unless you have the new Mk11 big prime lenses I would forget the 2 x extender, I have the Mk11 300f2.8 lens and both Mk111 extenders work brilliantly. The 1.4 extender is far more useful and can be used on many lenses with good results. The thing with extenders you really do need good glass to get the most out of them.

 

[Ripley]

There are several good posts here that give perspective and share experience. Thanks for the input everyone, I appreciate it. If I was going to pull the trigger tonight I would get the 1.4x, and I probably will when the next venue appointment comes in.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.

 

[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.

There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.

I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better. I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade. It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.

 

[mackguyver]

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.

There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!

That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.

I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better. I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade. It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.

I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos, mainly because it can use AFMA data from what I've read, and with the 300 2.8 IS II, there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better. I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade. It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.

That's very sound logic. And $ 150 compared to $ 450 is a pretty good price!
Of course, you are really good with used lens purchases and sales, the best I can find is around $ 200.

I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens

LOL- even my Mk III doesn't match my lens, so I guess that won't matter for me

Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos...

I did hear about that- I am guessing that wouldn't affect me. I would be able to afford a Mk III long before I can afford a Canon supertele...

there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.

 

[mackguyver]

there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.

Thanks for the reply and I'm sure the lighting is every bit as harsh there. The CA with the Mk II isn't bad at all and yes, it can be corrected in post, but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear. This is especially true with osprey wings against a gray sky and things like that. I do a fair bit of macro with my 180L and that is actually where I've seen the biggest difference between the 1.4x II and III.

Also, the other thing that I've noticed (and meant to mention) is that the flare resistance with the Mk III seems better. In bright light, it seems to hold contrast better than the Mk II. This isn't something most reviewers would test, but it's what I've seen.

They are subtle differences and probably not worth the extra money considering how much extra money it is. The only thing that is probably worth the money are the extra screws and better construction. With a $7k camera on one side and a $7k lens on the other, more screws holding it all together is definitely better!

For the 1.4x, unless you have a Mk II supertele (and money to burn), it's not worth the huge difference in cost. The 2x extenders are much different, however and worth it, even with the 70-200s, 135, 180, 100-400 and others.

 

[sagittariansrock]

there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.

I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.

Thanks for the reply and I'm sure the lighting is every bit as harsh there. The CA with the Mk II isn't bad at all and yes, it can be corrected in post, but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear. This is especially true with osprey wings against a gray sky and things like that. I do a fair bit of macro with my 180L and that is actually where I've seen the biggest difference between the 1.4x II and III.

Also, the other thing that I've noticed (and meant to mention) is that the flare resistance with the Mk III seems better. In bright light, it seems to hold contrast better than the Mk II. This isn't something most reviewers would test, but it's what I've seen.

They are subtle differences and probably not worth the extra money considering how much extra money it is. The only thing that is probably worth the money are the extra screws and better construction. With a $7k camera on one side and a $7k lens on the other, more screws holding it all together is definitely better!

For the 1.4x, unless you have a Mk II supertele (and money to burn), it's not worth the huge difference in cost. The 2x extenders are much different, however and worth it, even with the 70-200s, 135, 180, 100-400 and others.

Great advice as always, Mackguyver! Thanks!

 

[gary samples]

love the 1.4 III but some people forget it also magnifies bad camera skills !!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've started mostly using the 2x on my 300 2.8 since it's hard to ever get close to most wildlife, but in your scenario the loss of stop and so on, 1.4x is probably the best bet, plus you are using it with a zoom as well.

 

[eml58]

My own experience with the Big Whites I own, or have owned, 1.4x III excellent on all, very slight loss of IQ that is hard to determine mostly.

2x III I have only had very good results while used on my 300f/2.8 II, it's Ok on the 200f/2, 400f/2.8 II & 600F4/II.

1.4x III excellent on the 70-200f/2.8 II, 2x III not so good but usable.

Using either on the 200-400f/4 with the built in 1.4x engaged is close to useless.

 

[pwp]

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...

Teleconverters do have their place, particularly for wildlife shooters and some sports shooters. But shooting theatre? I wouldn't get a TC at all, even f/2.8 stretches the friendship. Giving away a whole stop makes a TC a complete non-starter for theatre work. No-one shoots a typical theatre production with f/4 or slower glass. All you'll get are dreary completely static shots except in rare, very brightly lit sequences. Dynamic theatre shots sell better, and you'll get return business. I'd try making different compositions with more space around your subjects, or consider a f/2.8 300is. I take the f/2.8 300 to theatre jobs, but would only use it briefly on about one-in-ten jobs. Or there is always the famous, free walk-in zoom. (I'm assuming you're shooting final dress-rehearsals rather than public performances with their necessary strict noise and movement restrictions)

Bottom line for your theatre work? TC-x1.4 or TC-x2? Don't get either. Just refine your technique to suit the situation.

-pw

 

[privatebydesign]

I have shot a lot of stage, music, and concert (as in philharmonic) with a 300 f2.8 and a 1.4TC, the 1.4TC is a very useful tool indoors, especially the MkIII,, the 2x I couldn't recommend.

 

[jdramirez]

Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.

 

[privatebydesign]

Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.

No, because you are not stopping down.

 

[jdramirez]

Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.

No, because you are not stopping down.

Ago the aperture stays the same but the amount of light that reaches the sensor changes?

 

[privatebydesign]

Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.

No, because you are not stopping down.

Ago the aperture stays the same but the amount of light that reaches the sensor changes?

The apparent aperture stays the same, that is, the actual size of hole the light goes through is not changed by the TC (and hence the amount of light through the aperture stays constant), but the numeric value of the aperture does change because of the change to the focal length, and you collect less of the light that goes through that aperture because you are recording less of the projected image circle. This means you get less light per unit area of sensor.

So yes, you are correct, the amount of light falling on the sensor reduces by one stop for a 1.4TC and two stops for a 2TC.

 

[Loswr]

F/number is the ratio of focal length to the physical diameter of the aperture. A TC increases focal length, but doesn't change the lens' iris diaphragm diameter, thus a TC changes f/number.