# Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders



## Alex (Feb 20, 2013)

Hey guys,

After buying both of the Canon mk3 extenders I was rather disappointed that they can't be used together.. I thought it was strange as the 2x has the recess which it appears to accommodate the 1.4x but doesn't.. 

I thought that was crazy after previous versions could, so I thought I can make this work with some duct tape and super glue and nails..

Only joking.. What I did find that with a 12mm extension tube it will allow the 1.4x to sit behind the 2x and work fully...

Also the strange thing was it only picked up the 2x extender so its maximum aperture was 5.6 with both 2x and 1.4x being used.. Plus a bonus it focused to infinity  

Got some great pics of the moon tonight


----------



## rpt (Feb 20, 2013)

Interesting! Nice shot of the moon. How did you focus? AF or live view or manual? Also what were your settings?


----------



## Alex (Feb 20, 2013)

Thank you..

That one I manually focused it, but I did try it with AF and it was almost spot on.. Settings were ISO 800, 1/250 @ f/8


----------



## Menace (Feb 20, 2013)

Lovely image - well done


----------



## Alex (Feb 20, 2013)

Menace said:


> Lovely image - well done



Thank you


----------



## Efka76 (Feb 20, 2013)

Very nice picture of moon!


----------



## vmk (Feb 20, 2013)

Nice picture


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 20, 2013)

That's a very useful trick for getting both extenders to work together! Thanks! Interesting that it still picked up the f-stop at 5.6.


Nice picture too!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2013)

Well...darn, now I need a 12mm extension tube...  If it works the same, that means the 1.4xIII-EF12-2xIII combo behind a 600/4 will give me 1680mm that reports as f/8 and will AF on the 1D X.


----------



## Alex (Feb 20, 2013)

Thanks guys for your comments




neuroanatomist said:


> Well...darn, now I need a 12mm extension tube...  If it works the same, that means the 1.4xIII-EF12-2xIII combo behind a 600/4 will give me 1680mm that reports as f/8 and will AF on the 1D X.



I really wish I had that 600mm in my kit bag.. Nice piece of glass


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well...darn, now I need a 12mm extension tube...  If it works the same, that means the 1.4xIII-EF12-2xIII combo behind a 600/4 will give me 1680mm that reports as f/8 and will AF on the 1D X.




While you are at it.... try borrowing a second 2X converter and try for 3360mm 

Also, you can use the Sigma 1.4X and 2X together without an extension tube..... I tried it.. with a full moon... There's something about a full moon that brings out the crazy people.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 21, 2013)

Must try that setup on my 800mm!


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 22, 2013)

Very nice picture!!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well...darn, now I need a 12mm extension tube...  If it works the same, that means the 1.4xIII-EF12-2xIII combo behind a 600/4 will give me 1680mm that reports as f/8 and will AF on the 1D X.



Wait till the next lunar mission- then you'd be able to get some nice portraits!


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 23, 2013)

Cool! I used to have a 1.4X I, and a 2X II, and they fit together. When I got V III of both, and they would not fit together, i consoled myself with the theory that this was Canon and me growing up.

And now, I must resist the urge to buy a 12mm extension tube... Must resist!,... already ordered on eBay...


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well...darn, now I need a 12mm extension tube...  If it works the same, that means the 1.4xIII-EF12-2xIII combo behind a 600/4 will give me 1680mm that reports as f/8 and will AF on the 1D X.



I tried :
1DX, 2XIII, 12mm Kenko, 1XIII, 70-200 F2.8 L II @200mm.

Manual focus works, but autofocus ( single spot AF in the center) does NOT. I tried to focus on infinity, 10 m, 5 m, none of them focussed.

I might be doing something wrong?


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 23, 2013)

sorry for the typo
should be:
1DX, 2XIII, 12mm Kenko, 1.4XIII, 70-200 F2.8 L II @200mm.


----------



## ietion (Feb 23, 2013)

as far as i've tried, autofocus on extenders only works on primes. Might not apply to all, but I think that's your problem. Try them with a prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2013)

The OP had the 1.4x closest to the camera.


