kosin wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Hi Kosin,
I am not talking about what you say but the link you gave that mentions that there is no changes in the IQ.
AND
This is what I read:
From the text included in Canon press release and this is not really related to the focus:
"Allowing professional photographers to shoot distant subjects without having to carry a number of heavy lenses with them, these new extenders ensure there is no compromise on image quality. The Extender EF 1.4x III features three lens groups of seven elements, and the Extender EF 2x III features three groups of nine elements, ensuring improved optical performance."
Extracted from Canon Paper:
"Image Quality
There are two significant improvements related to image quality when using the new Series III Extenders with the new IS II super-telephoto lenses: Anomalous dispersion glass elements are used in both new extenders to effectively reduce chromatic aberration to the greatest possible extent. This results in higher resolution and contrast, especially when the new extenders are used with IS II super-telephoto lenses. "
I understand there are some better resolution and contrast and chromatic aberration.
It seems that most, if not all, people who have used the new version are happy with it...
And some pictures they put on various threads on internet seem to support their satisfaction.
No one is forcing anyone to upgrade from what they have... to each his own....
But, if one doesn't have any TC, like myself, I think it's a .good idea to get the new version ... granted that it may cost $200 more....
From some sample pictures I've seen, I think it's worth to spend a little more IMHO.
Paul Yi wrote:
It seems that most, if not all, people who have used the new version are happy with it...
And some pictures they put on various threads on internet seem to support their satisfaction.
No one is forcing anyone to upgrade from what they have... to each his own....
But, if one doesn't have any TC, like myself, I think it's a .good idea to get the new version ... granted that it may cost $200 more....
From some sample pictures I've seen, I think it's worth to spend a little more IMHO.
I'm probably not going to upgrade my EF 1.4x II, but as I don't own a 2x TC, I am probably going to buy the EF 2x III, once I see more data comparing it against the EF 2x II. If the results of the 1.4x III comparison are any indication, I will be very happy to spend a little more money for the improvement.
I am not talking about what you say but the link you gave that mentions that there is no changes in the IQ.
AND
This is what I read:
From the text included in Canon press release and this is not really related to the focus:
"Allowing professional photographers to shoot distant subjects without having to carry a number of heavy lenses with them, these new extenders ensure there is no compromise on image quality. The Extender EF 1.4x III features three lens groups of seven elements, and the Extender EF 2x III features three groups of nine elements, ensuring improved optical performance."
Extracted from Canon Paper:
"Image Quality
There are two significant improvements related to image quality when using the new Series III Extenders with the new IS II super-telephoto lenses: Anomalous dispersion glass elements are used in both new extenders to effectively reduce chromatic aberration to the greatest possible extent. This results in higher resolution and contrast, especially when the new extenders are used with IS II super-telephoto lenses. "
I understand there are some better resolution and contrast and chromatic aberration.
Since Canon didn't give any more information on this topic, I think that higher resolution and better contrast performance of the new teleconverters paired with new super-teles, may be only a result of the improved design of those lenses. Nothing else. That is the reason why Canon says that new extenders give better results (IQ wise) "especially" with new II IS super-tele lenses.
kosin wrote:
Since Canon didn't give any more information on this topic, I think that higher resolution and better contrast performance of the new teleconverters paired with new super-teles, may be only a result of the improved design of those lenses. Nothing else. That is the reason why Canon says that new extenders give better results (IQ wise) "especially" with new II IS super-tele lenses.
I had nearly posted a very long explanation of the relationship between extender MTF and lens MTF but then I scratched it because I thought it rambled on too much. Basically, the sharper you make the extender, the more relative benefit you will see when you attach it to sharper glass. If your extender is bad, then no amount of sharp glass will compensate. And if your lens is not sharp, even a perfect extender will not improve the resolving power.
That said, several extender-compatible L lenses are so sharp that they easily exceed the spatial resolution of the sensor. But some lenses, although just as apparently sharp, do not take TCs as well because they are only "just sharp enough" by themselves. An extender, no matter how well made, will magnify the image from such a lens to the point where you can start to see the limits on resolving power of the host lens. The EF 400/4 DO IS is an example of a "sharp enough" lens that isn't very tolerant of extenders, whereas the EF 200/2L IS tolerates extenders quite well.
What these preliminary results are showing is that the new extenders are slightly but noticeably sharper than the old ones, and this is not due to the lens. Using them with one of the upcoming Mark II supertelephotos may result in even better realization of optical performance, but that is not to say that the new ones will not improve performance with the old Mark I superteles. It is a multiplicative effect--MTF of both lens and extender play a role.
kosin wrote:
Since Canon didn't give any more information on this topic, I think that higher resolution and better contrast performance of the new teleconverters paired with new super-teles, may be only a result of the improved design of those lenses. Nothing else. That is the reason why Canon says that new extenders give better results (IQ wise) "especially" with new II IS super-tele lenses.
