Canon 2x extender MkIII

S

skybluekid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I currently use the Canon 70-200mm L Series II lens, with Canon 5dMk III, but find it's not quite long enough for sports photography.

Will the 2x extender give me as sharp pics at 400mm end, as the 100-400mm lens ?

Cheers guys
 
I think you lose a few stops of light from what I've been reading on extenders (was reading about them yesterday funnily enough), not sure about sharpness, I think it might affect it as the extenders have glass.
 
You will lose 2 stops of light with the extender fitted so if its a f2.8 it will be f5.6. If you plan to use the lens with an extender a lot then maybe a 100-400 will be a better solution or a 400 f5.6. I know that the MkIII converters are better than the MkII and certainly work well with the II series telephoto lenses. How they work with the zoom I don't know.
 
I've used both lenses, and have the extenders as well....I use the 1.4 mk3 a lot with the 70-200 mk2, and find af and IQ basically unaffected.
With the 2x, I would say that it might miss focus a bit more than with the 100-400, but would still give great results, although personally I'd be tempted to wait until the Autumn in the hope that the 100-400 will be upgraded, that should be a great lens with 4 stop IS.....if and when it comes out!!
 
Sorry, I should have added I changed from the 100-400 and bought the 70-200 with extenders, and find the latter much better either without extenders or with the 1.4, and it's for me been a worthwhile change.
Hope that helps.
George.
 
Hazza said:
I've had the 2xMKIII although not with that lens, I'd say you'd be better off with a 1.4x and cropping :)
Click to expand...
Yes, another option, although I've successfully cropped with the 2x as well, on a 1Dx which has less pixels than the 5D3
 
I use the 1.4 TC on my 300 and it's very good and I'm don't really notice much of a drop off in AF or IQ.

I believe with the 2.0 TC, it can suffer a bit more (as well as loosing another stop of light)
 
Thank you all for your replies. Looks like it will do what I require. The dilemma is do I spend £310 on a second hand extender, or £1,000 on a lens ?

Decisions.....once again Thanks :)

:ty:
 
Simon, I sort of assume you don't live in Scotland, but if you do you're welcome to borrow one of mine for a bit?
 
With a 1.4x telecom, you lose one stop of light; two stops with 2x, so a 70-200/2.8 becomes 140-400/5.6.

Image quality depends almost entirely on the mother lens, rather than the telecon - all it does is enlarge what's already there. The difference between different telecons, even the cheaper Sigmas and Kenko Pros, is marginal.

You can compare the 70-200/2.8 plus telecon with the 100-400L on TheDigitalPicture, and many other combos too - toggle arrow in the middle. The 100-400L is better, but there's very little in it. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
 
Here's a shot I took with my 70D, 70-200 f2.8L IS II and 2x MkIII converter taken at f8 and is a Jpeg with no PP apart from a crop. I usually use my Sigma 150-500 OS on my 5D3 and the 70-200 and 2x on my 70D as I then get good length with both camera. I have used the 70-200 and 2x on my 5D3 a few times but I haven't got any examples on Flickr to show at the moment. I've also got the 1.4x MkIII converter and TBH I haven't noticed the 2x being any slower to AF or the files being a lot poorer IQ. I'm currently debating whether to change my 300 f4L IS for a 100-400 L IS but I'd still keep the converters.

Here's the shot with the 70-200 and 2x on my 70D so you can imagine it would be better IQ with the 5D3.


Yorkshire Bird by modchild, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
George said:
Simon, I sort of assume you don't live in Scotland, but if you do you're welcome to borrow one of mine for a bit?
Click to expand...

Really appreciate the offer George, and if i was near enough I'd definitely take you up on it :)

modchild said:
Here's a shot I took with my 70D, 70-200 f2.8L IS II and 2x MkIII converter taken at f8 and is a Jpeg with no PP apart from a crop. I usually use my Sigma 150-500 OS on my 5D3 and the 70-200 and 2x on my 70D as I then get good length with both camera. I have used the 70-200 and 2x on my 5D3 a few times but I haven't got any examples on Flickr to show at the moment. I've also got the 1.4x MkIII converter and TBH I haven't noticed the 2x being any slower to AF or the files being a lot poorer IQ. I'm currently debating whether to change my 300 f4L IS for a 100-400 L IS but I'd still keep the converters.

Here's the shot with the 70-200 and 2x on my 70D so you can imagine it would be better IQ with the 5D3.



Yorkshire Bird by modchild, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Fantastic shot !

...and once again I'm overwhelmed at the level of expertise and help from all......
:ty:
 
....well I'd like to think we do our best, the forum was a great help to me and if we can put a bit of that back in for others, great, that's what it's all about.
 
One of the problems, Joe, is that I suspect the 1 Dx has the best af by a long way on present Canon bodies, I've certainly got more keepers with it than any previous Canon body, and with the mk2 lenses and mk3 converters it's JUST stellar.
The 5D3 is excellent, but not quite up to the performance of the 1 Dx, but I suspect the OP would still get great results with the 2x converter...but the mk 3 would be better than the mk2 I think.
 
