Which extender is best

[Marsu42]

MARSU42, I have similar setup. I have the 50D and the 70-300L. I have been tryng to decide on using the 70-300L with the Kenko for wildlife or purchase the 400mm 5.6. Although I am not sure if there is any noticable difference in IQ using the Kenko extender versus the 4005.6 L by itself.

I've not shot those, but an L prime (even a modestly priced one like the 400 5.6) without an extender should significantly outperform a zoom with an extender, right?

Right. I think the 70-300L rates as "very good" (maybe not "excellent" like the more expensive/heavier/larger 70-200L or even the "stellar" 200L), and with the extender it is just "good". The 400/5.6L should not only be significantly sharper, but the af @f8 with the extender does hunt sometimes if only using one af point on my 60d - so for that reason alone it's better to get the prime. The tc solution for the zoom is just convenience and some shots.

 

[ahsanford]

MARSU42, I have similar setup. I have the 50D and the 70-300L. I have been tryng to decide on using the 70-300L with the Kenko for wildlife or purchase the 400mm 5.6. Although I am not sure if there is any noticable difference in IQ using the Kenko extender versus the 4005.6 L by itself.

I've not shot those, but an L prime (even a modestly priced one like the 400 5.6) without an extender should significantly outperform a zoom with an extender, right?

Right. I think the 70-300L rates as "very good" (maybe not "excellent" like the more expensive/heavier/larger 70-200L or even the "stellar" 200L), and with the extender it is just "good". The 400/5.6L should not only be significantly sharper, but the af @f8 with the extender does hunt sometimes if only using one af point on my 60d - so for that reason alone it's better to get the prime. The tc solution for the zoom is just convenience and some shots.

Excellent point.

'Effective' fully open apertures with extenders not only slow AF in general due to a smaller effective aperture (as I said before), but as Marsu42 aptly points out, that smaller aperture also greatly limits what AF points you can use. Depending on your body + lens + extender choice, your AF will hunt longer before locking on.

 

[mrsfotografie]

FWIW I have the 1.4 Canon TC II that I use with my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Interestingly this combination is supposedly sharper on an APS-C body than the same lens with the new Mk III 1.4 TC, which I'm ready to believe

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687

 

[ahsanford]

FWIW I have the 1.4 Canon TC II that I use with my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. Interestingly this combination is supposedly sharper on an APS-C body than the same lens with the new Mk III 1.4 TC, which I'm ready to believe

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687

I believe Carnathan only has 1-3 copies of each lens, whereas a rental shop like LR has (in some cases) a dozen copies or so. I wonder if there is significant copy to copy variation with Canon Mk III extenders...

(Paging Roger Cicala!)

- A

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Ok, so I am look at the samples from cyberphoto.se, and the Sigma 2x converter looks considerably sharper than the Canon 2x III both at f/5.6 and especially at f/8. Do my eyes deceive me?

I tried the Sigma 2x vs the Canon Mk2 and found the Canon noticeably better in colour and contrast though pretty similar in sharpness. I later traded The Canon Mk2 2x to get the Mk3. Basically My Canon Mk2 2x was staying at home as I felt cropping was better (remember I found the Sigma significantly inferior to the Canon Mk2) in other words it was a waste of money giving mediocre results on my 300 & 600mm lenses. The Mk3 2x however is enough better to make it worthwhile (it is VERY good on F2.8 primes) to use and carry around. Though very expensive the 2 x Mk3 is significantly better than the Mk2 which was significantly better than the Sigma. Though the Sigma wins hands down on price!

 

[RC]

At least for Canon TCs, make sure they are compatible with your lens and the lens you plan to buy. Also keep in mind that for some lens/TC combos, you will lose AF functionality.

 

[Fotofanten]

Ok, so I am look at the samples from cyberphoto.se, and the Sigma 2x converter looks considerably sharper than the Canon 2x III both at f/5.6 and especially at f/8. Do my eyes deceive me?