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 23, 2013)

Ok, I missed that.
I tried with 1DX, 1.4XIII, 12mm Kenko, 2XIII, 70-200 F2.8 L II @200mm, still no joy. 

Even if I manually focus first and then press the shutter button halfway, it still hunts and is unable to acquire focus.

It is night in Oz, but I switched all the studio lights on (=a lot) and sufficient distance around 10 m (=manual focus works) at a high contrast subject, it still hunts like mad.


I will try in daylight tomorrow morning, but I have little hope.

Anyway, it works in manual mode, so thanks for the the tip !!


Hope this informs

Ben


----------



## Alex (Feb 23, 2013)

Thats really strange because mine works fine... I tried it earlier today in the garden with random stuff and it was a little slow but still worked... Have you tried it on Live view?


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Hi Alex,

indeed in liveview it works, all be it very slow and the target needs to have a fair bit of contrast.
Anyway, from now on , I will carry a 12 mm extension tube, so I have the option to combine the extenders.

Thanks everybody !

Ben


----------



## Alex (Feb 24, 2013)

Glad I have finally contributed something worthwhile to this forum


----------



## stensth (Aug 12, 2013)

I tried this setup as well, but it didn`t work for me.

1dx, 1,4tc, but I only had the 25mm avaible, 2,0 tc and 400/2,8 IS II

I didn`t focus to infinity nor did autofocus work as well. 

Any suggestion on custom settings?


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 13, 2013)

I tried this last night with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and it worked! The camera saw the setup as an f/5.6 lens and that allowed me to select all 61 AF points on my 5DIII. I was indoors at night so there was not a lot of light, so there was a problem locking focus, but I am not sure if that was because of trying to use 560mm of lens in my living room, or the low light. But the AF motor was searching! I will be trying this again outdoors this weekend and also with my new 300 f/2.8 IS II that I should be getting Thursday!


----------



## Etienne (Aug 13, 2013)

stensth said:


> I tried this setup as well, but it didn`t work for me.
> 
> 1dx, 1,4tc, but I only had the 25mm avaible, 2,0 tc and 400/2,8 IS II
> 
> ...



25mm extension tube is probably pushing it too far.
They have had success with the 12mm only


----------



## Etienne (Aug 13, 2013)

Here's an extension tube combo I've used to good effect:

5DIII - 2X converter - 12mm extension tube - 50mm f/1.4 

This combo creates a pretty decent macro lens
Tip: focus the 50mm close before attaching to the extension tube
Set aperture at least f/8 to f/16

BTW - works well with the EOS-M+adapter as well... gains 1.6x crop factor


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 13, 2013)

Very cool, but let me ask this: Is this combo getting you better results than just cropping? I'm not saying it is not, but that is the thing about a teleconverter, or combination of converters is it has to outperform just cropping the image.

If you shoot the moon with just the 2.0X and then crop, is there less less detail?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 13, 2013)

Nice, maybe I should try with my 1200/5.6.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 13, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Very cool, but let me ask this: Is this combo getting you better results than just cropping? I'm not saying it is not, but that is the thing about a teleconverter, or combination of converters is it has to outperform just cropping the image.
> 
> If you shoot the moon with just the 2.0X and then crop, is there less less detail?



After reading the original post I gave it a try just for fun. And yes the results were really quite good and better than cropping.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

tpatana said:


> Nice, maybe I should try with my 1200/5.6.


 ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 14, 2013)

wopbv4 said:


> indeed in liveview it works, all be it very slow and the target needs to have a fair bit of contrast.



Live view will focus even way outside the limits. I've used it to focus (outdoors on a sunny day) with a 70-300L (4-5.6) and a 3x extender at the 300 end (f/16.8, effectively). No sweat. Just a little slow (and by that, I mean painfully slow, but that's live view for you).


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Nice, maybe I should try with my 1200/5.6.
> ...


Let us know when you take a picture of ... Jupiter ;D


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

Alex can you tell us what was the brand of 12mm extension tube ?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



First shot it didn't fit the screen completely so I had to step back couple feet.