Nevertheless whatever what people can imagine, I did observe a slight improvement in either sharpness or contrast. And I think I am not the only one. For the record, I did not need an MA on my older 1.4X that I owned and used for at least 4 years neither did I figure modify it for the new one.
And I totally agree with the last post from Wickerprints.
Kosin, do yourself a favor, rent one and judge for yourself. Case closed for me. I am done and signing off from this post. I will do the rest on my journal.
John Daniel wrote:
Nevertheless whatever what people can imagine, I did observe a slight improvement in either sharpness or contrast. And I think I am not the only one. For the record, I did not need an MA on my older 1.4X that I owned and used for at least 4 years neither did I figure modify it for the new one.
And I totally agree with the last post from Wickerprints.
Kosin, do yourself a favor, rent one and judge for yourself. Case closed for me. I am done and signing off from this post. I will do the rest on my journal.
JD
What did I do that upset you or gave you an impression that I'm attacking you in anyway?!?
I was trying to be helpful with giving my opinion that one of the pictures seems out of focus and that using AF for such test isn't ideal. (If so, I'm sorry but I didn't know that I'm not allowed to make any suggestions in your thread).
Later I posted a link to a different forum and then I was just trying to answer your questions.
I totally don't understand where your attitude towards me is coming from...
And what Wickerprints said has the same concept in what I've written only with more technical info. So if you agree with him, you agree with me also.
Please read all my posts in this thread and quote at least one that I've said that new extenders aren't good, sharper, more contrasty etc.
John Daniel wrote:
Nevertheless whatever what people can imagine, I did observe a slight improvement in either sharpness or contrast. And I think I am not the only one. For the record, I did not need an MA on my older 1.4X that I owned and used for at least 4 years neither did I figure modify it for the new one.
And I totally agree with the last post from Wickerprints.
Kosin, do yourself a favor, rent one and judge for yourself. Case closed for me. I am done and signing off from this post. I will do the rest on my journal.
JD
kosin wrote:
What did I do that upset you or gave you an impression that I'm attacking you in anyway?!?
I was trying to be helpful with giving my opinion that one of the pictures seems out of focus and that using AF for such test isn't ideal. (If so, I'm sorry but I didn't know that I'm not allowed to make any suggestions in your thread).
There isn't really any evidence to support a conclusion about the focus accuracy either way. The differences in sharpness could be due to minute variations in AF precision, or it could be that the old extender isn't as sharp. The only way to eliminate that variable is to use Live View. You can't claim to know that either image was focused more or less accurately than the other.
And what Wickerprints said has the same concept in what I've written only with more technical info. So if you agree with him, you agree with me also.
With all due respect, what I pointed out is not the same as what you said. You said:
I think that higher resolution and better contrast performance of the new teleconverters paired with new super-teles, may be only a result of the improved design of those lenses. Nothing else.
What I wrote basically meant to counter that argument. Let me summarize it for you this way: for the EF 300/2.8L IS I vs II,
old lens + old TC < new lens + old TC < old lens + new TC < new lens + new TC.
The first and last orderings are pretty obvious. But why do I think new lens + old TC < old lens + new TC? The reason is quite simple: I consider the sharpness losses due to the old extender are greater than those from the old lens. If we were talking about the EF 70-200/2.8L IS I vs II, then that ranking would be switched, because the differences between the old and new lenses is more significant than the differences between the old and new extenders. Make sense?
What you appear to be saying in the above quote is that you think the new lens + new TC combo is going to be sharper solely because the new lens is sharper, and this I guarantee you is not true. The new TC *must* be sharper than the old one, or else we would barely notice any difference if we compared new lens + old TC vs. new lens + new TC. Since the EF 300/2.8L IS II is not yet available, the best we've been able to do is use other lenses to make the comparison and infer the sharpness differences as being due to the old vs. new TCs.
kosin wrote:
Please read all my posts in this thread and quote at least one that I've said that new extenders aren't good, sharper, more contrasty etc.
Since you added this in the time I prepared my previous response, I will oblige with your request in this separate post, to emphasize why some of us are disagreeing:
I think that higher resolution and better contrast performance of the new teleconverters paired with new super-teles, may be only a result of the improved design of those lenses. Nothing else.
In light of the above, do you wish to clarify this statement at this time?
First let me make it clear that what I wrote was in response to John's Daniel questions and the quotes he used, and that the last post was directed to him...
Now, let me clarify the rest you've quoted
wickerprints wrote:
There isn't really any evidence to support a conclusion about the focus accuracy either way. The differences in sharpness could be due to minute variations in AF precision, or it could be that the old extender isn't as sharp. The only way to eliminate that variable is to use Live View. You can't claim to know that either image was focused more or less accurately than the other.
I've suggested using manual focus in LiveView mode (assuming 10x magnification) and I didn't claim that I know which image is focused accurately, I just noted that image with older TC looks out of focus to me. Just giving my opinion here...
wickerprints wrote:
With all due respect, what I pointed out is not the same as what you said[...]
