Post your best bird shots!

[Joel Eade]

@Joel; I tried the 1.4 III versions a while back, and really didn’t see much difference in IQ. In sharpness the III version made the 500mm less sharp in the center and a just a shade sharper on the edges. Overall I didn’t think it was a worthy upgrade, in fact no upgrade at all, and I sent it back. I wasn’t completely convinced I had a good copy.

It looks like you have a good copy of the 2x III. You are right, Arthur Morris swears by the 70-200mm F/2.8 with 2x III extender combination; however he does put the sales pitch out for Canon. I might give it a try for the 70-200mm and if it works well with the 500mm it would just be a bonus.

You are right, Artie is a consumate salesman but there are many others who feel the Version III 2X is a big upgrade whereas the Version III 1.4X is not that much better than the Version II.

I have the original 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 300mm f/2.8L ...I have not yet tried the new teleconverter on them.

[Joel Eade]

Nesting Killdeer
1D MKIV
700mm
ISO 800
f/5.6
1/1600

[jrw]

When you put the 2x on the EF 300 you are going to like it. Focus is still really fast and while there is some softness wide open it gets better when stopped down.

[HDNitehawk]

When you put the 2x on the EF 300 you are going to like it. Focus is still really fast and while there is some softness wide open it gets better when stopped down.

I would bet he doesn't like it as much as his 500mm with the 1.4 II.
But I would like to see Joel put the 2x on his 300mm and give us his thoughts. A 300mm F/2.8 could be a good substitute for the 500mm when the weight and size of your gear is a big issue.

[conropl]

@Joel; I tried the 1.4 III versions a while back, and really didn’t see much difference in IQ. In sharpness the III version made the 500mm less sharp in the center and a just a shade sharper on the edges. Overall I didn’t think it was a worthy upgrade, in fact no upgrade at all, and I sent it back. I wasn’t completely convinced I had a good copy.

But doesn't that make sense? Reports are that a 1.4x produces acceptable IQ (it may be a little worse, but it is acceptable). Additionally, reports say that the IQ degradation of the 2x II is unacceptable. Therefore, you are not going to get much of an improvemnet on the 1.4X III since there was not that big of a hit on the IQ with the 1.4X II to begin with... so there was not as much room for improvement. But the oppisite is true of the 2X III, where the 2X II left a lot of room for improvement so it would be easier to see a difference if they brought the 2X III up to acceptable IQ.

[HDNitehawk]

But doesn't that make sense? Reports are that a 1.4x produces acceptable IQ (it may be a little worse, but it is acceptable). Additionally, reports say that the IQ degradation of the 2x II is unacceptable. Therefore, you are not going to get much of an improvemnet on the 1.4X III since there was not that big of a hit on the IQ with the 1.4X II to begin with... so there was not as much room for improvement. But the oppisite is true of the 2X III, where the 2X II left a lot of room for improvement so it would be easier to see a difference if they brought the 2X III up to acceptable IQ.

I think there is always room for improvement, but with the supertele’s the 1.4x II does extremely well. I tend to overdue things, when I got the 1.4x III I set it up on the tripod and bench and tested it to death.

One of the things I didn't mention the 1.4X III is that my AF was off using it. Where my AF is dead on with the 1.4x II I would have needed to do an adjustment with the 1.4x III. Since I couldn't get improved IQ results with manual focus on the bench, I didn't see the point in keeping it. I will get the III once the supertele II's come out.



http://community.the-digital-picture...ead.php?t=4448

[Joel Eade]

I would bet he doesn't like it as much as his 500mm with the 1.4 II.
But I would like to see Joel put the 2x on his 300mm and give us his thoughts. A 300mm F/2.8 could be a good substitute for the 500mm when the weight and size of your gear is a big issue.

I will do that soon

[Joel Eade]

Took this about 15 minutes ago.....

1D MKIV
300mm f/2.8L Version I + 2X TC Version III
Gitzo 3541 tripod
Wimberly II Gimbal head
ISO 1000
f/6.3
1/320

[HDNitehawk]

Joel, not to bad for a quick test. It looks good.

[Joel Eade]

Joel, not to bad for a quick test. It looks good.

Agreed....it's not the best time of day in terms of lighting for my back yard and one shot desn't prove much but I can tell you the AF is very quick and appears to be very accurate as well. When conditions are better I'll take more images.