Canon EF Extender 1.4X III

I'm a Nikon guy but have a similar issue. My Nikkor 2X extender is 16 years old. I sometimes wonder if an update will yield any real benefit. They're reasonably inexpensive compared to the top-line lenses, so part of thinks "what the hell?".

I'd be inclined to post the query on the talkphotography forum.

Sorry no experience of Canon extenders. bet there is plenty of opinion in online photo forums though.

Can you try first?

if not, buy from Amazon and keep if it's better, return if not worth it perhaps?

Thanks both. A couple of points. I don't own a mkII at the moment. I do have a very old (20yo?) Canon 2x. It got me out of a hole during yesterday's game in predominantly good light. But you lose two stops and the IQ is poor.

Decision pretty much made: My rationalisation is I'm using old glass. Reuters, Getty, The Times etc are using the latest body, EOS 1DX as well as latest glass. I need all the IQ I can get. The price difference is around £130 for a mkIII over a used mkII. I think I've £130 worth of professional pride in me.

C.

MkIII 1.4X delivered tomorrow according to supplier. Will let you know what I think of it after the Stoke game on Sat.

C.

Not feeling too clever, I'm getting Canon error message 01 a lot with the 1.4x

Optically and giving me the focal length I want, it's all good.

The finger points to the twenty odd years old 300mm f2.8 L because my 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM works fine.

Getting angsty here.

Chris

Have you asked Canon for advice Chris?

I remembered there was some review material on this in which they specifcally compared the versions with each other. I considered buying one as such. For your benefit I have copied it in...

The image quality differences most easily noticed between the 1.4x II and the 1.4x III are:

The 1.4x III has less barrel distortion than the 1.4x II. This makes the center-of-the-frame details slightly smaller in a comparison. This difference will be most noticeable in the top crop shown in the ISO 12233 chart tool.

Anomalous dispersion glass elements are used in the Series III extenders to reduce chromatic aberration and increase resolution and contrast. The CA difference between the II and III is quite noticeable – pay close attention to this difference in the bottom ISO 12233 crops.

Less noticeable are the resolution and contrast differences, but some comparison examples do show improvements.

Contributing to the improved image quality is Canon’s Super Spectra coating which reduces ghosting and flare. Front and rear elements have Canon's fluorine anti-smear coating – making them very easy to clean.

Improvements in the Series III extenders promise to perform especially well on these specific lenses.

A microcomputer integrated into the Series III Extenders promises faster autofocusing and increased AF precision when used with the Canon IS Supertelephoto Series II lenses mentioned above and (I expect) all future compatible lenses. Better optical quality is also expected.

Note that "AF precision remains the same as the Series II Extenders when the Series III Extenders are used with earlier extender-compatible EF lenses." [Canon]

Note that Canon does not recommend stacking extenders. While they do not fit together due to the lack of space at the rear elements, an extension tube installed between them can be used to make the fit possible. But, Canon does not recommend using ETs at all due to reduced autofocus accuracy. Image quality from stacked extenders will not be great.

Thanks Bert and Bananahead,

I'd come across that same review piece on the web, Bert, which was why I went for the MkIII, all that latest coatings, and older lenses stuff, etc.

Not been in in touch with Canon but have phoned the retailer and have been promised a full refund. They are as surprised as I am that It's not working with my old 300 f2.8 because the guy told me he thought it would.

What I didn't say to the retailer is that four or five times a season I get 'error 1' using the 300 on my EOS 1D mkIV  anyway. So far it's not mattered. It's far worse on a borrowed 1D mkIII that I sometimes use, though my own 1D mkIII is ok.

I notice that Canon's compatibility chart lists the 300mm f2.8 II L IS as being ok. Clearly they don't expect to find newspapers running on such tight budgets as ours ;-)

If I am to pursure the 1.4x idea I think a mk II from a dealer with the offer of potential refund if I have the same problem might be an idea. It would at least be more contemporaneous with my 300. What do you think?

Needless to say, Canon don't support old lenses. A new mount on the the 300 would offer a chance of good performance with any of the extenders and bare on my mk IV camera. Here's my old lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/300mm-f28.htm

I notice Ken Rockwell links to the mkII 1.4x. But then he would because the mkIII extender didn't exist when he wrote the 300 review.

All opinions and options as to ways forward gratefully received. Please note the money used to buy a 1.4x would be mine not the paper's.

Cheers,

Chris

This morning I watched a Canon promo film for the EOS 1D X MkII featuring Eddie Keogh of Reuters. He was talking about how he always shoots on loose on a 400 and [with his full frame 1D X] and then crops.

I nearly always crop too with my 300 on my APS-H cropped sensor on the 1D MkIV. So I've decided to stick with the bare 300. Eddie and I are - at least - using lenses of roughly the same effective focal length   ;-)

C.