----------



## rpt (Aug 15, 2013)

tpatana said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Ha ha ha!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 15, 2013)

A Canon 12mm tube isn't cheap and I don't know how reliable the el cheapo ones are so I don't want to do an experiment myself. 

So what do you think would give the better image:

A good f/2.8 lens with a 2xTC at f/5.6 on a 7d (e.g. the f/2.8 300mm II + the 2xTC III)?
Or the same lens plus 1.4x and 2xTC at f/8 on a 5D III?

Both have a similar reach.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 15, 2013)

AlanF said:


> A Canon 12mm tube isn't cheap and I don't know how reliable the el cheapo ones are so I don't want to do an experiment myself.
> 
> So what do you think would give the better image:
> 
> ...



There is no glass in the 12mm tube. I have an el cheapo and it works find. Mind it wasn't that cheap. Having had all that kit I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 5D3. In fact I think you will find that the 5d3 + 2xTC + 300mm f2.8 will give just as much reach as the 7D + 2xTC + 300mm f2.8 because you can crop harder for the same IQ. And of course you will still have the 1.4TC to add for a bit more reach. 

Not everyone will agree with this and will be convinced that the greater pixel desity of the 7D will make up for the improved IQ of the 5D3. Guess what I won't lose sleep over their opinion.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2013)

No need to do the experiment. I took out both my 5DIII and 7D yesterday to test in the wild in a nature reserve. I had forgotten how slowly the 7D focusses with the 300mm f/2.8 II with the 2xTC attached. Whereas the 7D is fine with the native lens, it is painfully slow with the 2xTC III attached. So, I might get a cheaper 12mm ring for the fun of it ot see what it does.


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2013)

rpt said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Just a couple feet? Not a couple ... planets?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks Alex for sharing, great info

Is that 300 or 400mm you shooting with?


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 16, 2013)

Skulker said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Very cool, but let me ask this: Is this combo getting you better results than just cropping? I'm not saying it is not, but that is the thing about a teleconverter, or combination of converters is it has to outperform just cropping the image.
> ...



When you think about it, it seems almost self-evident that shooting at the higher magnification would provide better results than cropping in to an image taken at smaller magnification - ignoring for the moment any IQ issues induced soley by higher magnification such as camera shake or shallow DOF. With those other variables under control, the higher magnification has to produce an image of more exquisite detail.

For any given detail in the image - a crater for example - doubling the magnification will increase the number of pixels used to image that detail by a factor of 4.

Let's take a hypothetical. Assume I shoot an image of the moon with a 400mm lens and one of the craters in that image takes up a matrix of pixels on the sensor measuring 50X50 pixels, for a total of 2500 pixels. Now I want to increase the apparent size of that crater by cropping in to the image to give an angle of view equal to what I would have had if I'd shot with an 800mm lens. Even though I have doubled size of that portion of the image in each dimension, I still haven't increased the number of sensor pixels contributing to that part of the image so there is no additional detail to be garnered.

However, if I had taken the image with an 800mm lens to begin with, that portion of the image would be twice as large on the sensor than the previous shot, measuring 100X100 pixels. Because of the squaring effect, there are now 100X100, or 10000 pixels contributing detail for that same portion of the image. The uncropped image will be similar in angle of view to the previous cropped image, but will have a much higher pixel density and thus much higher resolving power vis-a-vis the image details.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> When you think about it, it seems almost self-evident that shooting at the higher magnification would provide better results than cropping in to an image taken at smaller magnification - ignoring for the moment any IQ issues induced soley by higher magnification such as camera shake or shallow DOF. With those other variables under control, the higher magnification has to produce an image of more exquisite detail.



What about any IQ issues introduced by the process of magnification, itself? Specifically, I would bet that cropping an image would yield results superior to increasing magnification with a crappy TC.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > When you think about it, it seems almost self-evident that shooting at the higher magnification would provide better results than cropping in to an image taken at smaller magnification - ignoring for the moment any IQ issues induced soley by higher magnification such as camera shake or shallow DOF. With those other variables under control, the higher magnification has to produce an image of more exquisite detail.
> ...



