jcolwell Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Canon EF Extender 1.4x Mk I vs. 1.4x Mk III
I'm pleasantly surprised to find that both of the new Canon EF Extenders (1.4x and 2x) are usefully better than their earlier versions. In this case, I tested the new Mk III's against the 1.4x Mk I and 2x Mk II. For IQ, I regard the Kenko Pro 1.4x to be effectively the same as the Canon Mk I (and both are usefully better than the Tamron SP 1.4x). I'll use separate threads for the 1.4x and 2x Extenders. In both cases, I'll start with a summary of resolution tests made using USAF 1951 test targets, and then show a variety of comparison images. In these images, the top left and right panels show 100% crops, with the older extender on the left and the newer Mk III on the right, and the bottom panel shows the PS CS5 Navigator window for the full image.
Comments are most welcome. Just remember, you get what you pay for.
Summary: in comparison with the 1.4x Mk I, the 1.4x Mk III:
- is slightly sharper overall, especially in the corners;
- has slightly better contrast; and,
- has less CA in the corners.
Resolution test summary:
USAF 1951 target resolution tests, 1DsIII 70-200/2.8L IS Mk II, ISO 800, yes MLU, no IS, geared head on tripod. Results include both manual focus using LiveView (LV) and autofocus (AF) in One Shot mode with centre AF point active. Results are shown for both wide open and one stop down (i.e. f/4 and f/5.6 for the 1.4x Extender, and f5.6 and f/8 for the 2x Extender).
Set 1, transit sign
1DsIII 500/4L IS wide open, ISO 400, yes AF, no MLU, yes IS, SideKick on tripod.
Set 2, buildings
1DsIII 500/4L IS wide open, ISO 400, yes AF, no MLU, yes IS, SideKick on tripod.
Set 3, painting
1DsIII 200/1.8L at f/5.6 (incl. effect of Extenders), ISO 800, LV manual focus, yes MLU, geared head on tripod.
|