1DX +2x vs MKIV +1.4x images

[Richard Lane]

This is to compare the MKIV (1.3) with a 1.4X and a 1DX (FF) with a 2X extender: The focus points were right on target. I'm not happy with the 2XII extender with the Version One 300mm f/2.8 lens. These shots below were taken 1 year apart, but if you look at the 2 uncropped versions you will see that they were taken at the exact same location, by noticing the green buoy and the light pole on the right. Believe it or not these were both taken 1 year apart minus 3 days and 45 minutes. I guess I'm a creature of habit. They were both taken with Canons drop-in CPL and a Monopod.

These shots are 95% SOOC. The pole was a little tilted and if I straighten it too much, the water horizon looks tilted. I will also mention that it was a little windy with the 1DX shots, however I increased the SS to 1/2000sec which I thought should have been enough, plus I believe I had IS on to assist. If I had to guess, knowing my habits I would guess that I had IS off for the MKIV shots. I wish Apple Aperture could check this. Does DPP report IS, I never use that?

I would ignore the differences in exposure, saturation and ISO and just focus on the IQ.

MKIV 300mm f/2.8L IS +1.4X @ 546mm Uncropped f/6.3 1/1000sec ISO 400

CQ0H3194 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

MKIV 300mm f/2.8L IS +1.4X @ 546mm Cropped

CQ0H3194 - Version 2 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

1DX 300mm f/2.8L IS +2X @600mm Uncropped f/6.3 1/2000sec ISO 1000

BP1Q2166 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

1DX 300mm f/2.8L IS +2X @600mm Cropped

BP1Q2166 - Version 2 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

I will try to do some more controlled testing. I haven't done any AFMA on either camera. Maybe the 1DX needs some lovin'.

Thoughts?

Rich

[Jonathan Huyer]

The second set with the 2X extender looks too far off to be a focusing issue... it's probably just general softness and lack of resolving detail in the lens combo. I also have the 300 version I and the 2X, but I don't use them together anymore because my results have been much along the same lines. The 300 / 1.4 combo has worked great for me though.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Rich! I can only see the first shot, the others show up as not available (I'm behind a corporate firewall now, but that doesn't usually cause issues with Flickr).

I haven't done any AFMA on either camera. Maybe the 1DX needs some lovin'.

I'd say the need for AFMA is always worth testing. FWIW, here are my adjustments for the 1D X:

16-35L II: W=4, T=7
24-105L IS: W=4, T=2
28-300L IS: W=4, T=4
70-200L IS II: W=2, T=2 (haven't done it with 1.4x/2x TCs yet)
100-400L IS: W=-1, T=1
35L: 4
40 pancake: -1
85L: 0
100L Macro IS: 3
135L: 0

[Richard Lane]

Thanks John, If you click on the unavailable link, can you see them then?

*I just reposted them and they appear to be viewable on my laptop!!

[HDNitehawk]

The second set with the 2X extender looks too far off to be a focusing issue... it's probably just general softness and lack of resolving detail in the lens combo. I also have the 300 version I and the 2X, but I don't use them together anymore because my results have been much along the same lines. The 300 / 1.4 combo has worked great for me though.

+1 for Jonathan's description.

@Rich, I think the diffrences you see in the two picture is lens combinations and not camera. The 2x II is very weak. You might try the same shot with the 1D X and the 1.4X and crop to the same size to see how your results match up.

[Richard Lane]

+1 for Jonathan's description.

@Rich, I think the diffrences you see in the two picture is lens combinations and not camera. The 2x II is very weak. You might try the same shot with the 1D X and the 1.4X and crop to the same size to see how your results match up.

Yes, I agree that the 2XII and 300mm f/2.8L IS Version One is not that good on either camera.

Here's some from the other thread:

1DX 300mm and 1.4X @420mm mildly cropped.

BP1Q2584 - Version 2 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

1DX 300mm 1.4X @420mm uncropped

BP1Q0897 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

1DX 300mm and 2X @600mm mild crop (IMO, it's not that sharp)

BP1Q1173 by RL One Photography, on Flickr

So far it looks like the 1.4XII is acceptable and the 2XII is not when using the 300mm f/2.8 Version One lens. Which is what we've all been saying around here for a while.

So, even though the 1DX images can handle cropping, you can't just use the 2XII for the reach instead of buying a longer lens, and then crop afterwards and expect good results. (I'll also try to AFMA and retest) You can however, use the 1DX or MKIV body with the 1.4X and crop afterwards.
I wouldn't want to use the 2X and crop, because if the initial shot is not sharp, then the crop will be even worse. You know.., that Entropy Thing!

Rich

[HDNitehawk]

That has been my thoughts of the 2x II for some time. I never did the comparison, crop vs using the 2x but my feelings have always been that I would rather crop. I guess it is because I know that if I put the 2x on I am not going to find it acceptable. With cropping I never set out on a trip with the idea I am going to crop a picture, but it always happens because you can't get close enough. I really don't like using the 1.4x either but it is a necessary evil, when I am out and about shooting I usually keep it off until I am forced to use it. In your case you really have a less of a choice since you only have the 300mm.

Your roost shots above look like you have a good subject to work with, not sure how close it is for you but I think I would be spending some time there.

[Joel Eade]

Do have access to a version III 2X Converter? I sold my version II to purchase the new one and there is noticeable improvement. Additionally, can you tell if the images sharpen adequately in post? I would especially like to know about the Great Heron shot since it is large in the frame you should have plenty of pixels on subject.

[Richard Lane]

That has been my thoughts of the 2x II for some time. I never did the comparison, crop vs using the 2x but my feelings have always been that I would rather crop. I guess it is because I know that if I put the 2x on I am not going to find it acceptable. Your roost shots above look like you have a good subject to work with, not sure how close it is for you but I think I would be spending some time there.

I don't like the 2X either and I haven't used it in over a year, I just brought it out due to the loss in reach of the new FF body.

It's not that close as you can see with the 600mm reach and I'm still coming up short.

Does anyone know, how much extra reach I will get for every 1OOmm of focal length added?

[HDNitehawk]

I don't like the 2X either and I haven't used it in over a year, I just brought it out due to the loss in reach of the new FF body.

Canon made many wildlife photographs sad when they announced the 1D X was FF and replacing the 1D IV.

Does anyone know, how much extra reach I will get for every 1OOmm of focal length added?

I am sorry but I can't help the smart answer, there all the same they will all focus to infinity. Seriously though, there are few FOV calculators on line that I have used. I will see if I can find a link.