Looking for a 1.4x teleconvert for Canon

[Tronhard]

I am looking for advice or experience from members on a 1.4x Teleconverter to use with my Canon lenses: I am hoping to get as much functionality from the lens as possible - i.e. autofocus, metering etc. I am considering non-OEM units, but I would be interested in experiences with the Canon 1.4 III unit.

I have the following lenses I am considering using it with:
Canon 70-200 L Mk II 2.8
Canon 100-400 L Mk II
Canon 70-300 L (?) maybe pushing that one...

Thanks in anticipation!

[William W]

I am looking for advice or experience from members on a 1.4x Teleconverter to use with my Canon lenses: I am hoping to get as much functionality from the lens as possible - i.e. autofocus, metering etc. I am considering non-OEM units, but I would be interested in experiences with the Canon 1.4 III unit.

I have the following lenses I am considering using it with:
Canon 70-200 L Mk II 2.8
Canon 100-400 L Mk II
Canon 70-300 L (?) maybe pushing that one...

Definitively better using the EF Extender 1.4 MkIII with the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII USM. For that lens alone I suggest that you buy the Canon Extender EF MkIII.

***

I use a 70 to 200/2.8 + Extenders EF often: I have tried all combinations of the three (3) 70 to 200/2.8 lenses and the four (4) Extenders EF MkII and MkIII.

I have not used the MkII version of the 100 to 400 lens: I have used the 100 to 400 (original) with the EF Extender MkII versions - not the MkIII - but it is logical, that the MkIII extender would not be a retrograde step using it on the 100 to 400MkII. You might want to tape the contacts using this lens - do you know what I mean? - if not I have a picture of it, let me know.

I understand that no Canon Extender EF is compatible with the 70 to 300L. As I understand some might mount and some might not mount, and the ones that do mount will crash into the rear optic during zooming, thus only facilitating use at a reduced zoom compass.

WW

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

Thanks for your feedback:

Yes... I had a feeling the 70-300L would be pushing it a bit. I have got only original Canon gear so far, but had heard that some current 3rd party 1.4x extenders were actually as good as the Canon but cheaper. I have the Canon 2x III extender, but it has to focus manually on the 100-400L lens, which is fine for some instances but not all.

[Bobobird]

You did not mention your camera(s).
There is a somewhat noticeable IQ hit with crop cameras on zooms.
Full frame cameras + TCs + zooms, the IQ hit is not as much.
On zooms, ff or crop, will also reduce the speed of acquisition somewhat.

[Geoff F]

I was using a Canon 1.4x but eventually it started to get a little bit loose in the body, although still working. So I replaced it with a Sigma converter chiefly because I was mostly using it with a Sigma lens. Using 7D MkII.

As far as my experiments could tell, there isn't any difference between them. But I wouldn't bother with any of the cheaper alternatives though.

[Tronhard]

You did not mention your camera(s).
There is a somewhat noticeable IQ hit with crop cameras on zooms.
Full frame cameras + TCs + zooms, the IQ hit is not as much.
On zooms, ff or crop, will also reduce the speed of acquisition somewhat.

Those are good points Bobo... I have a 5DIII, a 7D, 60D's... the full list is in my profile. I expected that there would be a loss of both focusing speed and quality. That, in part is why I am considering a 1.4x to supplement the 2.0x which does not autofocus on my 100-400L.

[rpcrowe]

I still occasionally use a 1.4x TC with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I have the Mark I model which I have seldom used since I purchased the 300mm f/4L IS lens. However, I will throw this old TC in my travel bag when I don't want to carry the 300mm lens.









Even using this older TC, the IQ and AF of the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens + TC is more than just acceptable. The AF "might" be slightly slower than the "instant" AF of the bare lens but, I was able to use it effectively at the Miramar Airshow. I have not printed hard copies of my Miramar photos...

https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Airplane...2007/i-3XvNFhw

I will definitely use my new (it will arrive any day) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens for any future airshow but, will likely keep my older TC because of the lightweight travel package it makes in combination with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens...

However, if I were going to purchase a new TC, I would consider the Canon Mark III or possibly one of the third party converters...

