Canon EF 1.4x III Extender Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss the Canon EF 1.4x III Extender Review - Tell us what you think about the Canon EF 1.4x III Extender Review

[Darsonist]

Bryan, looking at the ISO charts, the 1.4x II looks sharper than the 1.4x III with the 70-200L II wide open. Is this really the case? I'm wondering if the pics got swapped...


If it really is the case, then I'm buying me a 1.4x II

[bino]

It seems to be a trade off. As you stop down the lens, the corners are sharper on III but softer in the center vs II. Looks like a hair more CA is evident in the mkII as well.


The verdict is still out on this combination (based on the crops alone). I was able to snag possibly the last *out of stock* available for purchase 1.4x II on amazon for $276. A bargain I suppose compared to $499 for mkIII, especially for occasional use. I

[bob williams]

Bryan, looking at the [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=1]ISO charts[/url], the 1.4x II looks sharper than the 1.4x III with the 70-200L II wide open. Is this really the case? I'm wondering if the pics got swapped...


If it really is the case, then I'm buying me a 1.4x II
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I noticed this as well---Thought I was just misreading the chart. But based on Bryans review and some others I have read, it sounds like the III will be better with the new generation of lenses and not so much so with the current line of lenses. With that thought, I was under the impression the 70-200 F2.8L IS II was one of the new generation and should therefore look better with the Version III extender---but it doesn't seem so. So, Im sticking with the Version II extenders until someone shows me something that warrents the 60%+ price increase.

[Darsonist]

Bob, that

[Trowski]

Besides image quality, I've read reports that the AF on the 70-200mm f/2.8 II was faster with the older extender. Is there any truth to this? I'd be interested, since I might actually consider picking up the 1.4x II instead since the image quality difference to the 1.4x III seems to be very little on this lens.


EDIT: I just noticed this thread, but I would be curious if anyone else had thoughts on this.

[wickerprints]

In the part of the review that shows a series of sample images comparing rescaled images against images taken with extenders, I think that instead of saying "0x," it should say "1x." Magnification is multiplicative, not additive, and the multiplicative identity is one, not zero. Another way to think of it is to consider the meaning of 0.5x, which would correspond to a reduction in size--50% magnification. 0.01x would correspond to scaling the image to 1% of its original size. So 1x represents no scaling at all.