I appreciate the comparison shots, John. The difference is obvious, though as others pointed out, it won't make a huge difference except in a large print. Or, in a large crop, which I suspect is used on occasion in situations where we just can't get quite enough focal length to achieve a full-frame image of that bird or other subject.
I may have missed it but what body did you use to shoot your samples? 1D4? If so, I'm thinking that the improved sharpness would really come in handy with something like the 7D where the pixel density (and thus sensor resolution) is higher.
The III looks like an improvement. Since I own no TCs but would very much like to get a 1.4x I'll likely wait for the III to appear in shops and the prices to decrease somewhat, then smash the pig bank for that.
This is a game of "subtle" improvements......as long as there is some, we are moving forward.
400 f/5.6 has IQ better than a good copy of 100-400 in a rather subtle way.
300 f/2.8 IS has subtly better IQ than 300 f/4 non-IS.
200 f/2 IS has slightly better sharpness than 200 f/2.8.
Etc., etc.
Heck, if we were viewing small size images only, be they in print or on the screen, and never need to do any enlargement cropping, then a better kind of a P&S camera is all most of us would ever need.
The new 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses have been mentioned. But I'm wondering: Why isn't the 200 f2 included? Doesn't it have the newest IS? Can anyone shed any light on that?
Tom_W wrote:
I appreciate the comparison shots, John. The difference is obvious, though as others pointed out, it won't make a huge difference except in a large print. Or, in a large crop, which I suspect is used on occasion in situations where we just can't get quite enough focal length to achieve a full-frame image of that bird or other subject.
I may have missed it but what body did you use to shoot your samples? 1D4? If so, I'm thinking that the improved sharpness would really come in handy with something like the 7D where the pixel density (and thus sensor resolution) is higher....Show more →
ID MK IV . I added this detail in the original post. Thanks
PetKal wrote:
This is a game of "subtle" improvements......as long as there is some, we are moving forward.
400 f/5.6 has IQ better than a good copy of 100-400 in a rather subtle way.
300 f/2.8 IS has subtly better IQ than 300 f/4 non-IS.
200 f/2 IS has slightly better sharpness than 200 f/2.8.
Etc., etc.
Heck, if we were viewing small size images only, be they in print or on the screen, and never need to do any enlargement cropping, then a better kind of a P&S camera is all most of us would ever need.
Very true Petkal.
And yes the difference will show on large prints which I do. And yes, I would say this extender would be usefull for someone like me doing birds or sports or wildlife. Otherwise, this would not support the upgrade but to each his own.
But at the end, these new ones will be the only available on the market besides second hands.
By the way, I will have one version II (have to be careful not to say MK II) for sale after Canon cleans it. It will be at a good "bargain price".
John Daniel wrote:
But at the end, these new ones will be the only available on the market besides second hands.
By the way, I will have one version II (have to be careful not to say MK II) for sale after Canon cleans it. It will be at a good "bargain price".
Cheers
JD
Very true. once the supply of ver II's dries up you will only be able to buy Ver III new. as they are as compatable with older lenses you will still be able to enjoy the improved (however slight) optics.
To me the picture with the II version of the extender looks slightly out of focus. Maybe your lens + 1.4x II needs microadjustment? Hence the sharpness difference between the two teleconverters.
I think that manual focus (with help of the LiveView) should give better results.
John Daniel wrote:
Here a little test executed today. I am not too much into testing and this is not scientific.
You will find a shot done with the old extender and one done with th enew extender placed on a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, on tripod, stabilizer off, f/4, focus done on the middle straw that passes over the nose; focus was mode the this specific point. No sharpening was applied. Shot with a 1D MK IV.
John, do I understand that you were using "regular" (phase-detect, "fast") autofocus, not live-mode (contrast-based) AF in live view?
I am wondering if the some of the difference between the two can be attributed to the II shot being slightly misfocused.
Thanks for doing the test, it takes time and is not as fun as shooting real pictures, but is useful.
[EDIT: I guess kosin just beat me to the question...]
As to the 200mm F2.0: This lens is a, relatively, recent lens design with their best IS etc. IMHO it's IQ is better than the 300mm F2.8 IS Mk I (I sold mine after using both). I hope that my 200mm F2.0 isn't going to be obsoleted by a more expensive version.
Here is an interesting post I found on naturscapes.net:
ahazeghi wrote:
"So the controlled tests reveal that the sharpness/contrast is unchanged for extender 1.4X III compared to 1.4X II at all aperture settings when used with original 500/600 IS lenses. The CA has been practically eliminated with the extender III compared to II and is now only limited to residual CA from the lens itself which is hardly noticeable..."
kosin wrote:
Here is an interesting post I found on naturscapes.net:
ahazeghi wrote:
"So the controlled tests reveal that the sharpness/contrast is unchanged for extender 1.4X III compared to 1.4X II at all aperture settings when used with original 500/600 IS lenses. The CA has been practically eliminated with the extender III compared to II and is now only limited to residual CA from the lens itself which is hardly noticeable..."
there is still a big question running in my mind about this conclusion: How can you modify the extender glass construction and claim to have an impact on some lenses but not others of the same focal? By the way, where are those "controlled tests" ?
I understand for the focus speed as it is related to new electronics, but changing your glass recipe must not have an impact on all lenses? This questioning has nothing to do with my observation as they were not done in a perfect environment and process. But still, that keeps me thinking...
kosin wrote:
Any proof for this? (considering that this thread shows pictures taken only with the 1.4x extenders?)
I forgot to add: "according to what I read on internet..." ....
Take a look at below link...
I have never used 2.0X TC before, but I think I'm going to get the new one pretty soon.
The image looks good enough for me....
there is still a big question running in my mind about this conclusion: How can you modify the extender glass construction and claim to have an impact on some lenses but not others of the same focal? By the way, where are those "controlled tests" ?
I understand for the focus speed as it is related to new electronics, but changing your glass recipe must not have an impact on all lenses? This questioning has nothing to do with my observation as they were not done in a perfect environment and process. But still, that keeps me thinking...
JD
Please forget if I don't follow your thoughts exactly but I believe you misunderstood the Canon's words regarding the design of the new teleconverters. If I recall correctly, they didn't claim that new design will have a different impact depending on the lens used, it was regarding the new microchip that helps with AF.
Also they said nothing about the (faster) focus speed but focus "precision" - and this varies depending on the lens used with the new teleconverters.
As for the AF speed, Canon wrote in their press release, that new III teleconverters, the same as II version, will decrease AF speed by:
- 50% - 1.4x
- 75% - 2x