[chauncey]

I have a 1.4X TC and a 2.0X TC...never use the 1.4 as the 2.0 gives me a ton more distance and
superior optics. Tis a no-brainer.

[Tronhard]

I have a 1.4X TC and a 2.0X TC...never use the 1.4 as the 2.0 gives me a ton more distance and
superior optics. Tis a no-brainer.

Hi Wm.. Thanks for your comments... are both original Canon units or is one of them a 3rd part one?

[Tronhard]

However, if I were going to purchase a new TC, I would consider the Canon Mark III or possibly one of the third party converters...

Hi Richard! AMAZING photos!!!!!!!!!! You are VERY accomplished at getting awesome images at an airshow. I really love the one in particular of the sunlight on the wings of the 3 diving aircraft. Fantastic. (they really needs a thumbs up or clapping emoticon!)

As you mention 3rd party converter, do you have any experience with them and would you recommend any one in particular? Thanks - Trev

[Tronhard]

I was using a Canon 1.4x but eventually it started to get a little bit loose in the body, although still working. So I replaced it with a Sigma converter chiefly because I was mostly using it with a Sigma lens. Using 7D MkII.

As far as my experiments could tell, there isn't any difference between them. But I wouldn't bother with any of the cheaper alternatives though.

Hi Geoff:
Thanks for this. What model Sigma teleconverter did you use please?

[chauncey]

Both of mine are Canon.

[James G]

Hi Trev, I use a 2x Sigma extender with my 50-500mm Sigma on a Canon 7d Mk2. I really only wanted it for moon shots, solar shots, and 'wider field' astrophotography shots. Even though it is Sigma on Sigma, autofocus is lost. (Not an issue in this instance since metering TTL is not compromised )

I got it via Ebay from Japan at a very good price (£100), but, given the loss of autofocus and the inherent aperture impact, I would never have paid full price. Because of the fairly 'narrow' type of subject I use it for, it is difficult to assess how much lens sharpness is lost against the effective doubling of the focal length since I stack multiple captures. 10-20 for Moon and Sun shots, and between 60 and 300 for subjects like the Orion Nebula, star clusters etc...
Overall the experiment has been successful but I have not been tempted to use the extender for more conventional? subjects.

My Canon lenses are primes for macro work so have never really considered using an extender with them. If I were to do so, my research before getting the Sigma suggests that it is best to use the extender supplied by the lens manufacturer, rather than mix and match. (Pretty obvious I suppose!)

Not sure if this really helps with your initial question, but......

[Cantab]

Trev, I've used the Canon mark ii 1.4 extender with the marki 100-400. I haven't used the combination for awhile but have a recollection of having to use manual focus taking bird photos at Somenos Marsh (near Duncan) - I use a 60D body. I'm not sure if any of this info is relevant concerning the markiii extender. If I get the gear out and test whether I have autofocus, I'll post the results.

[Cantab]

Definitively better using the EF Extender 1.4 MkIII with the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII USM. For that lens alone I suggest that you buy the Canon Extender EF MkIII.

***

I use a 70 to 200/2.8 + Extenders EF often: I have tried all combinations of the three (3) 70 to 200/2.8 lenses and the four (4) Extenders EF MkII and MkIII.

I have not used the MkII version of the 100 to 400 lens: I have used the 100 to 400 (original) with the EF Extender MkII versions - not the MkIII - but it is logical, that the MkIII extender would not be a retrograde step using it on the 100 to 400MkII. You might want to tape the contacts using this lens - do you know what I mean? - if not I have a picture of it, let me know.

I understand that no Canon Extender EF is compatible with the 70 to 300L. As I understand some might mount and some might not mount, and the ones that do mount will crash into the rear optic during zooming, thus only facilitating use at a reduced zoom compass.

WW

Bill, I was intrigued by your reference to taping the contacts. I don't know what you're referring to: obviously not putting electrical tape over the contacts(?).

[rpcrowe]

Hi Richard! AMAZING photos!!!!!!!!!! You are VERY accomplished at getting awesome images at an airshow. I really love the one in particular of the sunlight on the wings of the 3 diving aircraft. Fantastic. (they really needs a thumbs up or clapping emoticon!)

