uz2work Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I have both a 1.4x II and a 1.4x III. If I was looking at 100% crops on the screen very closely I might (and I emphasize might) see very minor differences somewhere in the frame. But I have no inclination to do so, and, in practical terms, with regard to how printed images look, I see no difference at all with either of the super telephotos that I've used it with.
Over time, the weight of a heavy lens can cause very slight deformation of the mount on a teleconverter, which can cause a deterioration of image quality. I previously had a 1.4x on which this happened. I do notice that, on the 1.4x III the mount is secured with more screws, and, perhaps, that will result in better long-term performance of the converter, but, with regard to image quality advantages, I see no real world difference. In spite of the cognitive dissonance that leads virtually everyone (and especially those who post on internet boards) to ignore reality and to give reason to justify the soundness of our purchasing decisions, the more realistic conclusion that I've come to is that the $500 that I spent on the 1.4x III could have been better spent elsewhere. As others have pointed out, there may be some advantage to using the version III extenders with the newest super telephoto lenses, but I do not have one of those lenses, and, thus, I have no idea whether any differences would be significant or whether they would be negligible in real world usage.
|