Quick question for you guys that upgrade all the time. What is the advantage of moving from the 1.4 Teleconverter version II to the version III?
I am new to mirrorless and shot this guy today, and the AF hit before I knew what was going on, also it is extremely sharp.. So what are the advantages.. And is the 1.4 R converter any better than the old EF converters?
You cannot tell it is sharp here but it is, if you go to the Flickr site it is much better. And shows the detail, which is what I like.
Without modification the RF extender won’t work on EF glass.
IQ differences between the 1.4 II and III are said to be minor but slightly better with the III; there may be other improvements such as better chromatic aberration control, better AF and better weather sealing with the newer teleconverter.
There really is not an advantage to the 1.4 III over the II. When I upgraded there was a small difference but it was mostly a touch more contrast. I would have used either one. The 2XII to 2XIII was a huge improvement though. As for the RF converters using a modified third party adapter on EF lenses, I've tried this and there is no advantage.
justashooter wrote:
There really is not an advantage to the 1.4 III over the II. When I upgraded there was a small difference but it was mostly a touch more contrast. I would have used either one. The 2XII to 2XIII was a huge improvement though. As for the RF converters using a modified third party adapter on EF lenses, I've tried this and there is no advantage.
Thanks, I have decided not to upgrade. Especially since everything is going mirrorless. I finally found a write up with a video showing the difference, and even stacking TC's the AF was still snappy, and accurate using older EF TC's on the new mirrorless cameras.
Got rid of my 2X years ago, but may try to pick up a used 2X III. Thanks for the heads up!
The 1.4x III is a totally different design optically from the 1.4x II. I have used many copies of both and the III is better peripherally and has significantly lower CA. Utimately IQ is lens+TC and the III series was designed for best optical compatibility with the IS II lenses, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4.
EB-1 wrote:
The 1.4x III is a totally different design optically from the 1.4x II. I have used many copies of both and the III is better peripherally and has significantly lower CA. Utimately IQ is lens+TC and the III series was designed for best optical compatibility with the IS II lenses, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4.
EBH
I might give 25-30 bucks for one just to try it out!
Very happy with my 1.4 II. See no need to upgrade. Everything I have read since I posted this has said it is not worth it. My local store rents gear, might rent the 2x III to try it out next I head out.
Sorry for the late reply, trying to get things finalized here for my next hop. No, I am using two old lenses I bought overseas. No biggie. I am very curious about the 2xIII now. So looking on e-bay. Decided if I can pick up one cheap I will take it with me. I took the 1.4x II out again, and have decided I don't care how much better the 1.4 III is, I am not interested. On the R5 it is faster then I can determine what is going on. And the sharpness is fine for what I like to do. Tried pre-capture on it ,and a few BIF's and it kept up just fine.
Anyone here use the R5m 2 with the EF 2.0x III teleconverter. On Canons big whites? If so, if you have a Flickr page or another place you post I would really like to see the pics. And your thoughts on AF.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, trying to get things finalized here for my next hop. No, I am using two old lenses I bought overseas. No biggie. I am very curious about the 2xIII now. So looking on e-bay. Decided if I can pick up one cheap I will take it with me. I took the 1.4x II out again, and have decided I don't care how much better the 1.4 III is, I am not interested. On the R5 it is faster then I can determine what is going on. And the sharpness is fine for what I like to do. Tried pre-capture on it ,and a few BIF's and it kept up just fine.
Anyone here use the R5m 2 with the EF 2.0x III teleconverter. On Canons big whites? If so, if you have a Flickr page or another place you post I would really like to see the pics. And your thoughts on AF. ...Show more →
I don't have flicker but I think the EF 2xIII is worth it for using with big whites. I sold all my EF big whites except for the 300II and it works great with the 2xIII. Previously used it with the 400II and 600II.
I posted a bunch of 300II + RF2x in this thread before the R52 was released and we didn't have any editing profiles yet, but the EF 2xIII produces the same results:
artsupreme wrote:
I don't have flicker but I think the EF 2xIII is worth it for using with big whites. I sold all my EF big whites except for the 300II and it works great with the 2xIII. Previously used it with the 400II and 600II.
I posted a bunch of 300II + RF2x in this thread before the R52 was released and we didn't have any editing profiles yet, but the EF 2xIII produces the same results:
Here are some 1000pxl wildlife images on my website. http://www.duaneburleson.com/galleries/wildlifegrabbag/index.html
The exif data is below the image. You will notice when using an RF extender on a modified EF to R adapter the math is not correct. But it does show what extender/s are in use.
justashooter wrote:
Here are some 1000pxl wildlife images on my website. http://www.duaneburleson.com/galleries/wildlifegrabbag/index.html
The exif data is below the image. You will notice when using an RF extender on a modified EF to R adapter the math is not correct. But it does show what extender/s are in use.
