I'm finally convinced that the vII 100-400 will be a worthwhile investment. I do expect to use it frequently with a 1.4x converter but I only have the 1.4x II. I'm willing to invest in a 1.4x III but only if it will give me significantly better IQ than my current vII one. Has anyone had experience shooting this lens with both 1.4x converters?
Common wisdom is that the iii has slightly better contrast, and maybe better corners? I'm not sure on that last one. I have a v1 and a v3, and that's worth the price difference, but you're talking about a TC that's 12 years old...
Canon says V3 TCs work best on all V2 L lenses. I can tell you the 1.4 III I have results in almost imperceptible IQ losses on my 100-400 II. I sold my 1.4 II long ago, but on my 70-200 2.8L II one could tell the difference readily between the V2 and V3 TCs.
Buy a 1.4 III from someone with a very liberal return policy (Amazon?) and compare it to the one you have and then decide. If you don't feel comfortable buying/returning, you can rent one from Lensrentals.com for $30/5 days.
Here is a comparison between the VII and VIII on the 70-200 II, it should represent similar results to what you'll see on your 100-400 II (he didn't test the 100-400 II with the VII and VIII 1.4x, only the VIII).
kezeka wrote:
Here is a comparison between the VII and VIII on the 70-200 II, it should represent similar results to what you'll see on your 100-400 II (he didn't test the 100-400 II with the VII and VIII 1.4x, only the VIII).
Good find! I hadn't spotted any Mark II lenses that he had tested with both generations of extender.
To my eyes, the Mark III extender is definitely better at the edges in that example but very slightly worse than the Mark II at centre.
Given most extenders are used for centre-heavy subjects, that surprises me.
The 2x Mark III versus II is hugely better at the edges for the newer version but the centre is very very close.
The version III has a number of important improvements:
- Build more robust with 6 instead of 4 mount ring screws
- Super Spectra and flourine coatings
- plus the optical and electronic upgrades already mentioned, etc.
I can see and appreciate the build and performance improvements with the 1.4xTC III and 2xTC III, but frankly, what I can't understand is why anybody would buy the latest state-of-the-art Canon lens and clap a previous gen TC between the lens and the body.
John_T wrote:
- Build more robust with 6 instead of 4 mount ring screws
Not necessarily an improvement. Over the years I have had two extenders fail at the mounting during impact, saving the lens and camera. Making the mounting stronger may negate that benefit.
but frankly, what I can't understand is why anybody would buy the latest state-of-the-art Canon lens and clap a previous gen TC between the lens and the body.
Because frankly the benefits are debatable and the extenders are horrifically over-priced. They cost more than some lenses yet CPS doesn't consider them qualifying products!
The step-up from Mark I to Mark II telephoto lenses is incontestable; lighter, easier handling, sharper. The same can't definitively be said for the Mark II to III extenders, so why spend another $500? That money could give better return on a new gimbal head, for example. Or pay for lens insurance for the year...
First post for me, but a long time lurker. I have the 100-400 ii & the 1.4ii & the results are excellent. The only thing I'm a bit disappointed in is when I lose target focus, the combo seems to hunt awhile to reaquire. It doesn't snap back nearly as fast (compared to the 300 2.8 I & 1.4 ii)!at the same f stop. My advice would be to get the 100 - 400 & mate it to the 1.4 ii which you already have & shoot away. You can certainly purchase the 1.4iii if you're not happy with the results. I wouldn't buy both to start. And as posted earlier, one can always rent (or borrow) and then compare.
As some of you have suggested, I'll shoot with the vII converter and see how I like it. I do own the vIII 2x which I frequently use with my 500, and I agree that IQ is much better with it than the vII one.
I picked up my 100-400 vII a couple of days ago and tried it out in the backyard with the 1.4xII... It's hard to imagine that the 1.4xIII will be any better than this. I'm very pleased!
Chris B. wrote:
I picked up my 100-400 vII a couple of days ago and tried it out in the backyard with the 1.4xII... It's hard to imagine that the 1.4xIII will be any better than this. I'm very pleased!
Same here. The 1.4x II looks great with it. 7D II, 100-400 II, 1.4x II
I emailed Chuck Westfall with this very question last January. Here is his reply:
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
I ended up trading my 1.4x2 for the 1.4x3 using the proceeds from used lens sales. Can't say I see any real difference on the 100-400II, just taking Brian's TDP 70-200 II comparison as gospel. He also compared the two extenders on the 100-400 v1 without any discernible difference. I think the lens, sensor density, and shooting circumstances have to be perfect to detect a difference. Tough call as to whether its worth it.
I think it would be wonderful if someone did a side by side with the two extenders and posted the results.
Keelcam wrote:
First post for me, but a long time lurker. I have the 100-400 ii & the 1.4ii & the results are excellent. The only thing I'm a bit disappointed in is when I lose target focus, the combo seems to hunt awhile to reaquire. It doesn't snap back nearly as fast (compared to the 300 2.8 I & 1.4 ii)!at the same f stop.
Why would it? They are NOT focusing at the same f-stop. The zoom + tc is focusing at f8, and the 300 f2.8 + tc is focusing at f4.
Why would it? They are NOT focusing at the same f-stop. The zoom + tc is focusing at f8, and the 300 f2.8 + tc is focusing at f4.
Just a simple observation. The prime snaps back after losing target focus much quicker at the same f stop (f8 .... though haven't compared at other same f stops), in same lighting conditions. Sometimes it'll take several seconds to reacquire. This is with the 1.4 conv version ii, not the version iii.