As you mention 3rd party converter, do you have any experience with them and would you recommend any one in particular? Thanks - Trev

Trev,

Thanks for the nice remarks.

No, I have no experience at all with 3rd party extenders but, I have heard that some of them do not transmit the f/value of the lens to the camera and thus will autofocus at f/8 with a crop camera. I don't know which extenders work this way but, have heard that Kenko extenders are one brand. Please don't take this as gospel about autofocus with a crop camera (other than the 7Dii) at f/8....

Maybe this will help...
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VOB7

[Bobobird]

One of the Kenko models works fine with the 70-300L but does not with the 100-400 Mark II or the 500/f4 Mark II. I sold that Kenko/70-300 combo and cannot recollect exactly which model it is.

[Tronhard]

One of the Kenko models works fine with the 70-300L but does not with the 100-400 Mark II or the 500/f4 Mark II. I sold that Kenko/70-300 combo and cannot recollect exactly which model it is.

Thank you Bobo! I think I might take Bill's advice and stick to the original Canon unit, but I may see if I can get hold of one by borrowing or renting first to see how it works out.

[William W]

On zooms, ff or crop, will also reduce the speed of acquisition somewhat.

Apropos - Reduction of AF Acquisition Time and EF Zoom Lenses:

Note that very few Canon Zoom Lenses / EOS Camera Bodies are compatible in regard to AF when used with Extenders EF.

*

The (two)100 to 400L Lenses:

In this regard the both versions of the 100 to 400L are only compatible with the two x1.4 Extenders EF MkII and MkIII when used only with an handful of EOS Bodies,. Those being (from memory) several of the 1 Series Cameras then only the EOS 5D MkIII and the EOS 7DMkII (and the EOS 3, I think). So that is relevant to Trev because he has the 5DMkIII and [expects that he will buy a 7DMkII].

But, for example it would be unfair to add to any testing and subsequent evaluations/comparisons using an Extender EF on the 60D, because even though you may get the AF to work - that camera and lens combination is not compatible.

Not saying that Trev would necessarily draw conclusions or comparisons based on using the 60D and that lens and extender - but rather making this important point for others who buy or are considering buying an Extender EF with the expectation of a performance that is neither designed, nor promised.

*

The (three) 70 to 200L Lenses:

Amongst the small group of EF Zoom Lenses which ARE compatible with Extenders EF in regard to AF when used with MANY EOS Bodies, the three 70 to 200/2.8 lenses, in my experience, all perform very good to excellent.

The Image Stabilized MkII version, which is the lens Trev has, is the best of all three.

*

Apropos Reports and Lab Testing:

Several notable reports reckon that the slower AF using the EF70 to 200 F/2.8L USM; the EF70 to 200 F/2.8L IS USM; the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM and either the two Extenders EF 1.4MkII and MkIII, is in the order of 30%~50% SLOWER than if no Extender is used.

These are (almost always) a bench test using a fixed Subject and then measuring (in "time taken") the AF acquisitions comparatively from several prescribed out of focus distances to difference in AF acquisition distances. The results are then averaged in some way. It is noteworthy that some tests do not even describe the methodology used.

However, whilst I acknowledge that theory, I think that the salient point is to ask “what does that mean in real life shooting?”

And as a result of asking that question, I consider a more useful, though less scientific approach, is to tally the number of shots lost as a result of AF being too slow.

Note also that one major point being, whilst we accept that the AF with a x1.4 Extender EF will be slower - and let's say it is 50% SLOWER - the critical question is: "How much IN TIME is that slower?" – and purely from my analyses over several years, using several cameras, it is not that much slower - for my purposes and outputs.

*

Another salient point is, (most of) the bench tests which tabulate the relative slowness of AF are intrinsically biased askew of what is, actual and typical real-world shooting.

As an example, let’s take a simple bench which is designed to make an A/B comparison of the time taken to acquire AF using a Lens ALONE and then that Lens with Extender EF added. Let’s assume beginning at four OoF distances and then measuring the time for AF to acquire the Subject set at four different Focus Distances. The two resultant grids would appear like this:



In this grid, we assumed that 0 (zero) is time is taken to acquire AF to any distance from which the lens is set as a starting point. This is not so: but is is a very short time and I used "0" for simplicity.

