Posted by Colin Smith on February 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM
I am still using the old Canon 1.4 Extender on my 500 F4 L IS lens. I am taking this lens to Africa in August and I am wondering if anyone has upgraded to the Canon 1.4 III. I still get acceptable sharp photos from my old tele-extender, but it is getting a little shop worn and every so often the autofocus freezes when the extender is on the lens. The new extender is awfully expensive at $474. Any thoughts?
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 17, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Edited: Had to make some grammar corrections.]
Colin, I did a LOT of research on this very subject when I was shopping for a TC for my 70-200mm/2.8 IS (newer II version of the 70-200mm series, that's important, hold that thought). Details aside, the majority rule is that the 1.4x III is not a huge improvement at ALL over the II, and a lot of reviews show that. Yes, the coatings are better and such but it doesn't take a $279 version 2 up to a $474 version 3 in terms of quality.
The 2.0x TC III is a bigger improvement over the II, but I dare say only on certain lenses, and I do believe this plays into your decision regarding the 1.4x. Here's why: when I searched reviews and looked at sample images, etc, I noticed that the 1.4x fared well (version 2) but the 2.0 version 2 got mixed reviews. I started to notice that the biggest complainers of the 2.0x v2 were the folks that owned the original 70-200mm/2.8 IS, complaining of softness, etc.The people shooting the bazooka lenses like yours didn't gripe as much. So when the 70-200mm/2.8 IS II was released and the side-by-side MTF charts and image samples started showing that the version 2 lens was blowing the original 70-200mm away image-quality-wise (and it does, wow), the samples of the new 70-200mm with the older version 2 of the 2.0x TC started looking better, and those shot with the version 3 TC weren't that far ahead in image quality, certainly not to justify nearly $500 for it.
SO, my conclusion to all that gibberish is (and this is just my opinion, I may be way off the mark here), a higher-quality Canon lens sucks enough light through an older version 2 TC and it fares quite well, and that you do NOT get an 80% improvement to coincide with that 80% price increase. I would say that your 500mm f4 falls into the "amazing resolving power" category which is why we see so many avian shots with the 500/4 & 1.4x II TC combo that look stunning. For me, I entered that eclectic virtual wonderland called eBay and found a fella that was a scientist and had purchased the older 2.0x TC II for some lab experiments then put it back in the box. Auction ended at $225 and I couldn't be happier, that thing is like brand new. On my 70-200/2.8 IS II it's phenomenal when shooting scenery at 400mm, f/11 (on a 5D MK2 and a CF tripod). I am MORE than happy with the image contrast and sharpness with the older v2 TC, and I can be a real annoying pixel-peeper, believe me, lol. So I would conclude that landing a mint 1.4x TC II will do you just fine.
To verify all I just wrote, here's a website that you will spend WAY too much time at, I guarantee it:
On that site you can look at test charts shot with every lens Canon makes and even look at them with v2 and v3 TCs. I just loaded up the 500mm/4 on both sides, one with the v2 1.4x TC and the other with the v3 TC both at f/5.6 and there is NO discernable difference. Adfter you pick your lens, change the MM setting to 700mm. There will be two, one with the v2 TC and the other loads the v3 TC. It shows up in tiny lettering which TC was used. All this will make sense when you visit the website. This is one amazing site and has helped me determine many choices when lens shopping and has saved me time and aggravation.
Happy researching!
Posted by Max Waugh on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 AM
The main thing I keep hearing from photographers that have used both the II and the III is that the III isn't really worth the higher price. That is, it doesn't seem that much better, and therefore doesn't justify the higher cost.
Max
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 17, 2012 at 2:39 AM
Max, you just summed up my long windy reply in two short sentences.
Posted by Bob Johnson on February 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Hi Fellas.
I am no technical expert and I can only comment on my own feelings and results. I recently bought the MKIII for use with a 1DMkIV and my 3 years old 500f4 & 300f2.8 lenses. I would say that the results are definately sharper (especially at distance) and it autofocuses faster. Maybe not 80% better as Paul D points out but you should realise that even a 10% improvement can be noticable and I would say that it is in fact a 20% or even a 25% improvement and for me that justifies the expense
Bob
Posted by Keith Bauer on February 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM
I participated in a comparison of the new version against the version II.
Bottom line is the 1.4 is not visibly improved from the old version.
Posted by Colin Smith on February 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Thanks all. Just to clarify, I am currently shooting with the version 1. Sounds like if I upgrade it probably should be to the version 2, not the 3???
Posted by Dennis Plank on February 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Hi Colin: I'll verify that the version II works very well with the 500 f4. There might be improved autofocus response with the version III. I haven't had the opportunity to use one. The version II is still pretty readily available, though it looks like the price of the version II is going up and that of the version III is falling slightly. I noticed Adorama will also sell a refurbished version II for a pretty reasonable price.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM
I would say that the results are definately sharper (especially at distance) and it autofocuses faster.
Great feedback, Bob. All my rambling above is based on test shots and reviews, but if you've seen an improvement doing hands-on, then that's the best info!
