canon extender mk1 v mk2

Rick,

Briefly, the differences are;
Improved weathersealing on the MkII.
Improved (or new) optical coating.
Slight mechanical modification to allow stacking with a 1.4x T/C

Bob
 
cheers bob, so if a mk1 came up at the right price would it be worth getting or wait till money allows for the mk2? I dont want to buy twice
 
Maybe....I'm still trying to figure out what you'll use it with? The 70-200 IQ may disappoint you.

Bob
 
really? I have been using the kenko1.4 with at and have been pleased. I was going to get one for wildlife and stick it on the 10d with the 35-350 mainly. and it would come in handy when you go to france and want me to look after that 600mm :D

taken today with the 70-200 and x 1.4 not to bad a tad soft maybe

IMG_0021.jpg
 
rickj said:
taken today with the 70-200 and x 1.4 not to bad a tad soft maybe

IMG_0021.jpg
Click to expand...
If that's what you're after in terms of image quality then the 70-200 and 2x TC should certainly be able to deliver it.
 
bob thanks for the link (good read) and also the offer.
no stewart I am not over happy with the sharpness of that pic now I look at it again. I do fined it hard with moving objects going to have to look at my camera setting,
this was better
IMG_0013.jpg
 
I'd try to avoid the mk1 if i were you. The basic word of mouth about the mk1 was that it's rubbish compared to the mk2. The mk2 is quite a bit sharper.

A x2 converter will significantly reduce photo quality anyway so it's up to you to decide how much degradation you can put up with.
 
Canon Bob said:
Briefly, the differences are;
Improved weathersealing on the MkII.
Improved (or new) optical coating.
Slight mechanical modification to allow stacking with a 1.4x T/C
Click to expand...
Werecow said:
I'd try to avoid the mk1 if i were you. The basic word of mouth about the mk1 was that it's rubbish compared to the mk2. The mk2 is quite a bit sharper.
Click to expand...
Only a slight difference of opinion here, then. :shrug:

Sorry Werecow, but I'd back Bob's first-hand experience over "the basic word of mouth" any day of the week.
 
I just took his post as listing the official list of modifications from canon. Which is what it looks like.
The word of mouth i was talking about are comments from professional nature photographers where they said it was basically pointless to use the old mk1 and the mk2 is actually of some use.
I know Andy Rouse used to say the only use for the x2 was to hit it with a hammer :lol:
I was just trying to simplify matters ;)
 
StewartR said:
Only a slight difference of opinion here, then. :shrug:

Sorry Werecow, but I'd back Bob's first-hand experience over "the basic word of mouth" any day of the week.
Click to expand...
Or the other Bob....Bob Atkins

"I haven't tried the 1,4x II, but I have tested the 2x II on a 500/4.5L, 300/4L and 70-200/4L. On the 500 and 70-200 (at 200) there was no difference between the original 2x and the 2x II. On the 300/4L there was a very slight improvement, just visible in shots of a USAF high resolution test target on ISO 25 Agfa APX high resolution B∓W film, but not noticable in "real world" images. It's possible that a larger difference would be observed between the original 2x and new 2x II if they were used with the new IS telephotos, but it doesn't seem worth "upgrading" for use with the lenses I used in these tests".

Bob
 
I have had a mk1 and mk2 at the same time and there was no difference in IQ.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top