The grid implies that the greater the actual acquisition distance from the staring point the longer the time taken to acquire (all other factors consistent). This is actually so.

We would make two grids of results one with the Extender and Lens and one with the Lens 'naked' and then quantify the DIFFERENCE of the time taken to Acquire AF - and as mentioned most test results then describe the difference as a "percentage slower" figure. And the test summary is such as: "using the Extender EF the AF acquisition is 50% slower.”

However in most typical real world shooting, the AF acquisition is from a starting point which is around and about the final “acquired” Focus Distance, and this is so even if the action is moving (quickly), so therefore this type of bench testing will provide biased results which are skewed toward the actual impact of the “Slow AF” appearing in print much more severe that it is in reality and for mostly all practical purposes.

*

"Practical" AF Acquisition & 'Slowness', in my experience - details:

All three of those mentioned 70 to 200 "L Series" lenses work very good to excellent with the 1.4 Extenders EF MkII and MkIII.

As mentioned the ultimate and the best combination being the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM and the 1.4 Extender EF MkIII.

BTW - The worst being either Extender with the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS USM.

Moreover apropos AF acquisition and taking into account the type of shooting I generally do, that being Field Sports such as Hockey; Rugby; Football (soccer); Cricket and indoor Swimming, my opinion is based upon using Centre Point AF in Daylight and Telecast Floodlight Banks - typically EV = 9~15. The three lenses were used variously over 12 years with: 20D; 30D; 50D; 7D; 7DMkII; 5D; 5DMkII; 1DsMkII; and 1DSMkIII Camera Bodies.

I cannot honestly recount any major trouble with AF Acquisition which lead to shots being lost.

For a shot that is static for example a B&G at an Alter - any of the three 70 to 200/2.8:L's and Extender will eat it.

The main reason why I would choose to use a 70 to 200/2.8L and an Extender, rather than the 400/2.8L is, after considering the Image usage are WEIGHT (about 3lbs vs. 12lbs) and manoeuvrable factors. I use the 70 to 200 + Extender mostly always hand-held, as opposed to using the 400/2.8L on a Monopod and thus the 400/2.8 slows me down, especially running a sideline, or I have to dump the Monopod - and on some Ovals I am not keen to do that.

*

The EF 100-400L can be slightly slower in AF Acquisition when using an x1.4 Extender EF MkII in some lighting scenarios and in my experience that is sometimes noticeable and notable.

I can also make that combination hunt in low light and/or low contrast, but with good light and good contrast edges it performs acceptably with the bodies with which AF is compatible.

I have not used the MkIII extender with the original 100 to 400L, nor have I used the 100 to 400 MkII lens that you have. However, I expect that the MkII lens and the MkIII extender would not have poorer AF and probably would have better.

***

General Image Quality:

There is a somewhat noticeable IQ hit with crop cameras on zooms. Full frame cameras + TCs + zooms, the IQ hit is not as much.

I do not understand why image quality degradation is specifically sensor size dependant and (also implied?) applies exclusively to zoom lenses I would be interested in any referenced sources. Noted already that very few Canon Zoom Lenses are Extender EF compatible in the first instance and amongst the small group of EF Zoom Lenses which are compatible with Extenders EF, the three 70 to 200/2.8 lenses are very good to excellent apropos IQ generally - and the MkII lens which Trev has, is the best of all three.

As an example of Sensor Size (not) being a criterion - I think that the EOS7D MkII will outperform many “Full Frame Cameras” when A/B comparisons are made on general IQ when using Extenders. There is a recent previous thread with a specific link to noise and low light performance of the EOS 7DMkII and that mentions various papers concerning the general IQ of the EOS7DMkII – these and my own use of the EOS 7DmkII underscore the above statement of belief.

*

Expectations and Realities:

Final Image quality has a lot to do with the processing of the image and although in theory there will be degradation using any Extender with any Lens, in my experience I could not state that the IQ takes somewhat of a hit when using a MkII or MkII extender with any of the three 70 to 200 /2.8 lenses.

