Canon AF 2.0x TCs

[martin_england]

Hi all

Is there a difference in optical quality between the original Canon

AF 2.0x tc and the mark ll 2.0x tc. I have read reports that the mark

2 is better on the newer lenses, but I will be using it on the older

Canon 500 F4.5 AF and very occasionally on the 300 F4 is lens.

 

Many thanks in advance

Martin

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Canon claims that it's better, and they don't state that it's better only on specific lenses. The <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/c-ext.shtml">only test I've seen of the old and new 2x TCs</a> used the new 300/2.8L IS USM and concluded that the difference is slight. A document on Canon's Camera Museum site gives MTF graphs for the 300/2.8L IS USM with the old and new 2x TCs, and the difference is pretty small - actually, the old one looks to have slightly better performance in the center, while the new one has slightly better performance towards the edges.</p>

 

<p>If I were in your shoes, I'd go for whichever I could get at the best price.</p>

[bobatkins]

Well, the only test <a href="http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tcs.html"><i>I've seen</i></a> suggests there isn't enough difference to bother about

[isaac sibson]

Steve- could you point out where the mtfs of 300 + converters are? I'd be interested to see these. Thanks.

[gregdowning]

I have done no scientific tests but can only say I have owned both and the new one is not only sharper but it virtually eliminates the vignetting that I had with the old 2x. I don't see why it would be lens dependant either.

 

Greg Downing-NPN

[bobatkins]

The old 2x TC does not cause visible vignetting with the 300/2.8L, 300/4L, 600/4L and 500/4.5L judged from my personal testing, even with the lenses wide open.

 

Both the 1.4x and 2x Tamron TCs do visibly vignette, but the Canon TCs do not (with the above lenses).

 

By visibly vignette I mean something you see by eye on a shot of a uniform target. I'm sure that precise scientic measurement will reveal some small level of vignetting on all lenses, and on all lenses used with all TCs, when the lens is shot wide open.

[danny burk www.dannyburk.]

I'll back up Greg 100% - I have a 600/4 IS and formerly the 2x I. With the lens wide open, it had *very* noticeable vignetting (plain blue sky, etc) - version II is *much* better. It's very plainly visible at first glance.

[bobatkins]

Note that all the lenses I personally tested were the non-IS versions of the long telephotos. I have not tested the IS versions.

[e.j.]

The old 2x MOST DEFINITELY DID CAUSE VIGNETING on the IS version of the 300 f/2.8 at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6. In my case I found it to be so bad that I could not use the combination at all on a film camera (no problem on a digital since it is only using the central part of the optics anyway). It was of course most noticeable on a blue sky. When I got the 2x-II, the problem completely went away. I did not have this problem on the 600 f/4 IS.

[martin_england]

Ok firstly thanks to you all for your comments and experiences of both TCs. It seems by the posts that the older TC is best suited to the older none (is) lenses, while the newer mark ll is better on the new (is) lenses I think.

Both Bob and Greg have given me sound advice in the past that has helped a lot and its been greatly appreciated, so am I right in saying both of you have had different experiences with the newer and older type lenses?.

Here in the UK there's quite a big price difference between the two TCs, but at the end of the day I want whets best suited to my 500 F4.5 lens and not to regret it later. I for one have never raved about 2.0x TCs and have never owned one, but i'm getting fed up with leaving shots that are out of reach.

 

Thanks again to you all

Martin (from the sunny UK)

[bobatkins]

Martin - I've only used the TCs on old (i.e. non-IS lenses).

 

I do use a 500/4.5L (non-IS of course) as my primary telephoto lens these days since it's (relatively!) small and light. I often use it with a 1.4x TC (old, type I) and I get excellent results (sharp, no vignetting). I also use it with a 2x TC (old, type I) and I get decent results (some loss of sharpness of course), again with no noticable vignetting. I'm typically shooting ISO 100 slide film (fuji).I did try a new 2x TC (mark II) and found no visible difference, so I returned it and kept the old one.

 

I cannot comment from personal experience on the newer IS telephotos - exepct for the 300/4L IS. I didn't notice any vignetting on that either, using the old (mark I) TCs. I've never shot with the 500 or 600 IS lenses.

[martin_england]

Bob that's great thanks, I too like my 500 f4.5 lens and have no intension of changing to the newer (is) lens. I reckon I will go for the original 2.0x TC, like you I have the original 1.4x and I haven't had any problems.

