I've never heard of 135L being a "dust pump".
I thought "dust pump" nickname was used for 100-400, 5D and 17-55 f/2.8.
Lenses pump most dust thru their mount side. That is why having a TC on the lens helps with the dust problem. While at it, might as well have a TC which yields better IQ, such as MkIII.
Great to see! Very thorough review! However I thought it would be a much bigger difference since many of my customers changed to the newer version without hesitating. The biggest difference I can see is the better controlled CA?
Thanks again for the supportive comments. These tests aren't perfect, but then, neither am I.
brace wrote:
...The biggest difference I can see is the better controlled CA?
I was very pleased to find an IQ improvement with the 1.4x III. The main reason I bought a 1.4x III to replace my 1.4x Mk I, was for the weather sealing. I've always been happy with the 1.4x Mk I image quality. Basically, that's why I never bothered to get a 1.4x Mk II.
The Mk III offers an obvious performance improvement for CA. I think it also offers an improvement for resolution at the edges and in the corners. This was an especially pleasant surprise. Take a moment to compare the cracks in the oil painting images. I think the Mk III provides a more crisp and 'sharper' image, in these areas.
OTOH, the main reason that I bought a 2x Mk III was to get better overall IQ. On both counts (1.4x and 2x Extenders), I'm very pleased with the results.
On the weather sealing, and it does add some security, how much use is it in actual use? I have been to some nasty places and worked in hard rain areas, dust areas and so on and even with non weather sealed extenders and lenses, there is no more noticeable problems than without, and I have both. It seems once that metal is mated well, there is little room for anything to get through.
I am glad to see the nice improvements with the extenders and found the 2X II to work extremely well on the 200L f2 and to have a III or the 1.4 III to do even better only adds up to better end product and enjoyment.
It's difficult to quantify the value of 'weather sealing', as the time that you know you need it, is probably soon after your gear fails. Call it a confidence factor.
I often shoot in bad environmental conditions. I shoot on ships at sea in storms, and on the sidelines at field sports - in the Maritimes (i.e. the Rainytimes). When I know that it'll be wet, I bring my ThinkTank (TT) Hydrophobia covers. That's for use with my 'weather-sealed' bodies and lenses. When you're standing out there in the driving rain, and it's leaking through your shoulder seams, and you're getting cold from the 'exposure', this is not a good time for an 'unprotected' camera.
So far, I've trashed two cameras (one of them twice), by shooting without suitable protection. Both have been repaired, at costs exceeding the cost of a TT cover (all three times). Both cameras are now 'retired'. One, a 20D, is biding its time, just waiting there in a drawer. The other, a 5D, is being used very productively by my daughter. My other 5D is being used by me (any time is a good time to buy a 5D).
I regard using a raincoat for my photography gear in much the same way as using a rudder on a sea kayak. Many purists and fanciers say that "it's not pure", "you don't need a rudder, if you have good form", "a good paddler doesn't need a rudder", "it's not what I fancy"; but, when you're paddling in a 30 knot cross-wind with stern-quartering seas, I'll take any advantage that I can get!
Since we have so many effective tools in PS, etc. I would be interested in the "corrected" files of such a test (we all know about CA, sharpness and contrast adjustments). How much of that slight CA is correctable?
Example: I saw a test some time ago of German glass that exhibited more contrast than the Japanese equivalent. But the Japanese lenses "took to" local contrast enhancement and matched the, uncorrected, German lenses. Local contrast enhancement of the German glass resulted in an unnatural image that had too much contrast.
So with a bit of PS the Japanese glass because German (actually many German branded lenses are made in Japan-another topic?). So the "best" contrast (in that test) was achievable with both high quality Japanese and German lenses.
Similarly, some celebrate certain lenses that have a special color rendition. This made good sense in the Film and chemical darkroom days. But with PS tools any image can be tweaked for most any color balance.
For those that have less PS experience and doubt these comments I recommend you study and apply advanced PS techniques. This is all to imply that image capture is part of a system: Capture, PP and exhibition.
If you ever get your hands on the MKII version of the 1.4x I'd love to see how they compare
Disclosure: I have the 1.4X II. The MK II has slightly better reflection suppression (black paint) inside the lens barrel. I don't think you will see a difference between Mk I and MK II. The 2X I and 2X II have different optical designs.
One thing about this test that jumps out at me: the close shots show the III to be better, while the extreme distance shots appear to be a wash. I think this is because atmospheric haze is erasing the optical advantage of the III. I would guess that at medium distances (wildlife photography), the optical difference would be somewhere in between these extremes.
Thank you, Jim, for going to the trouble of these tests.
!