As 100% example here, then enlarged more:


(EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII used at 400mm
F/6.3 @ 1/640s @ ISO250
Transverse Motion - Hand Held.
Note this is the lens stopped down only 1/3 stop)

Some CA is noticeable at the edge of the cap – BUT - that was not addressed in PP and noted this was using the x2.0 Extender EF MkII - better results are expected and attained with either of the x1.4 Extenders.

*

Another example is here, with an enlargement:


(EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII used at 400mm
F6.3 @ 1/1600s @ ISO250 Head-On Motion - Hand Held)

Again, this was using the x2.0 Extender EF MkII and the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM - better results are expected and attained with either of the x1.4 Extenders.

*

As mentioned I have not used the 100 to 400 L MkII. I expect that the MkII Lens and the MkIII extender would not have poorer IQ and probably would have better IQ and produce good to very good results and better than when using the original 100 to 400L lens and the x1.4 MkII Extender EF.

So as a comparative starting point of expected IQ this might be useful - Here is only a part of a field test which was looking at edge IQ using the 100 to 400L; the 1.4 Extender EF MkII an the camera unit testing was an EOS 5D. (Once opened, you can click on the images to see them larger).

*

And another most important point is: compered to any (heavy) CROP in Post production which is necessary to get to x1.4 (or x2.0), using an Extender EF will arguably be better in every case and can be easily displayed even as a rough field test in many shooting scenarios, if one takes the time to make an A/B comparison shoot.

***

Oddment & Tit-bits:

One other point - you mentioned that you already have the x2.0MkIII Extender EF. Although Canon literature regularly mentions - the x1.4 MkII Extender EF and the x2.0 MkII Extender EF cannot be used together.

Those statements are incorrect.

Firstly it is incorrect that they cannot be physically stacked – they can.

Secondly, with the appropriate Lens and Camera Body combination, keeping within the AF specifications, the combination will work and AF functions correctly.

I believe the above also applies to using a x1.4MkIII and a x2.0MkII, though I have not yet done that myself.

HOWEVER, as I understand, the build of the x2.0 Extender EF MkIII varies slightly from its MkII predecessor. As a result of that design alteration - stacking a x2.0 and x1.4 is physically not possible if one is using an x2.0 Extender EF MkIII

***

Taping the contacts:

. . . I was intrigued by [the] reference to taping the contacts. I don't know what you're referring to: obviously not putting electrical tape over the contacts(?).

Yes, indeed.

Taping the contacts with electrical isolating tape was exactly it.

AF Functionality is dependent upon various factors one of which is the camera recognising that there is an Extender present and connected to it. If the camera does not know that an Extender is connected it will assume none is and try to acquire AF even if the resultant Aperture is smaller than the trigger aperture for AF functionality.

As an example, let’s take the gear that Trev is considering - if we were using the x1.4 Extender EF and the EF100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6 MkII Lens and wanted to use that on Trev’s EOS60D.

As already mentioned, that: Lens; Extender; and Camera combination is NOT compatible apropos Auto Focus Functionality. That does not mean it will not AF sometimes - it probably will and at other times it might not.

However if we isolate the contacts that tell the camera that there is an extender in line, then the camera will not as a firmware functionality just “give up” but, instead it will try to acquire AF: it might hunt a bit in low light or low contrast – but it will always try.

These are the contacts on the Extender EF that require covering with electrical insulating tape to achieve this functionality in these circumstances:




WW
All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[William W]

One of the Kenko models works fine with the 70-300L but does not with the 100-400 Mark II or the 500/f4 Mark II. I sold that Kenko/70-300 combo and cannot recollect exactly which model it is.

Thanks.

*

BTW - One, two or several of the Kenko models works fine with many of the Canon Prime Lenses which not suitable for mounting with Canon Extenders EF.

This can be useful for a kit comprising of one of the shorter Primes as the longest lens - for example the 85/1.8; 100/2 or 135/2.8 . . . etc

The Kenko does not protrude to hit the rear element of the lens.

WW