Comparisons of Canon Tele-Extender Models?

[landscaper1]

Has anyone performed a reasonable test to compare the results of the Version I, II & III models of the Canon Tele-Extenders 1.4 x and 2.0x?

Given the considerable difference in purchase prices for these, it's reasonable to ask how much more you get for your money when stepping up from one version to the next.

 

[bigfatron]

Has anyone performed a reasonable test to compare the results of the Version I, II & III models of the Canon Tele-Extenders 1.4 x and 2.0x?

Given the considerable difference in purchase prices for these, it's reasonable to ask how much more you get for your money when stepping up from one version to the next.

--
Landscaper

I don't remember ever seeing a test that compares all three generations in the same place, but most reviews of a given model i've seen do compare it with their predecessor.

With the Mk III extenders I believe the waters are also muddied a bit because some improvements made in them are specific to Mk II L series telephotos.

 

[landscaper1]

Has anyone performed a reasonable test to compare the results of the Version I, II & III models of the Canon Tele-Extenders 1.4 x and 2.0x?

Given the considerable difference in purchase prices for these, it's reasonable to ask how much more you get for your money when stepping up from one version to the next.

 

[CameraCarl]

By the way, the lens you mention will have an effective aperture of f/8 with a 1.4x and f/11 with a 2x converter. Many Canon bodies will not autofocus at f/8 nor at f/11. Do you have a camera which does?

 

[landscaper1]

By the way, the lens you mention will have an effective aperture of f/8 with a 1.4x and f/11 with a 2x converter. Many Canon bodies will not autofocus at f/8 nor at f/11. Do you have a camera which does?

All camera focus at f/8 and f/11. You just have to look through the viewfinder or at the LCD screen and turn the focusing ring until you have sharp focus.

Those of us who were photo veterans before the heyday of auto-focusing had lots of practice doing that. ;-)

 

[jitteringjr]

Has anyone performed a reasonable test to compare the results of the Version I, II & III models of the Canon Tele-Extenders 1.4 x and 2.0x?

Given the considerable difference in purchase prices for these, it's reasonable to ask how much more you get for your money when stepping up from one version to the next.

 

[Alan GT]

Hi - as an earlier post mentioned, you can see a comparison of the EF 400 5.6L with the MkII and MkIII extenders using the image quality comparison tool at the-digital-picture.com

You select the extenders in the focal length drop down menus (there are 2 options for each extended length corresponding to the MkII and III extenders) and choose a body as close as possible.

On the scale of things, I don't see much difference between the MkII and III 2x converters using this comparison tool. If you can tolerate the degradation compared to the bare lens then I think either would be OK.

Alan

 

[Wildlife Guy]

I have shot the II & III models of the 1.4x and 2x in the field. Not scientific, but I believe the III versions (especially the 1.4x ) are noticeably better and worth the additional price. I don't especially like the optical penalty of the 2x, but it can be acceptable on some of the version II telephotos. You can go to the link below if you want to see samples of a 200-400 f4 L IS using a 2xIII to see the impact of a 2x on a high quality L lens.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58173615

My test is towar the bottom of the thread.

 

[M Stewart]

All camera focus at f/8 and f/11. You just have to look through the viewfinder or at the LCD screen and turn the focusing ring until you have sharp focus.

Those of us who were photo veterans before the heyday of auto-focusing had lots of practice doing that. ;-)

 

[Wildlife Guy]

I had a Minolta film camera with split imagine focusing. Even with my bad eyesight I could accurately focus the camera because of the split image approach. I cannot manually focus modern cameras. Basically, I would love to be able to manual focus in some situations, just very difficult with current gear.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

By the way, the lens you mention will have an effective aperture of f/8 with a 1.4x and f/11 with a 2x converter. Many Canon bodies will not autofocus at f/8 nor at f/11. Do you have a camera which does?

All camera focus at f/8 and f/11. You just have to look through the viewfinder or at the LCD screen and turn the focusing ring until you have sharp focus.

Those of us who were photo veterans before the heyday of auto-focusing had lots of practice doing that. ;-)

 

[WindwardHaole]

I use the original Canon TC-1.4X on my 400, 5.6 L and I find the overall IQ drop to be acceptable, the old 400, 5.6 is a very good lens. Taping off three of the contacts on the converter will allow auto-focus, albeit a bit hesitantly in less than bright conditions. There is no optical difference between the first and second Canon TC1.4X converters. The TC1.4X III has reportedly somewhat better IQ.

