I have the 300 2.8IS, so I'd get good use of the 2x. But I also have the 70-200 f4IS which is so dang sharp, I would be thrilled to get 400mm out of it with a 2x. >>>>that is if it focused properly with the new 2x. What a handy walkaround, vs. the heavy 300 with no zoom? I'm pretty sure my MKIII would not have an autofocus problem, it's done well with stacked teles. I guess time will tell....I'm holding off with the 2x purchase. But it sure would be fun with my prime lenses.
So far, the new 2x shows compatible with all my lenses. I'd be disappointed if the 70-200f4 didn't autofocus though.
To my highly untrained eye, there is very little difference between the old vrs new but I maybe wrong. I guess the million dollar question for me, would be, do they focus faster on the old 300 2.8 IS and 500 F4? I may grab a 1.4 III but the 2X doesn't look like a huge step. In fact I would say neither is a huge step. Maybe my monitor sucks
Dextermutt, to help you with your doubt if the new extenders will speed up focus (vs. old TC II), let me use the quote from Canon's press release:
“As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders.”
Dextermutt wrote:
To my highly untrained eye, there is very little difference between the old vrs new but I maybe wrong. I guess the million dollar question for me, would be, do they focus faster on the old 300 2.8 IS and 500 F4? I may grab a 1.4 III but the 2X doesn't look like a huge step. In fact I would say neither is a huge step. Maybe my monitor sucks
I think that the 2X is a significant step forward - less CA, and corner sharpness is improved especially stopped down 1-2 stops. It's a little better wide open even.
I think that we need to see other evidence. We don't know how much the 1.4X III improves in terms of distortion. We don't know how they perform in terms of flare.
I'm pretty happy with my Mk II 1.4X and probably won't upgrade it. The 2X, I might in the future once the "gotta-have-it-now" price drops a bit. If it drops a bit.
Sigh. I was really hoping the new 1.4 would be a good step above the old one. I've never been totally satisfied with the performance of my 1.4 II (it coulddd be just a bad one). A nikon shooting friend is totally in love with their new 1.4 and 70-200 combo and leaves his 200-400mm at home a lot more now due to the weight saving and quality.
Would you guys think getting the new 70-300L lens would perform much better (AF and sharpness) than the 70-200 II + 1.4III?
ippikiokami wrote:
Would you guys think getting the new 70-300L lens would perform much better (AF and sharpness) than the 70-200 II + 1.4III?
Not at 280 mm and f/4!
Do you have the 70-200 Mk II? It really looks good on its own, from what I've seen. Might work very well with either the Mk II or Mk III teleconverter as well. It might be worth looking into if you don't have it already.
ippikiokami wrote:
A nikon shooting friend is totally in love with their new 1.4 and 70-200 combo
That may just be the case of the grass is greener on the other side. The Canon 70-200 Mark II is considered the best if not one the best in its class; it s as good as if not a tad better than the Nikkor II version. My Mark III 1.4X TC is enroute to me but my Mark II 1.4X TC performs really well on the 70-200mm Mark II lens. BTW, there are much more into image quality than just the lens/camera combo. I am sure you know that.
Yes I have the 70-200 II and I adore this lens esp on my 1d4 It's just i've heard good things about the new 70-300L also and I would love and could really use that extra reach. The 300L is both too expensive and too big for my purposes.
I currently have the 1.4x II but it cuts the performance enough of my 70-200 II that I hesitate to use it at times. It's not horrible but if the III improved the AF & sharpness just enough I would get it. Otherwise if the 70-300L would be sharper and faster AF wise at the long end I would just save until I could purchase that one.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not going all Nikon envy on you guys. It's more I was hoping that much of a performance jump between the 1.4 II and III on the Canon side too. The 200-400 f/4 nikon is deadly sharp for a zoom so for him to choose the new 70-200 and 1.4 over that is pretty big.
I see. Have you microfocused the combination of 70-200 & teleconverter? It can be different. For example, my 300/2.8 on the 7D alone required a microadjustment of -2, while with the 1.4X, it is right on the money. That's probably not a significant difference, but I would guess that there could be some variance there.