If you read the reviews, professional and personal, both RF versions of the extenders (1.4 and 2.0) bring substantial IQ improvements, especially when coupled with quality RF glass and bodies. I researched this quite a bit before upgrading to the RF 2x extender to pair with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z. (Note: Only the RF “Z” version of the 70-200mm is compatible with the RF extenders along with a handful of other RF lenses.) I’ve only shot one rodeo event with the combo but looked pretty good to me.
Previously, I had the EF 1.4x III paired with a Canon 1D X MII and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS II. Great IQ and I didn’t notice any AF issues. Historically, the 1.4x have been reported to work very well with minimal IQ loss. If you are happy with your current set-up’s results, why change?
My research of testing of the RF versions is that the 2x now does very well with improved IQ as compared to the EF 2x, though the 1.4x is still better.
“Compared with older Canon DLSRs and EF-mount lenses, the EOS R-system and its native lenses have very much faster data communication between the camera body and lens. Bonuses include the speed and accuracy of autofocus, and the effectiveness of image stabilization. The electronics of the Canon Extender RF 2x are engineered to maintain those advantages when using the teleconverter.” https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-extender-rf-2x-review
gkinard1952 wrote:
Quick question for you guys that upgrade all the time. What is the advantage of moving from the 1.4 Teleconverter version II to the version III?
I am new to mirrorless and shot this guy today, and the AF hit before I knew what was going on, also it is extremely sharp.. So what are the advantages.. And is the 1.4 R converter any better than the old EF converters?
You cannot tell it is sharp here but it is, if you go to the Flickr site it is much better. And shows the detail, which is what I like.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Quick question for you guys that upgrade all the time. What is the advantage of moving from the 1.4 Teleconverter version II to the version III?
I am new to mirrorless and shot this guy today, and the AF hit before I knew what was going on, also it is extremely sharp.. So what are the advantages.. And is the 1.4 R converter any better than the old EF converters?
You cannot tell it is sharp here but it is, if you go to the Flickr site it is much better. And shows the detail, which is what I like.
WsternLawmn wrote:
If you read the reviews, professional and personal, both RF versions of the extenders (1.4 and 2.0) bring substantial IQ improvements, especially when coupled with quality RF glass and bodies. I researched this quite a bit before upgrading to the RF 2x extender to pair with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z. (Note: Only the RF “Z” version of the 70-200mm is compatible with the RF extenders along with a handful of other RF lenses.) I’ve only shot one rodeo event with the combo but looked pretty good to me.
Previously, I had the EF 1.4x III paired with a Canon 1D X MII and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS II. Great IQ and I didn’t notice any AF issues. Historically, the 1.4x have been reported to work very well with minimal IQ loss. If you are happy with your current set-up’s results, why change?
My research of testing of the RF versions is that the 2x now does very well with improved IQ as compared to the EF 2x, though the 1.4x is still better.
“Compared with older Canon DLSRs and EF-mount lenses, the EOS R-system and its native lenses have very much faster data communication between the camera body and lens. Bonuses include the speed and accuracy of autofocus, and the effectiveness of image stabilization. The electronics of the Canon Extender RF 2x are engineered to maintain those advantages when using the teleconverter.” https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-extender-rf-2x-review
Thanks, but Canon does not have any lenses I am interested in, in the EOS R mount. If they ever make any glass I am interested in then I would definately buy the R versions of the extenders. ...Show more →
WsternLawmn wrote:
If you read the reviews, professional and personal, both RF versions of the extenders (1.4 and 2.0) bring substantial IQ improvements, especially when coupled with quality RF glass and bodies. I researched this quite a bit before upgrading to the RF 2x extender to pair with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z. (Note: Only the RF “Z” version of the 70-200mm is compatible with the RF extenders along with a handful of other RF lenses.) I’ve only shot one rodeo event with the combo but looked pretty good to me.
Previously, I had the EF 1.4x III paired with a Canon 1D X MII and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS II. Great IQ and I didn’t notice any AF issues. Historically, the 1.4x have been reported to work very well with minimal IQ loss. If you are happy with your current set-up’s results, why change?
My research of testing of the RF versions is that the 2x now does very well with improved IQ as compared to the EF 2x, though the 1.4x is still better.
“Compared with older Canon DLSRs and EF-mount lenses, the EOS R-system and its native lenses have very much faster data communication between the camera body and lens. Bonuses include the speed and accuracy of autofocus, and the effectiveness of image stabilization. The electronics of the Canon Extender RF 2x are engineered to maintain those advantages when using the teleconverter.” https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-extender-rf-2x-review ...Show more →
It's not possible to compare the EF and RF TCs directly other than on the very specific RF lenses 400/2.8 and 600/4 that are the same optically as the EF IS III versions. The RF f/2.8 is indeed about the best Canon has made. I've not been accepting of the 2x III on any of the 70-200 EF lenses. Once the sensors exceeded 30 MP, the 2x III became a challenge to justify on all but a few of the IS II primes.