 

[landscaper1]

I use the original Canon TC-1.4X on my 400, 5.6 L and I find the overall IQ drop to be acceptable, the old 400, 5.6 is a very good lens. Taping off three of the contacts on the converter will allow auto-focus, albeit a bit hesitantly in less than bright conditions. There is no optical difference between the first and second Canon TC1.4X converters. The TC1.4X III has reportedly somewhat better IQ.

Thanks for a direct answer to my original question. Now, I have a follow-up question for you.

In your opinion, how does the IQ of the Canon 400/4 L + TC-1.4X compare to the IQ of just enlarging the central 71% of the 400/4 L image? I'm asking because I've concluded that with my 70-300/4-5.6 L the IQ of enlarging the central 71% is superior to that obtained using a TC.

 

[bigfatron]

I use the original Canon TC-1.4X on my 400, 5.6 L and I find the overall IQ drop to be acceptable, the old 400, 5.6 is a very good lens. Taping off three of the contacts on the converter will allow auto-focus, albeit a bit hesitantly in less than bright conditions. There is no optical difference between the first and second Canon TC1.4X converters. The TC1.4X III has reportedly somewhat better IQ.

The only comparative test i've done myself was with a Mk I and Mk III on a 100-400 II. That seemed to bear out that the Mk III had better IQ. Can't say i've ever used a Mk II one though.

 

[WindwardHaole]

Sorry, I can't give an opinion on something I've not used.

 

[landscaper1]

Sorry, I can't give an opinion on something I've not used.

I think you misunderstood my question.

You said you used the combination of the Canon 400/5.6L and the Canon TC-1.4X. I asked how you would compare the image quality from that combination to the image quality of enlarging the central (71%) portion of a Canon 400/5.6L image when the TC-1.4X was not used.

I asked that because, when I did that comparison using my Canon 70-300 L + a Keno 300 TC-1.4X, I found that the result was inferior to what I obtained by just enlarging the central portion of the 70-300 L image when no TC was used.

 

[WindwardHaole]

I may still misunderstand, but I haven't made a comparison of a naked 400 mm cropped image with one using the TC and am not likely to do so. While a cropped image may in some ways have higher over all IQ, I prefer to view the larger taking image with the TC.

 

[bigfatron]

I may still misunderstand, but I haven't made a comparison of a naked 400 mm cropped image with one using the TC and am not likely to do so. While a cropped image may in some ways have higher over all IQ, I prefer to view the larger taking image with the TC.

Its a strange comparison he's asking for anyway. If I expected to crop but retain 71% of my original image then I probably wouldn't have stuck a TC on in the first place.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I may still misunderstand, but I haven't made a comparison of a naked 400 mm cropped image with one using the TC and am not likely to do so. While a cropped image may in some ways have higher over all IQ, I prefer to view the larger taking image with the TC.

Its a strange comparison he's asking for anyway. If I expected to crop but retain 71% of my original image then I probably wouldn't have stuck a TC on in the first place.

A recurrent question for wildlife shooters. Do you rely on cropping only or do you aim for more reach (converter) and less cropping?

In practice, a 2400x1800 crop from a 5472 x 3648 sensor is quite normal, that's a bit more than 21% of the pixels. This means, you also have to crop the image made with a converter.

We're talking about the telezooms in the 300-400 range, the ones you choose for size and weight (when hiking, cycling, climbing etc.). And especially birds almost never fill the frame. In reality a raptor seldom is closer than 100 yards.

Using a car or sitting is a hide is something completely different though.

 

[landscaper1]

I may still misunderstand, but I haven't made a comparison of a naked 400 mm cropped image with one using the TC and am not likely to do so. While a cropped image may in some ways have higher over all IQ, I prefer to view the larger taking image with the TC.

Its a strange comparison he's asking for anyway. If I expected to crop but retain 71% of my original image then I probably wouldn't have stuck a TC on in the first place.

A recurrent question for wildlife shooters. Do you rely on cropping only or do you aim for more reach (converter) and less cropping?

In practice, a 2400x1800 crop from a 5472 x 3648 sensor is quite normal, that's a bit more than 21% of the pixels. This means, you also have to crop the image made with a converter.

We're talking about the telezooms in the 300-400 range, the ones you choose for size and weight (when hiking, cycling, climbing etc.). And especially birds almost never fill the frame. In reality a raptor seldom is closer than 100 yards.

Using a car or sitting is a hide is something completely different though.