Posted by Iain Campbell on January 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Hi Guys,
Has anyone tried the new MKIII extender and compared it with the MKII? I am interested in getting it, but wonder if it is worth the expense of changing.
Cheers,
Iain
Posted by Phil Pogledich on January 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Keith Bauer posted somethign very recently in the Gear Reviews forum.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM
I just read the comparison that Keith posted, and the results are very cut-n-dry: the new 1.4x III version is almost optically identical to the version II, the difference is so slight it's not really measurable. The AF might be better, but according to the article the upgrade is not worth it at all.
The real shining star is the 2.0x III, which I had hoped. The comparison images show that the new III version is improved by leaps and bounds optically. I've had that new 2.0 bookmarked for my 70-200mm but I wanted to see some results first.
So, it appears you can save some $$$ and stick with the II version. I'll bite for the 2.0x as soon as the dealers start charging less than the ridiculous $499 list price, lol.
Discussion
2 repliesHas anyone tried the new MKIII extender and compared it with the MKII? I am interested in getting it, but wonder if it is worth the expense of changing.
Cheers,
Iain
The real shining star is the 2.0x III, which I had hoped. The comparison images show that the new III version is improved by leaps and bounds optically. I've had that new 2.0 bookmarked for my 70-200mm but I wanted to see some results first.
So, it appears you can save some $$$ and stick with the II version. I'll bite for the 2.0x as soon as the dealers start charging less than the ridiculous $499 list price, lol.