I tried the Sigma 2x vs the Canon Mk2 and found the Canon noticeably better in colour and contrast though pretty similar in sharpness. I later traded The Canon Mk2 2x to get the Mk3. Basically My Canon Mk2 2x was staying at home as I felt cropping was better (remember I found the Sigma significantly inferior to the Canon Mk2) in other words it was a waste of money giving mediocre results on my 300 & 600mm lenses. The Mk3 2x however is enough better to make it worthwhile (it is VERY good on F2.8 primes) to use and carry around. Though very expensive the 2 x Mk3 is significantly better than the Mk2 which was significantly better than the Sigma. Though the Sigma wins hands down on price!

Wow, thank you for that insightful post! Much appreciated

 

[natureshots]

I've owned the kenko dgx set, tamron 2x and sigma 2x and I've used the canon.
At 1.4x the kenko is pretty much indistinguishable from the canon mkIII. The kenko works with any lens and the canon with very few lenses. Get the kenko unless you have one of the new mkII canon supertelephoto primes which I'm taking a wild guess is a no.
At 2x the Canon mkIII is substantially better. Kenko comes next, then the canon mkII, then the Tamron and then the sigma which produces mud (and also broke on me in 6 months although it was used/abused very heavily). Make sure your lens can accept the canon 2x if you want the best and can swing the extra $200 for the canon. Also be prepared to make some compromises with the 2x even with the canon. If the light is great and you have good technique you can even get some surprisingly good results with stacked Kenkos. Its less than ideal but I was pretty surprised. If your technique is not so great than you will not be able to stack TCs.

 

[East Wind Photography]

The 70-200 2.8l II is a very fine lens. Stick with the canon TCs. I've used both the 1.4 and the 2x TCs with that lens and the 1.4 loss is negligible. With the 2x the loss is slight but worth the cost vsa 400mm prime.

The reason I suggest using the canon TCs is that the III version tc's are matched for use with version II lenses. Using a 3rd party TC will give you slower AF speed and likely lower IQ. I don't think you will be happy with anything else. They are more expensive but if you are looking for a matched TC performance my advice would be to stick with the canon TCs. Budget for both the 1.4 and the 2x because you will end up getting both and that's the best choice for expanding the capability of the 70-200 2.8L II lens.

At this moment I will probably only be using it on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM.
Well since Canon doubled their prices, it's not interesting anymore to stick to that.
The Kenko ones on the other hand are much cheaper! And if they deliver the same results, I can do the math...

In my country (Netherlands) I get these TC's for these prices (converted to USD):
Canon EF 1.4x III Extender for 607,00 USD
Kenko PRO 300 DGX 1.4x for 290,00 USD

Canon EF 2.0x III Extender for 619,00 USD
Kenko PRO 300 DGX 2.0x for 315,00 USD

In both cases it would save me 300+ USD if I would buy the Kenko TC's....

 

[bycostello]

canon for canon stuff every time...

 

[expatinasia]

On amazon.co.uk the Kenko 2x Teleplus PRO 300 DGX is £144.99 while the Canon Extender EF 2x III is a staggering £399.

Ironically, there are very few reviews on both, but the Kenko does seem to have a slight "stars" advantage over the Canon, though that may be due to the lower price.

Those about to purchase should definitely read the reviews though as there seems to be a few unhappy 100-400L campers on the Canon section.

 

[Loswr]

On amazon.co.uk the Kenko 2x Teleplus PRO 300 DGX is £144.99 while the Canon Extender EF 2x III is a staggering £399.

Ironically, there are very few reviews on both, but the Kenko does seem to have a slight "points" advantage, though that may be due to the lower price.

Before the 1D X firmware update providing f/8 AF, Art Morris blogged about getting AF at f/8 with the Kenko 1.4x on the 800/5.6L. At that time, I had just received my 600/4L II, and really wanted to know if the Kenko 2x would allow f/8 AF with an f/4 lens. I only found one comparison between the Kenko and Canon 2x TCs, on a birding forum. The guy had shot pics of a US$5 bill with both TCs behind a 500 II - with the Kenko, the bill was very soft, while the Canon 2x was sharp. Still, it was only one review. I had planned to test the Kenko 2x myself, and in fact, had both the Kenko 2x and 1.4x (for AF with the 100-400) in my B&H cart...but before I got around to clicking Buy, the firmware update was announced, so I bought the Canon 2xIII instead.