1.4X Teleconvertors

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>I'm looking to get a 1.4X teleconvertor. Canon has three different versions. I can get a used version I or a new or used II or III. What are the differences between the three? I have only two lenses which will accept Canon teleconvertors: a 200mm f/2.8L and a 300mm f/4L IS. I probably won't use it on the 200 because a 280 f/4 is pretty much the same as a 300 f/4. So that leaves the 300mm f/4L IS. The Canon website recommends the version II teleconvertor for this lens. Would I see much diffference if I used a version I, and would I gain any benefits if I used a version III?</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Lonnie,<br>

I can't offer much in the way of help here, . . . I use the EF 1.4X II on a EF 100-400L and have no "hands on" experience with either the 200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/4 and the 1.4X TC. However, I am interested in following your thread as I have had the thought of obtaining the 300mm f/4 for some time now.</p>

<p>My "gut" tells me that the version II will probably be as good as the version III, and I don't anticipate you would see much (if any) difference.<br>

Canon seems to keep their website reasonably "up to date," and if they recommend the version II, then that's what I'd aim for if it were me.</p>

<p>You don't indicate what Canon body you are using. I use the 1.4X TC on both my film EOS3 and my 50D. I do have AF with the TC on the EOS3, but it's all manual focus on the 50D, . . . (a useful tidbit of information to consider!)</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Canon's 1.4x I and II have identical optics. II has greater flare resistance and is sealed against dust and water (which isn't a big deal for you since your lenses aren't, either). See <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/report.html#t8" target="_blank">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/report.html#t8</a> for a bit more info.</p>

 

<p>The III is a completely new design, and Canon claims it works particularly well with the latest two superteles, but they don't say whether it offers any improvements if used with any other lenses. I haven't been looking for further information (I have the II and have no plans to upgrade it) so I don't know if anyone has done tests of how it compares to the II on older lenses. See <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2011/02/#t08" target="_blank">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2011/02/#t08</a> for a bit more info.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>I have no hands on experience with the converters. I do own the 300F4L IS. Your lens with the converter will effectively be a 420F5.6 IS. It will focus a little slower (from all the reports I've read). I have seen images taken with this combination, quite frankly I was surprised at how well they turned out. Also from the reports that I've read, and reading between the lines on the Canon site, it would seem that the newer 1.4xIII is optimized optically for use the new 400F2.8II IS, and the next generation 500/600.</p>

[mwtphoto]

<p>I have been pondering the same question for my 300/4 is. on one listing I looked at the vendor stated that the version I lens is more suiteed for non IS lens - I am not sure if that is true or not. In any event the version I's are pretty old so I have decided to get a version II and not spend the extra $$ for the version III.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>Thanks for the replies. James, I have an EOS 3, hardly used any more, and an EOS 60D. It sounds like the version III is not worth the extra cash in my case since I don't have, and don't foresee ever getting, the new 400mm or longer lenses. So it looks like my best bet is to go for a used version I since it is optically identical to the version II. I think the only reason Canon recommends the version II is probably because the version I is no longer in production. Thanks.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>Mark, I'll have to do some more research on that statement about non-IS lenses. I may want to go for the II afterall. Thanks for the info.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The digital picture says that the 1.4x III is better - reduces Af speed by 50% (verses 75% for the MkII - this is from A Canon spokesman) and better CA control and less barrel distortion. He found that the difference in contrast loss and resolution was virtually the same - and this is a big issue with the TCs. The MkIII will offer improved focus accuracy but only with MkII lenses - so no impact on the 300 F4 IS. The downside of the MkIII is that is only compatible with the EOS 1V and later cameras - it will not work on models like the 1N.<br>

I personally have the 1.4x mkII and the 300 F4 LIS and while I do not use the TC a lot it works OK - there is a slight IQ degradation and the AF does seem slower / less accurate if I am shooting birds in flight. That said the combination works fine. I would suggest that the MkII or even a Mk I is the way to go. As an aside I also have a 2x MkII TC which I do not like at all. I find that the IQ and AF degradation of this model is much more significant - even with 1 series bodies or F2.8 lenses.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>While any set of optics may have individual failings, most Canon glass, even the teleconverters, are capable of excellent results depending on the individual component and the lens used with it. For instance, many people denigrate the 400DO as being too soft or low in contrast and that it doesn't work well with TCs. This shot, among others, is with the TC II 2X and careful technique (using a monopod) made for a sharp image. Canon 1D3, 400 DO IS, ISO 400, 1/1600s @ f8 and minus .67 EV. I have since sold both 1.4 and 2X TC IIs and am using the TC IIIs with satisfactory results.</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>I realized that I should have brightened that image. I tried to edit, but that didn't provide for changing the image, so...</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Charles my issue with the Canon 2x TCs is a long standing one. I own all three of the FD series TCs (1.4x, 2xA and 2xB) and found that I was never very happy with the image degradation of the 2x - even on lenses like the 300 f2.8. I am not saying that you cannot take good shots with a 2x - just that I am personally not a fan of it. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm with Philip on this one. </p>