Joeturner11 said:
My dad uses the 70-200mm f/2.8LII and 2x III converter for birding on his Canon 1Dx and gets really sharp images from it, I use the same set up a 70-200mm with TC 2x but Nikon version. :p

Here is a example shot that he took with the combo : http://www6.clikpic.com/daveturnerimages/images/D19E9702.JPG
Click to expand...
George said:
One of the problems, Joe, is that I suspect the 1 Dx has the best af by a long way on present Canon bodies, I've certainly got more keepers with it than any previous Canon body, and with the mk2 lenses and mk3 converters it's JUST stellar.
The 5D3 is excellent, but not quite up to the performance of the 1 Dx, but I suspect the OP would still get great results with the 2x converter...but the mk 3 would be better than the mk2 I think.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the converter for mainly sports photography....I'm happy with my images, but find problems with sharpness when the action gets too far away, as the AF can be hit and miss at f2.8 when shooting in dark conditions.....raising the ISO with f2.8 is not too big a problem as the image below shows.....and if i could get the same results with the converter, I'd definitely acquire it...but would the the two stop difference mean the ISO would have to be ridiculously high, and then the noise would be too much of a problem in darker/floodlighted conditions ?

Dilemmas lol

www.flickr.com/photos/94738377@N06/13993393019/in/set-72157644247160608/
 
Last edited:
skybluekid said:
I'm looking at the converter for mainly sports photography....I'm happy with my images, but find problems with sharpness when the action gets too far away, as the AF can be hit and miss at f2.8 when shooting in dark conditions.....raising the ISO with f2.8 is not too big a problem as the image below shows.....and if i could get the same results with the converter, I'd definitely acquire it...but would the the two stop difference mean the ISO would have to be ridiculously high, and then the noise would be too much of a problem in darker/floodlighted conditions ?

Dilemmas lol

www.flickr.com/photos/94738377@N06/13993393019/in/set-72157644247160608/
Click to expand...

If you get the 2x Mk III for your 5DIII iam sure your be happy with the results its a great way to get 400mm out of the lens and the combo works really well, and buying a 2x costs far less than getting a new lens like the 100-400mm f5.6 Canon.
 
Joeturner11 said:
If you get the 2x Mk III for your 5DIII iam sure your be happy with the results its a great way to get 400mm out of the lens and the combo works really well, and buying a 2x costs far less than getting a new lens like the 100-400mm f5.6 Canon.
Click to expand...


:ty:
 
Interesting conversation! I have the canon 70-200 is I am looking to get a 2x mk111 , guess I will go ahead too. The Canon lens is a tad heavy for me ( not as young as i was) so I took it out and about with a monopod yesterday, I had only used it in the garden on a tri for birds, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the quality and focus were spot on :) add the 2x I should get colser to the birds!
 
ordered one today, looking forward to using it with the 300/2.8 IS - the mk2 2x wasn't the best
 
The point I am making, albeit a bit round about, is that IMO and experience, the mk 3 extenders don't really have an advantage over the mk2 extenders unless you are using mk2 lenses, especially the super tells.
 
Me too lol - it won't be on all the time, but gotta be worth it for those long range shots
 
I have the 1.4x Mklll extender, which I attach to my EF 400mm f/5.6 L, and in-turn to my 5D Mklll. This gives a focal length of 560mm at f/8, which is enough reach for my needs.

I should add that I have not had the 400mm or the 1.4x very long, but early impressions are very good indeed.

It is quite a heavy combo, and I wouldn't want to be holding it up for too long, but of course its is ideally suited for a monopod, tripod, or even a bean-bag for support.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I've just rented an extender from 'The Flash Centre' for £11.00 + VAT per day. I'm gonna give it a go Tuesday at the BMW PGA Golf practice day at Wentworth....I'm hoping for some decent shots :D
 
I have been very pleased with the results from mine with 300mm f2.8 IS but disappointed with results with 100-400mm (but didn't buy it for this lens, and knew I was asking quite a bit). Haven't tried it with the 70-200mm mkIi but will do now.
 
Just one thing to keep in mind when thinking about extenders, their is no such thing as a "free lunch" so don't expect too much when it comes down to image quality.
 
Neil B said:
Just one thing to keep in mind when thinking about extenders, their is no such thing as a "free lunch" so don't expect too much when it comes down to image quality.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well, Neil, all I can say is, yes, I agree in theory, but for me the advantages well outweigh any disadvantages, I'm currently sitting with a 300 mk2 and a 2x extender ready should the pair of buzzards nesting nearby try and do something spectacular, and with the af system on the 1 Dx I won't have any trouble with af speed or sharpness......and the weight (or rather lack of it) means I can hand hold for enough time to get the shots.

Couldn't do it with any other prime lens.

George.
 
Just looked at Canon rumours site, they are suggesting the new 100-400 4-5.6 will be announced in August, I wonder if that will take a 1.4 extender?....and same timing for a 7D2........so even without the extender, 160-640 sounds good!!
 
That's the way to prove it one way or the other, suck it and see!!.....then decide.

Don't think you'll regret it.
 
Les McLean said:
I reviewed the 2x MKIII Extender in this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii.421246/

Basically, the IQ is excellent but the autofocus/autofocus tracking took a hit (on 300mm F2.8 and 200mm F2.8).
Click to expand...

Thanks, Les, and that's interesting.....not sure if I read it properly, but I think you were using a mk1 300....is that right?

I found when I changed to a mk2 300, the af was substantially better than the mk1....with the mk 3 2x extender, that is.
 
George said:
Thanks, Les, and that's interesting.....not sure if I read it properly, but I think you were using a mk1 300....is that right?

I found when I changed to a mk2 300, the af was substantially better than the mk1....with the mk 3 2x extender, that is.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's an old Mk1 300mm F2.8
 
Think you'd find a big difference with the mk2 300....and a big hole in your pocket.....!!!..although the mk1 is still fetching excellent money, I sold mine and bought a 2nd hand mk2 and overall, cost me a grand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top