It might come down to actually getting your hands on a Mk III and trying it with your lens. We've only seen one controlled set of tests so far, and I think more evidence is needed to see how the teleconverter effects bokeh, flare, and distortion as well as sharpness.
As for Nikon, I really wish that Canon had a 200-400 f/4L lens. I think that would be a nice addition to the lineup. And, unfortunately, an expensive one.
Lovely pic Joshua, And thanks for sharing the info about your experience with the nikon stuff too.
I totally get what you are saying with choosing to use the 70-300 over the 200-400. In a normal trip even one that I was doing stock I would do the same (last trip i even brought a 70-300 cheapo lens instead of my 70-200 for weight since had some back problems recently).
If you may please let me know how your experience with the 1.4 III with the 70-200 II when you get it. I am deciding that or 70-300L for runway work. In the end I know i'm being greedy but I want to find the very best combination of weight / iq / af speed.
Mike Sowsun wrote:
The difference is pretty obvious to me. I have seen other examples that show that the III is sharper well.
I have the 2x II and 2x III shipping from B&H right now. When they arrive, I won't even open the II. It's going right back based on what I have seen the last few days on this forum and POTN.
Mike...........would you mind posting a link to the POTN reviews? Thanks
Tom_W wrote:
I see. Have you microfocused the combination of 70-200 & teleconverter? It can be different.
+1.
Discovered this the hard way. Setting MFA on the base lens alone is not enough, as Canon treats the combination of lens+extender as a unique lens for purposes of MFA. This means any tuning you have applied to the lens is not automatically applied when an extender is mounted. You must MFA the lens and extenders together to be sure that focus isn't contributing to image softness.
ippikiokami wrote:
If you may please let me know how your experience with the 1.4 III with the 70-200 II when you get it. I am deciding that or 70-300L for runway work. In the end I know i'm being greedy but I want to find the very best combination of weight / iq / af speed.
In a brief comparison (not a test), I couldn't tell any difference in image quality (read: sharpness) between the Mark II and Mark III 1.4X TC on the 70-200mm. Somehow the few test images taken with the new TC appear slightly "cleaner", the Mark III seems to generate less fringing (LoCA) on that zoom lens. Maybe I am imagining but I thought I could see a difference between the 2 TCs on my 500mm f/4.0. The new TC seems to generate a slightly, ever so slightly sharper images on the longer prime lens while the CA appears to be equal. I used Liveview and 10X magnification for the comparison as I didn't want AF differences to "contaminate" my results. The AF speed seems to be faster or more responsive using the new TC. But I am not ready to claim that to be the case for sure as I don't have the proper equipment to be able to tell the difference. Based strictly on feel and as we all know, that doesn't mean much, if anything.
I doubt that the slight difference will translate into real life shooting conditions but I am keeping the new Mark III TC since I am planning of upgrading my long lenses in the future where the new TC will show a more significant improvement, at least according to Canon in the IQ but also AF speed department.
Discovered this the hard way. Setting MFA on the base lens alone is not enough, as Canon treats the combination of lens+extender as a unique lens for purposes of MFA. This means any tuning you have applied to the lens is not automatically applied when an extender is mounted. You must MFA the lens and extenders together to be sure that focus isn't contributing to image softness.
It's not surprising that one often needs a different MFA with and without a TC. After all the TC can have the mount/length/glass placement differences just a tiny hair off every bit as much as a lens or sensor to body mount can be off.
hopefully TDP messed up the TC tests
the 1.4 III looks worse away from the center on every test and the center looks about the same
the 2 III has a weird ghosting in the center (although it seems a bit uneven by aperture so maybe TDP messed up?)
too bad photozone.de doesn't test TC performance any more
maybe SLRGear will test these
In the past I often trusted TDP the least although they had seemed to get better recently (I believe they used to rely on best of AF'ed shots, etc.) but it jut seems hard to believe that the new TC should actually look noticeably worse in so many ways....
Netgarden wrote:
So far, the new 2x shows compatible with all my lenses. I'd be disappointed if the 70-200f4 didn't autofocus though.
well the 2x makes it f/8 so that won't AF well or at all on most bodies and might do a little worse on 1 series but it should focus with 1 series in all modes at least
