Archive 2015 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

jpeter wrote:
That makes sense for the AF side of things. So it may AF better, but optically very close.
JP

Optically the 1.4 has always been said to be about equal. Some claim slightly better corners and edges for the Mark III but usually we crop that area out anyways for wildlife. The 2xIII is much more of an IQ improvement than the II. A lot of people upgraded the 2x but didn't upgrade the 1.4x and that makes sense from a pure IQ perspective. It is with AF that the Mark III improved mostly in the 1.4 series.

Aug 26, 2015 at 09:12 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

This is a copy of Chuck Westfall's reply from last May to a question I sent him asking about this subject:

As of now, I have not had the time to compare the image quality of the new 100-400 version II with 1.4X III vs. 1.4X II. However, our information from Canon Inc. in Japan does not indicate any special optical advantage for either version of the EF Extenders when used with EF zoom lenses. In fact, the only instance in which the Type III Extenders are stated to be a better optical match than earlier models occurs when the Type III Extenders are used with the IS II prime lenses from 300mm to 600mm. Based on that, plus my personal experience with the EF 1.4X II and III on other EF zoom lenses such as the 70-200/2.8L IS II, I wouldn't expect any significant difference in image quality for either of those extenders when used with the new EF 100-400mm IS II lens.

If you hear anything different, please let me know.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Advisor, Technical Information
ITCG Prof Bus Strategy Plan Division

Ben's link in post #2 didn't lead to my post of Chuck's reply so I think it bears repeating here. As I said, I ended up trading my 1.4x2 for the 1.4x3 using the proceeds from used lens sales. In my semi-formal comparisons, I couldn't see any real difference on the 100-400II using my 5D3. However, I was just comparing center sharpness and in similar tests I couldn't see much difference between the old and new 100-400s either. I have subsequently gotten some images using the new lens and converter with stunning sharpness across the field. The optical improvement in the new 100-400 shows in how well it stands up to teleconverters. I suspect the 7D2 folks see similar with their high pixel density. I think the lens, sensor density, and shooting circumstances have to be perfect to detect a difference.

Perhaps we should all chip in and rent a 1.4xIII for Ben to do some comparisons using his 5DSR and 100-400 II.

Aug 26, 2015 at 11:14 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

Jeff Nolten wrote:
This is a copy of Chuck Westfall's reply from last May to a question I sent him asking about this subject:

As of now, I have not had the time to compare the image quality of the new 100-400 version II with 1.4X III vs. 1.4X II. However, our information from Canon Inc. in Japan does not indicate any special optical advantage for either version of the EF Extenders when used with EF zoom lenses. In fact, the only instance in which the Type III Extenders are stated to be a better optical match than earlier models occurs when the

Ben's link in post #2 didn't lead to my post of Chuck's reply so I think it bears repeating here. As I said, I ended up trading my 1.4x2 for the 1.4x3 using the proceeds from used lens sales. In my semi-formal comparisons, I couldn't see any real difference on the 100-400II using my 5D3. However, I was just comparing center sharpness and in similar tests I couldn't see much difference between the old and new 100-400s either. I have subsequently gotten some images using the new lens and converter with stunning sharpness across the field. The optical improvement in the new 100-400 shows in how well it stands up to teleconverters. I suspect the 7D2 folks see similar with their high pixel density. I think the lens, sensor density, and shooting circumstances have to be perfect to detect a difference.

Perhaps we should all chip in and rent a 1.4xIII for Ben to do some comparisons using his 5DSR and 100-400 II.

Arbitrage: Note that Chuck doesn't confirm or deny any AF improvement. I suggested someone test this back in May and it would still be nice to have some opinions on that. I think you've had all these combinations do you have a sense of improvement?...Show more →

I've never owned the mark II so all my comments are based of the links I read...mainly CPN Europe site. If someone wants to mail me a 1.4II I'll happily put it through a few days of testing vs the mark III on 300II, 600II, 200-400, 100-400II and 70-200II. I even still have the 100-400 original so could see if any difference on it. But I have no interest in buying a markII myself so someone will have to lend it to me.

Aug 26, 2015 at 04:07 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

ya, my v2 is gone as well. But I do have my original 100-400, not that that will do us any good.

It is just too good a lens to let it go for what B&H is willing to give me.

Aug 26, 2015 at 05:12 PM

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

I have the Mk II and it is very good. I'd like to see some comparisons between the II and the III also. Is there a difference in AF performance?

Aug 26, 2015 at 06:24 PM

gschlact
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

jpeter wrote:
Claims from Canon aside; I have trouble understanding how an extender can be designed to work better with the new lenses.
It would seem to be more of a situation where the new lenses are better and improving the extender just keeps the picture quality as high as possible in line with that.
I do use the V3 extender on my NEW 100-400 and it works well. Picture quality is degraded a bit ... just like on my old 500.

JP

The design to work better comes into play with the AF speed "slow down" algorithm that has been reported that Canon intentionally uses with TC's to help accuracy.

I had both for my 70_200 f2.8 II and noticed with viii 1.4x some CA improvement on I think the Portrait orientation, but bigger improvement on AF for Servo keeping up on field sports.

Aug 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM

ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Upgrade 1.4x mk2 to m3 for 100-400?

My question has been answered, I will keep the mk2. Bird photography is secondary to landscape and sort of a filler. I spent 8 years with a 500F4 when I lived in much better bird territory, now I have to learn where to find them all over. The few shots I have taken with the 1.4 mk2 have been good enough for my purposes.

I just shot my 17TSE again and think I have to keep it. Funds for upgrades were going to pay for the new extender.

Aug 28, 2015 at 11:49 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.