<p>OP is best advised to get a MkII 1.4 TC.</p>

<p>The 2 X TC's are pretty weak, I don't think they are even as good as the FD ones were. As a get you by it can work, but the 1.4 TC's are much better. Lens correction information is passed on with the Canon TC's though so for digital images a lot of the distortions are corrected, much better than film.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I never read that about the Series III TC offering faster AF speed on the Series I lenses. I thought it was only available on the Series II lenses, but if that is the case on Series I lenses and you shoot things that move, then it'll be worth getting the latest.</p>

<p>I'm using the Series II 1.4x TC with my Series I lenses with excellent results, BUT the AF speed is considerably degraded. I'd like to try a Series III now. Still, I like these results, with my 500mm f/4L IS and the Series II 1.4x TC:</p>

<p><a title="Duck...no... osprey. by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/5991668637_53fc3dc702_b.jpg" alt="Duck...no... osprey." width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=339359">Charles Griffin</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 04, 2011; 04:04 p.m. While any set of optics may have individual failings, most Canon glass, even the teleconverters, are capable of excellent results depending on the individual component and the lens used with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Charles.</p>

<p>I use them on a 300f2.8 and 500f4. I've borrowed a 300 f4 and tried them on that lens too and its less sharp than the f2.8 version (unscientific test, in the field but on a tripod).</p>

<p>Even combining both 1.4x and 2x yields really surprisingly good results - IF you get it all right (atmospheric haze, heat wobble, wind, light intensity etc all have a part to play).</p>

<p>FF sample below of a passing boat whilst waiting for wild dolphins to breach. <br /> <img src="http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/Resources/boat2.jpeg" alt="" width="1032" height="690" /></p>

<p>YMMV!</p>

<p>PS yes it shows f8, which is only a 2 stop loss but its less than that - 3 stops, but the TC stack doesn't communictae the correct numbers. Just so you know!</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>David - my understanding is that you only get the faster AF with the MKIII TC and MkII lenses. The difference is also not that great. Cannon says you lose 75% with a MkII TC and only 50% with a MkIII. So if the lens takes 100Ms to AF then the MkIi will be 175ms and the new MkIII with a MkII lens will be 150 Ms</p>

[smooth_carrots]

<p>Lonnie,</p>

<p>I have exactly the same lenses as you (300mm f4L IS & 200mm f2.8L II). I also have the 1.4x II extender. All I can tell you is that the extender works extremely well. I tried cropping and upscaling images without the extender to see if the extender did indeed give a better result... it does! I would go as far as to say the 300mm + 1.4x gives a result equal to or better than the long end of the 100-400mmL.</p>

<p>By the way, image quality with the extender improves drastically one stop down i.e. f8 on 300mm, f5.6 on 200mm.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>I used the 300f4IS for years with the canon 1.4x and also a tamron non reporting teleconverter. The fastest focus comes from the non reporting teleconverters. The canons may be slightly sharper, but they can hesitate in fast action. They also can cause a misfocus in fast action shots. So you might look into microfocusing the two together. I found all teleconverters worked extremely well if you manual focused, so it's not the glass, but the focusing ability that can muff up. Canon knows this and that is why their teleconverters are purposely slowed down. Even their new III's, for more acurate focus ability.<br>

So it really doesn't matter which ones you get as far as faster focus. I have the 1.4xII and the 2x III. Neither focuses as fast as the Tamron. The 2xIII hunts on my 300f4 @f8, but it's usable. They are sharper than the knockoffs. I did have some great shots with the 300f4IS and the canon 1.4x and used them routinely.<br>

My experience with teleconverters is they work well in good light and with targets fairly large/close. Anything at a distance tracking a small target is subject to softness.<br>

Heres an old one.<br>

<a href="http://www.ocwildlife.com/Photography/OC-Harriers-Osprey-prey-and/BbayDec-2227-85x11U/440311699_rENEL-XL.jpg">http://www.ocwildlife.com/Photography/OC-Harriers-Osprey-prey-and/BbayDec-2227-85x11U/440311699_rENEL-XL.jpg</a></p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>Thanks all for the advice. I got a mint condition Mark I for just under $200. I tried it out this past weekend and I'm very pleased with the results so far.</p>