 

Thanks again to you all martin

[wildpicture]

Martin, I have used both the new (EF1.4xII, EF2xII: loaned from Canon) and the old converters (EF1.4x, EF2x) on an EF 500/4.0L IS lens. Personally I couldn't really make out a difference. I haven't had any vignetting with any of these four converters on this lens.

 

I do own the EF 500/4.0L IS now and am using both the old version converters with this lens. No vignetting at all.

 

You mentioned the price difference in the UK. You might have a look at Isarfoto in Germany. They are a photoshop specialized entirely in nature photography and I can recommend them. The new converters cost 395 euros there, much cheaper than here in Holland. At the moment they are also selling some demo models / old stock never used. They have an EF 2x (I version) brand new for only 300 euros. Might be interesting for you as the UK is also in the EU and shipping, payment is very easy.

 

Their website is: www.isarfoto.de

Unfortunately not yet in english but they do speak english.

 

Regards,

Hans

[bob_royse]

I have used both the newer and older Canon 2x converters extensively with the 600 f4 IS lens. There very certainly is noticable light falloff at the corners when the older version is used on the lens wide open. It usually disappears by f10 or so. It's most noticable when there is a plain blue sky/water background.

 

The newer 2x is a different optical design that eliminates the light falloff problem because it has a recessed rear element.

 

The difference in sharpness or contrast between the two 2x's isn't especially significant IMO, but the difference in the edge to edge illumination definitely is.

[howard_grill]

I am contemplating the possibility of buying a 500 or 600 F4 IS and been following this thread. Am I correct inassuming that the issue of vignetting on the IS super-teles is limited to the 2x converter and not the 1.4X?

 

Howard

HMSDOC@aol.com

[jon_close]

FYI, the document on Canon's Camera Museum site, referred to by Steve Dunn, is a Technical Report (2001.9) on the 70-200 IS and the improved TCs.

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/200109.html

[gregdowning]

My comment was based on personal experience with the 400/2.8 II non IS lens as well as the 600/4IS lens. SEVERE vignetting was aparent with the old 2x and with the new 2xII it is completely gone.

[wildpicture]

Howard, the new and the old 1.4x converters are identical optically. The only difference is a small rubber ring preventing dust or water to get in when mounted. And the inner surface of the converter's tube (not the optics !!!) is coated with a different paint. Besides these two little details ther are absolutely indentical.

[isaac sibson]

Although I realise that these are not such useful combos, has anyone tried comparing the two converters on the 100-400L IS, the 70-200 F2.8L and 70-200 F2.8L IS?

 

The trend, as already pointed out, appears to be that IS lenses benefit more from the mk II 2X than the old, non IS lenses. The comparison of the two converters would be interesting on the lenses I mentioned above.

 

Perhaps sample variation is coming into play also?

[gregdowning]

Here is an image taken with the old 2x converter and the 400/2.8II NON IS!! lens. Shot wide open. IS lenses have nothing to do with it. See how DARK the corners are?? I do not have these problems with the new 2x. Additionally I have not tested it with the 70-200 and I would not even consider putting ANY 2x on the 100-400IS. Some people do but I wouldn't.<div></div>

[martin_england]

Thanks Greg interesting, it is obvious on that picture.

I started this thread of but now I have been offered a great deal by a friend on a 600 F4 (is) which I can not resist. I have had my 500 lens for only 1 year and i do like it, but at times you get offered better and I for one can not resist. So my 500 is now for sale,if I could afford to keep both I would.

 

Martin England

[rick_tyrseck]

As far as TC's go and Canon lenses, I have a 75-300mm III USM telephoto zoom.

 

I see that the previous threads talk about TC's and mostly Canon L lenses. Could I find a TC that is compaticble with my "consumer" lens and what could be the negatives from trying to apply TC's to such.

 

I have never tried a TC before, but thpught a TC could be a cost effective way of getting more out of the lens that I have.

[isaac sibson]

No, it certainly wouldn't be.

 

The 75-300 is very soft at 300mm anyway, and at F5.6, pretty slow. Adding a 1.4X TC would take you to F8, which would only allow AF on EOS 3, EOS 1V and EOS 1D bodies, and would also require very fast film in many conditions. With a 2X TC, you're down to F11, and sharpness is getting very very questionable indeed.