I believe I mentioned IQ issues related to magnification itself..."ignoring for the moment any IQ issues induced soley by higher magnification such as camera shake or shallow DOF. With those other variables under control, the higher magnification has to produce an image of more exquisite detail."

With that caveat, I didn't think it necessary to go through every single magnification-related variable that might affect IQ, with a crappy TC being one of the possibilities. Looks the OP is invested in top of line L-series lenses and TCs, so I'm commenting on the assumption that crappy gear isn't a factor.

Therefore my analysis was limited strictly to the difference in detail resolution based on pixel density in the image, when comparing an image that is cropped to yield the same image that shooting at a natively higher magnification would yield.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 17, 2013)

You are, of course, correct that a quality longer lens gives better resolution than a quality shorter one, all things being equal. What we want to know is whether stacking TCs on to a particular lens does lower its IQ to such an extent that it negates the gain in focal length. The series II telephotos and series III TCs are beautifully designed to work well together. In my experience that is so but adding a 1.4 to a 100-400 is no better than using PS to increase size by 1.4x. What I particularly want to know is the IQ effect on stacking two series III together. Why did Canon stop us doing that? Was it intentional or what? My 5D III froze when I stacked a Kenko 1.4 TC onto a 2xTC III and a 300mm f/2.8 II.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 17, 2013)

Here is a shot I captured last night with my 7D + 1.4x TC III + 2x TC III + 300 f/2.8 IS II with a Kenko 12mm extension tube between the two TCs. The rig is a little too heavy for my tripod head, which started to drift, so this shot was hand held. 

1/800 sec, f/5.6, ISO 400


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

Thanks for the moon shot, the combination of lenses is just what I am interested in. Did you manually focus? It would be interesting to see 100% crops with and without the 1.4xTC.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 18, 2013)

Being that the framing was difficult to hold on the incline of my back yard, I was trying not to fall in a hole, I first used autofocus to find the ballpark. Then I switched the lens to manual focus and adjusted the focus ring to dial it in while resting my hands on top of the fence. Here is a 100% crop of the lower portion of the moon where the best detail resides. I will have to get back to you on the 'without' image. 

I'm also going to be getting a new tripod rig so hopefully I can do some better focussed images once that arrives. I will also do some cropped tests with my 5DIII, too.

Higher resolution images can be seen on my website here


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

Impressive, I'll buy a 12mm ring. Here is a photo I took last April using the 5DIII + 2xTC. I've increased the pixwl dimension by 1.4x1.6 to allow for the crop factor and the TC used by you. I haven't sharpened or noise reduced the image.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 18, 2013)

Very nice. What lens were you using? The Kenko extension tubes allow autofocus, so I would get them over the cheaper ones. Also note they are only in a kit for $199 with a 12mm, a 20mm and a 36mm tube. The Canon 12mm is sold alone for $84. The product description does not state it, but I am sure theirs is compatible with the AF as well.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> Very nice. What lens were you using? The Kenko extension tubes allow autofocus, so I would get them over the cheaper ones. Also note they are only in a kit for $199 with a 12mm, a 20mm and a 36mm tube. The Canon 12mm is sold alone for $84. The product description does not state it, but I am sure theirs is compatible with the AF as well.



f/2.8 300mm II + 2xTC III. I will go for the Canon because I presume it is strong enough to marry a monster lens to a heavy body without snapping in two.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 19, 2013)

OK, Sorry. I think I wrote out all my text and copied the photo over the top.

I tried the 2XIII and 1.4XIII with a 13mm extender a friend of mine has. My 1D IV said Error!
My 5D III said, OK, but I can't focus. And My friend's 7D said...Error.

The Photo is actually just the 2X on my 400mm with my Mark IV




REX40053 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## Caps18 (Aug 19, 2013)

Have you tried shooting the planets (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)? I've used a 300 f/4 + 1.4x+2x and you could barely make out Jupiter and 4 moons if you digitally zoomed in quite a bit. I figure you need a 4000mm lens equivalent before it would be like a telescope.