What I wrote basically meant to counter that argument. Let me summarize it for you this way: for the EF 300/2.8L IS I vs II,
old lens + old TC < new lens + old TC < old lens + new TC < new lens + new TC.
"old lens + old TC < new lens + old TC < old lens + new TC < new lens + new TC" isn't this the same as saying: "Better/newer lens design + new/better teleconverter design = better results"? In your statement the best results are given with new lens + new TC, am I correct? If so, that is exactly what I had in mind. Please read next paragraph that will explain it a little bit further:
wickerprints wrote:
What you appear to be saying in the above quote is that you think the new lens + new TC combo is going to be sharper solely because the new lens is sharper, and this I guarantee you is not true. The new TC *must* be sharper than the old one, or else we would barely notice any difference if we compared new lens + old TC vs. new lens + new TC. Since the EF 300/2.8L IS II is not yet available, the best we've been able to do is use other lenses to make the comparison and infer the sharpness differences as being due to the old vs. new TCs. ...Show more →
I was trying to explain my way of seeing the Canon's statement that he quoted:"This results in higher resolution and contrast, especially when the new extenders are used with IS II super-telephoto lenses. " and that is why I only wrote about the new lens and new teleconverter and that is why I didn't take into consideration all other options. He clearly asked what Canon had in mind providing this info. And yes, you did much better job explaining it.
wickerprints wrote:
Since you added this in the time I prepared my previous response, I will oblige with your request in this separate post, to emphasize why some of us are disagreeing:
I added this comment "Please read all my posts in this thread and quote at least one that I've said that new extenders aren't good, sharper, more contrasty etc." only for John Daniel in anticipation to his answer on why he feels that I disagree with him.
Nevertheless if you read all my previous posts you will see that I didn't write anything that will suggest my negative opinion on the new extenders. And somehow when I suggested to John Daniel that it would be better to make the test using the manual focus (with LiveView) he got offended saying: "Kosin, do yourself a favor, rent one and judge for yourself. Case closed for me." I just made one suggestion on how to improve the test which would give truthful results. Also he was one of the firsts on the forum who had both extenders, new and old, available and was willing to test/compare them.
wickerprints, I hope I didn't throw you off with my edits this time
Wickerprints already mentioned this. A TC simply adds another factor or variable to the overall modulation transfer function of the "system."
Depending on your "output" MTF requirements and all of the above either the new TCs will help or they won't.
They likely won't help 4x6' prints. They likely won't help small web images. They "might" help in large prints or when viewing 100% image crops (depending on the characteristics of the lenses used in combination with the TC). Results will also vary by sample variation of the TC itself and the lens that its mated with.
For many of us adding these new pieces of glass will not make our existing lens kits noticeably better for our personal applications.
EDIT: 4x6" prints.
For many of us adding these new pieces of glass will not make our existing lens kits (w/existing TCs) noticeably better for our own personal applications.
cameron12x wrote:
Honestly, isn't it all really pretty simple?
Wickerprints already mentioned this. A TC simply adds another factor or variable to the overall modulation transfer function of the "system."
Depending on your "output" MTF requirements and all of the above either the new TCs will help or they won't.
They likely won't help 4x6' prints. They likely won't help small web images. They "might" help in large prints or when viewing 100% image crops (depending on the characteristics of the lenses used in combination with the TC). Results will also vary by sample variation of the TC itself and the lens that its mated with.
For many of us adding these new pieces of glass will not make our existing lens kits noticeably better for our personal applications. ...Show more →
Ditto to all that. This single, mediocre test does not prove much. Most people see what they want to believe. From these shots, the only noticeable difference I see, is that the shots from the III version are lighter.
If anyone is really concerned about a small improvement in their images, they should be stepping up to a longer focal-length prime lens, and not putting a TC on a zoom lens or short focal-length lenses. I can see putting TC's on the big prime telephotos, but unless it is a cost factor, why bother on zoom lenses or anything less than a 300 f2.8?
Imagemaster wrote:
why bother on zoom lenses or anything less than a 300 f2.8?
Answer is very simple, you need to try 70-200mm F2.8L IS II to understand how good this lens is. Don't even think about this lens as regular old Canon zoom comparing it to the mostly softish lens like 100-400L. Very different sharpness and IQ in general. This lenses (without tc) no penny worse in IQ than 300/F2.8L IS, and yes I own both lenses. Practical use? Any sports events, I can't bring my huge and very noticeable 300/F2.8L IS but I could bring my 70-200 F2.8L IS II and 1.4tc in my pocket. Lighter travel bag for vacation is another good example. For anything longer I am using my 500L.
Some people, like myself, can't afford to have long fast prime lenses ...
Or, perhaps, the usage of those long focal length is not frequent enough to buy one...
I think this is where the value of TC comes in....
If, by adding TC to 70-200/2.8L, we can achieve 80% of performance of a a long fast primes, at times when we need the reach, I think it's well worth it.
Again, I've never had problem using 1.4X II, but 2.0 II definitely needed some improvement, and the new version seems to be a decent improvement from seeing various sample pictures...