Colin, if you're using v1 then I would say YES, even v2 will show you an improvement. But Bob made a good point if you're shooting wildlife, and that's faster AF in v3. If you DO spring for it, you'll at least have the best Canon offers. Improved AF may be a big factor there, I was just focusing on image quality of the glass. Any chance you can rent or borrow to test?
Posted by Colin Smith on February 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Thanks for all the excellent advice. I think I might order a III and do a quick test against my version I and than return it if I don't notice an improvement in autofocus and quality. I noticed that the III has a different lens/optical arrangement with more elements. Might just be worth it.
Posted by Colin Smith on March 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Just thought I would report. I received and tried out the 1.4X III on my 500 F4 side by side with my old mark I 1.4x. I can see no discernable difference in sharpness or autofocus speed in the III. In fact the III seems just a tad less sharp than the Mark I. Might be a bad copy, but I am happy to return it and receive a refund. Thanks to all and I will return when I figure out a new way to waste our time!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 15, 2012 at 1:22 AM
Thanks to all and I will return when I figure out a new way to waste our time!
Discussion
11 repliesColin, I did a LOT of research on this very subject when I was shopping for a TC for my 70-200mm/2.8 IS (newer II version of the 70-200mm series, that's important, hold that thought). Details aside, the majority rule is that the 1.4x III is not a huge improvement at ALL over the II, and a lot of reviews show that. Yes, the coatings are better and such but it doesn't take a $279 version 2 up to a $474 version 3 in terms of quality.
The 2.0x TC III is a bigger improvement over the II, but I dare say only on certain lenses, and I do believe this plays into your decision regarding the 1.4x. Here's why: when I searched reviews and looked at sample images, etc, I noticed that the 1.4x fared well (version 2) but the 2.0 version 2 got mixed reviews. I started to notice that the biggest complainers of the 2.0x v2 were the folks that owned the original 70-200mm/2.8 IS, complaining of softness, etc.The people shooting the bazooka lenses like yours didn't gripe as much. So when the 70-200mm/2.8 IS II was released and the side-by-side MTF charts and image samples started showing that the version 2 lens was blowing the original 70-200mm away image-quality-wise (and it does, wow), the samples of the new 70-200mm with the older version 2 of the 2.0x TC started looking better, and those shot with the version 3 TC weren't that far ahead in image quality, certainly not to justify nearly $500 for it.
SO, my conclusion to all that gibberish is (and this is just my opinion, I may be way off the mark here), a higher-quality Canon lens sucks enough light through an older version 2 TC and it fares quite well, and that you do NOT get an 80% improvement to coincide with that 80% price increase. I would say that your 500mm f4 falls into the "amazing resolving power" category which is why we see so many avian shots with the 500/4 & 1.4x II TC combo that look stunning. For me, I entered that eclectic virtual wonderland called eBay and found a fella that was a scientist and had purchased the older 2.0x TC II for some lab experiments then put it back in the box. Auction ended at $225 and I couldn't be happier, that thing is like brand new. On my 70-200/2.8 IS II it's phenomenal when shooting scenery at 400mm, f/11 (on a 5D MK2 and a CF tripod). I am MORE than happy with the image contrast and sharpness with the older v2 TC, and I can be a real annoying pixel-peeper, believe me, lol. So I would conclude that landing a mint 1.4x TC II will do you just fine.
To verify all I just wrote, here's a website that you will spend WAY too much time at, I guarantee it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
On that site you can look at test charts shot with every lens Canon makes and even look at them with v2 and v3 TCs. I just loaded up the 500mm/4 on both sides, one with the v2 1.4x TC and the other with the v3 TC both at f/5.6 and there is NO discernable difference. Adfter you pick your lens, change the MM setting to 700mm. There will be two, one with the v2 TC and the other loads the v3 TC. It shows up in tiny lettering which TC was used. All this will make sense when you visit the website. This is one amazing site and has helped me determine many choices when lens shopping and has saved me time and aggravation.
Happy researching!
Max
I am no technical expert and I can only comment on my own feelings and results. I recently bought the MKIII for use with a 1DMkIV and my 3 years old 500f4 & 300f2.8 lenses. I would say that the results are definately sharper (especially at distance) and it autofocuses faster. Maybe not 80% better as Paul D points out but you should realise that even a 10% improvement can be noticable and I would say that it is in fact a 20% or even a 25% improvement and for me that justifies the expense
Bob
Here is the link
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=63031&CGISESSID=86c58e1471639d90fc8ade28955782f4&u=1950
Bottom line is the 1.4 is not visibly improved from the old version.
Great feedback, Bob. All my rambling above is based on test shots and reviews, but if you've seen an improvement doing hands-on, then that's the best info!
Colin, if you're using v1 then I would say YES, even v2 will show you an improvement. But Bob made a good point if you're shooting wildlife, and that's faster AF in v3. If you DO spring for it, you'll at least have the best Canon offers. Improved AF may be a big factor there, I was just focusing on image quality of the glass. Any chance you can rent or borrow to test?
LOL!!