If I had more free time and a few thousand dollars to play with, I would buy a GPS tracking telescope and mount my camera on to it. Then learn how to stack images in post processing.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 19, 2013)

The moon shots were posted just as universal images for comparisons. I am interested in extra range for nature shots.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> I tried the 2XIII and 1.4XIII with a 13mm extender a friend of mine has. My 1D IV said Error!
> My 5D III said, OK, but I can't focus. And My friend's 7D said...Error.
> 
> The Photo is actually just the 2X on my 400mm with my Mark IV



The Canon 12mm II just arrived. My 5DIII won't focus either manually or AF with the 1.4x III -12mm - 2x (or vice versa). What am I doing wrong? Does anyone want to buy a 12 mm Canon II extension ring, 1 day old, used twice?


----------



## rpt (Aug 24, 2013)

AlanF said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I tried the 2XIII and 1.4XIII with a 13mm extender a friend of mine has. My 1D IV said Error!
> ...


He seems to have a 1DX. And the 1.4x is the first one mounted. Not sure if that matters. I tried my 5D3+1.4x+12mm+100-400L @400mm and it did not AF. Even manual focus was not possible. My 12mm macro extension tube is Kenko but I don't think that is the problem.

I guess this is one for Alex to field...


----------



## tpatana (Aug 25, 2013)

Why no manual focus? The focus ring is stuck?


----------



## rpt (Aug 25, 2013)

tpatana said:


> Why no manual focus? The focus ring is stuck?


Nope. Even going beyond infinity, objects at infinity do not come into focus.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 26, 2013)

AlanF said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I tried the 2XIII and 1.4XIII with a 13mm extender a friend of mine has. My 1D IV said Error!
> ...



If the extension tubed has other uses of course. Marco for one. Also, it makes a good way to keep the 2 extenders in your camera bag.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 26, 2013)

Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D



Here is yours cropped and lightened (top) compared with a Powershot SX50 at nominal 1200mm (in fact 215mm real) bottom. I think the $350 camera has the edge!


----------



## Skulker (Aug 27, 2013)

AlanF said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D
> ...



I wouldn't be happy with either of those shots, as they are presented here.

The "Kenco" one looks as if it has been ruined by being lightened much more than nessasery to equal the SX50 shot, on my monitor at any rate.

If it was me and I wanted a comparison I would start with an exposure I was happy with, and that would mean exposed to the right in this case, from both cameras. Then I would go to a "magnification" that produced a reasonable image.

If I thought I could not get a better image than I could get out of a $350 camera I would be very happy. 
Unfortunatly I see much better results with my more expensive kit. So unfortunatly I have to spend more than you. I envery you your satisfaction. ;D


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2013)

Skulker said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



Please look at the previous page and you will a shot of the moon taken with my 5DIII and f/2.8 300mm II with a 2xTC III. The $10,000 of gear is indeed somewhat better than with my $350 camera. But, irrespective of the degree of lightening of the image taken with a Kenco 3xTC and the 70-300L, the $350 camera performs much better - the 3xTC is not kind to IQ. As extensively shown in another thread, the $350 camera compares well with a 5DIII + 100-400mm (which I also own, so I am not biased). I am happy with both my expensive kit and my bargain priced SX50.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 27, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Please look at the previous page and you will a shot of the moon taken with my 5DIII and f/2.8 300mm II with a 2xTC III. The $10,000 of gear is indeed somewhat better than with my $350 camera. But, irrespective of the degree of lightening of the image taken with a Kenco 3xTC and the 70-300L, the $350 camera performs much better - the 3xTC is not kind to IQ. As extensively shown in another thread, the $350 camera compares well with a 5DIII + 100-400mm (which I also own, so I am not biased). I am happy with both my expensive kit and my bargain priced SX50.



I'd seen that shot. I have exactly the same kit and that is what I get and I'm quite happy with it. I also own a 100-400mm and can't agree with your assessment of the $350 camera comparing well with it. I also don't agree with your assessment that the SX50 comparison above shows the SX50 being much better. For the reasons I stated above. But if your happy with it that's fine by me, I'm happy that you are happy.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2013)

Have you used a 3xTC? If so, what is the IQ like - I would not like to miss an easy way of getting 900mm from the 300mm f/2.8?


----------

