1.4x and 2x: III vs. II Comparison

[Doug Brown]

As promised, the evaluation of the new TCs compared to the old TCs is now available on Greg Basco's website. It was a collaborative effort between myself, Greg, and Keith Bauer. While you're there, take the time to explore Greg's excellent website!

 

[John Chardine]

Very good Doug. Thanks. I don't own the 2x yet so will wait for the III version to come out.

 

[Ben_Sadd]

Excellent to see someone has done this. The new 2x looks good, but I think as yet I will not be replacing my II version as without a 1 series body I use the 2x very sparingly.

 

[Greg Basco]

Thanks, Doug, for posting this and for the nice plug for my site.

Cheers,
Greg

 

[Josée Normandeau]

Thanks again guys!

I will think of changing my 2x since I use it sometimes with my 500 and MkIV.

I will keep the 1.4X for the moment...

 

[Doug Brown]

Forgot to thank Arash Hazeghi for his input.

 

[Mike Davies]

Thanks for all your effort and it is excellent timing for me. I will be ordering a mk4 soon and was planning to get the x2 to go along with it but now I think will wait for the new generation.

 

[John Guastella]

Doug, your test displayed in Image #5 shows a clear difference in sharpness when the 2X Mark III extender is stopped down (from f/8 to f/11). But this seems to be a general characteristic of extenders: they give better results when stopping down. This is certainly true of the 1.4X Mark II when used with the 500mm f/4 lens, and I'll bet it's true with the 2X Mark II as well. In other words, without showing how the older 2X behaves with the 500 mm f/4 lens when stopped down, I don't see your result in Image #5 as necessarily showing the new 2X to be superior.

Just to put more fuel on the fire, in the direct comparison between the old and new 2X (Image #4, both taken at f/8), there is a barely detectable difference in sharpness, which is probably easily explained by the tolerance of the AF system.

Don't get me wrong - I really appreciate your conducting and posting the results of this test. But based on the images posted, I don't see the new 2X extender as being worth the extra money when used with the current 500mm f/4 IS lens (I'm being careful by being specific - maybe the new extenders will be worth the extra dough when used with one of the other current superteles. And I hope they will be worth it with the upcoming new superteles; if not, I don't see why Canon bothered updating the extenders).

John

 

[Doug Brown]

Doug, your test displayed in Image #5 shows a clear difference in sharpness when the 2X Mark III extender is stopped down (from f/8 to f/11). But this seems to be a general characteristic of extenders: they give better results when stopping down. This is certainly true of the 1.4X Mark II when used with the 500mm f/4 lens, and I'll bet it's true with the 2X Mark II as well. In other words, without showing how the older 2X behaves with the 500 mm f/4 lens when stopped down, I don't see your result in Image #5 as necessarily showing the new 2X to be superior.

Just to put more fuel on the fire, in the direct comparison between the old and new 2X (Image #4, both taken at f/8), there is a barely detectable difference in sharpness, which is probably easily explained by the tolerance of the AF system.

It's definitely true that extenders function better stopped down John. We never claimed otherwise in the review. But I feel there's a significant difference between the old and new 2x wide open. We took multiple frames at each setting until we were sure that we were getting maximum sharpness.

Most folks tend to operate in the f/5.6 to f/8 zone; stopping down one stop with a 2x on an f/4 supertelephoto lens gets you to f/11. You don't see a lot of bird images (save for multiple flash hummingbirds) shot at f/11. Sharpness at f/8 is what most people are interested in, and IMO the new 2x has a clear advantage in both sharpness and contrast when used wide open. I'm going to post a few 200% crops that hopefully illustrate my point. These are all shot at f/8 (wide open) in combination with the 500 f/4 on my Mark IV.

Some people will look at these results and not be impressed. Others will have quite the opposite point of view. Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste. I never used to use the old 2x wide open, but I would definitely use the new one wide open due to the improvement in image quality. Not having to stop down makes for more pleasing backgrounds, faster shutter speeds, and/or lower ISOs.

 

[Doug Brown]

Here's another screen capture. To my eye there's more edge contrast in the new lens. The blue lines look a little muddy on the old TC.

• Flash fired
• Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh

 

[Doug Brown]

One last frame.

• Flash fired
• Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh

 

[D. Robert Franz]

Thanks Doug for this... The new 2x seems better for sure and I will probably upgrade. As for the 1.4x unless it makes a big difference on the new canon teles coming out I will probably stay with the mk11 version. I have a 1.4x mk 1 version that seems a bit better than my mkII. Then again I'm not certain I will be purchasing any of the new telephotos. I'm quite happy with my current lineup of the 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4 and 800mm F5.6. With the huge price increase on the new versions I'm certain I can't replace them one for one... My only thought is to replace my 300 & 500m with the new 400mm F2.8 which for the 1st time is an attractive lens for me with it's dramatic reduction in weight.....

 

[David Stephens]

Thank you Doug.

 

[Doug Brown]

One more screen shot, this one a new 2x vs. old 2x at f/11. Similar to the results at f/8 IMO, although maybe not quite as big of a difference; better sharpness and contrast.

• Flash fired
• Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh

 

[Gordon Lindsay]

Thanks for doing this testing, Doug it's appreciated for when I am closer to upgrading myself.

 

[Daniele Morasca]

Thanks a lot for the effort Doug.

I hope to see some field test (with 300 2.8 too )

Do you think that I'll get better result with a 7D 300 2.8 IS with new TCIII 2x wide open, and stopped-down?

P.s. I'm not really satisfied about the combo with the old 2xII.

 

[Doug Brown]

Do you think that I'll get better result with a 7D 300 2.8 IS with new TCIII 2x wide open, and stopped-down?

P.s. I'm not really satisfied about the combo with the old 2xII.

I can pretty much guarantee that you'll do better with the new 2x III on the 300 f/2.8. I loaned mine to Greg Basco on our recent Costa Rica workshop, and he was impressed with the combination (he has the 300 f/2.8 and the 2x II). I haven't seen any of his shots yet, but I expect to soon.

 

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Daniele. I do think that the new series III 2x performed a little better, even wide open, with my 300 f2.8 L IS lens. Once you stop down, as Doug has indicated, the difference with the new TC becomes even more apparent. I was shooting a full-frame body so I can't speak directly to the 7D.

Thanks for letting me borrow that new 2x, Doug. Had you not been so vigilant in keeping track of it, I'd still have it:S3:

Cheers,
Greg

 

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks for this thread, gents.

looking at getting a 300 2.8 to pair with my 7D...

Greg - what is the standard aperture at which the 300 2.8 will work with a 2xTC? f8?
And will it autofocus on the 7D with a converter?

 

[Daniele Morasca]

Surely the 7D will AF with 300 2.8 + 2x, wide open is 5.6 (2.8 + 2 stops) but as mentioned above 1 full stop down (F8) increase the sharpness and contrast.

I don't love the Mark II 2x so I'll upgrade to the mark III to get the IQ improvement.