Bryan
Printable View
Bryan
The 1.4x III looks noticeably sharper in the center, but looks noticeably less sharp in the mid-frame and corners. So, overall it seems to be a wash. Based on one quick look, not worth the extra $. The 2x III also does not seem like a big improvement (in fact, contrast seemsnoticeably lower than the 2x II). So much for the idea (not mine, but proposed in other posts) that the 2x III + 70-200 II would magically be a perfect 140-400mm f/5.6 IS zoom lens...
Your right I took a look again, the 1.4x III is a little sharper in the center. This might be a little improvement in that the long Tele
Those extenders have gotten so expensive it
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelanceshots
Doesn't the way your gear looks improve your photos? The new MkII supertele primes will have, "A highly durable white leather-tone coating ... This is a new, more neutral shade of white compared to earlier lenses. It is intended to indicate that the IS II lenses have evolved..." The white paint on the new MkIII extenders matches the paint on the new supertele primes. Do you really expect people to use an extender with that old, outdated white paint when they can pay $200 more for almost equivalent optical performance, but get a paint that matches their new lens?
[:P] [:P] [:P]
Camera anything is absurdly expensive but I guess that's what kind of makes it an exclusive club. When camera gear prices come down and IQ still goes up everybody thinks they can start shooting professionally. I just have to remember that the best photographs come from the photographer and not their gear.
I would be interested to seeif the claimed increase in AF speed and accuracy of the extenders MkIII is substantial enough.I alsowonder if they are compatible with older lenses, and if so, how they comparewith the MKII extenders.
The 2X III maybe not that good anyway but I think it
I don
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Yes, it has improved. But did it reach a level that a person would be satisfied with the results they get with it. We have only seen the results on one of Canon's sharpest, if not sharpest lens. I will be curious to see the results on with the 500mm F4L.
Those that were waiting for the AF questions to be answered. I bet we can take Canon at their own words:
- "Each Series III Extender features a newly developed microcomputer that increases AF precision when the extenders are used with an IS II super-telephoto lens. AF precision remains the same as the Series II Extenders when the Series III Extenders are used with earlier extender-compatible EF lenses."
And since the IS II super-tele's aren't even on the market yet, it doesn't look like this is going to make much of a diffrence.
Based on the 200/2L IS results, I will hypothesize that one will still see improvements with the 2x III over the 2x II on the 500/4L IS, but it won
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I don't know, maybe you are right. the following is what I read from canon too.
"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."
I found when I used my 300mm 2.8+1.4XTC, I could track and lock the focus when taking pictures of slower flying bird like egret, GBH... but pretty hard to track turns in flight, so I was wondering if the new lenses + TC will improve that. optical performance shouldn't be a problem since the new lenses will have noticeable improvement in sharpness, contrast ...., that's why people will pay thousands of $$ more for that. if you can pay for the new lens and 1D body, adding $500 for TC is nothing even it will not work that great. for me, the hardest part is paying $4000+ for the body.....
anyway, let's see how the microcomputer works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
Thats exactally what I thought, the contrast definately better, the CA is almost gone and distortion is reduced. The differance is not huge but definately superior.
John.
Could someone post a link to these reviews. For some reason I cant find them.
Thanks,
Brett
Never mind. Found them.
I know Arthur Morris is a contract Canon photographer (Explorers of Light) but he seems pretty stoked about the new 2X converter and the version II 70-200mm lens....he
thanks for the links Joel
I have to point it out is that if you have ever been to La Jolla, CA, you know that cliff where people taking pictures of pelican is a very small area, so IMO a 300mm lens is more than long enough to take almost all kinds of pictures over there.my experience of using 300mm2.8+2.0TC II combo with 7D is that when the object is close enough, you will get very good results then when the object is far, it's hard to get good results. it is also hard to track fast moving object like turns in flight. so if you think you can use 70-200mm2.8II+2.0TC as your main weapon to shoot birds, think it again, egrets GBHs or ducks usually are hard to get that close like these pelicans.I think choosing pelicans in La Jolla for testing 70-200mm2.8II+2XTCII is very "smart".
close object(slightly copped)
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5165.DPP_5F00_00012.JPG[/img]
far object(cropped)
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5751.DPP_5F00_00002.JPG[/img]
both taken with tripod.
but then Arthur Morris can take a lot better pictures, so it's just my 2 cents
JJphoto,
I was in LaJolla once several years ago but at the time was I more interested in golf than photography!!
Anyway, I was merely pointing out that the Version III 2X TC is quite capable of making sharp images, at least with new 70-200 2.8L lens in the hands of a recognized expert. I
Off of Canon's website (and Amazon)...
1.4x II
"This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses."
1.4x III
"Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L."
What's wrong with this picture? Error on Canon's part?
Denise
I have noticed on other items. When you went to check compatibility on Canon
I found it odd that it lists the 70-200 f/4 IS as compatible with the x II but took that one out of the listing for the x III.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Here was the last example of that I saw.
If you go to Canon's website, and go look at the 24ex macro flash
Go to accessories and there it shows a 72C adapter ring. This ring is for the 180mm L Macro...and it isn't even listed. Thats just one example. I have seen others. Canon's website isn't the greatest for matching things up. I think part of it is once information is published on an item, they never go back and update it when things change.
I would bet it is compatible, somewhere it will tell you that it is. But....maybe not.
Denise
Go here for the correct information
www.usa.canon.com/.../controller
Ok, the first lens to review didn't look like much of an improvement.
But the new charts for the 300mm F2.8 L....even the 2x III is looking alot better, this is making it a lot more attractive
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=249&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
Interesting to see the difference. I certainly appreciate being able to assess these sort of things in advance. I