# Stacked TCs - 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

I'm just wondering if anyone has tried stacking their Mk III extenders with the 12mm extension tube and attaching that to a Mk II super telephoto. I realize it would compromise image quality considerably, but I have all the parts other than the 12mm extension tube, and could see myself using it in some situations. I ask because I see George Lepp using similar combos with good results (see below) and wonder if it's worth getting the 12mm tube to use the extenders with my 300 2.8 IS II. I plan to use it for its intended purpose, but was curious about stacked TC results, too.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/extreme-close-up.html


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 25, 2014)

I can't speak for Mk3 extenders but I have tried stacked Mk2 extenders (no extension tube needed). On a early EF 400 F2.8 L the results weren't too bad and on a 600 F4 L IS they were a bit poorer. Stacked extenders didn't give me useable images but did give record shots that I would not have got otherwise. Both the lenses and the Mk2 2 x extender have since been traded and replaced with a 300 f2.8 IS, an 800 F5.6 IS and a 2 x Mk3. I haven't tried stacking extenders since but can confirm that the 2x Mk3 is considerably better than the Mk2 so there may be some potential in your idea. 
P.S. My 300 F2.8 is a Mk1 and the 2 x Mk3 works VERY well with it.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 25, 2014)

There was some posts about this in an earlier thread, can´t recall which. I believe Neuro tried it.

I have the III-extenders and the 12mm extension tube. I´ll try it with the 600mm when I get home.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2014)

Thanks for the replies and I'll try to find the old post. Also, Eldar, I remember reading somewhere that the order matters, and the IQ is better if one or the other is the one closest to the lens. I'm guessing lens-1.4x-tube-2x-body, but you might want to try both. Also, as George Lepp says, a remote shutter, solid tripod, etc. is paramount to get good results - not that you'd want to hand hold a 1680mm lens


----------



## surapon (Jan 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm just wondering if anyone has tried stacking their Mk III extenders with the 12mm extension tube and attaching that to a Mk II super telephoto. I realize it would compromise image quality considerably, but I have all the parts other than the 12mm extension tube, and could see myself using it in some situations. I ask because I see George Lepp using similar combos with good results (see below) and wonder if it's worth getting the 12mm tube to use the extenders with my 300 2.8 IS II. I plan to use it for its intended purpose, but was curious about stacked TC results, too.
> 
> http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/extreme-close-up.html




Thanks for the great Link, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Yes, Sir I will try tomorrow morning with my dear 600 mm. 1.4 X MK II and 25 mm. Tube and let you know.
Have a good Saturday night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 26, 2014)

I gave it a try with my 25mm Extension Tube, but as I suspected, this doesn't work very well because there's too much room between the extenders and you lose infinity focus. Shooting closer objects works pretty well, but it's a very cloudy, dark day here, making manual focus quite difficult and the IS helps, but not a lot. It looks like the 2x closest to the body has more contrast, but again, the weather has made testing this very difficult.


----------



## Skulker (Jan 26, 2014)

here's one with a 12mm extension tube. I don't know if all lenses will do this. its a 300mm 2.8 with both converters.

on a light weight tripod, so it could have been better with better support.


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 27, 2014)

I have done this with a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x II, 25mm tube, and 2x II. With my 5Dm2, I was still short of filling the entire frame. 

The details are good, and I'm not sure if the atmosphere helped blur it at all (it was a cold day in February), but I would have liked to have another 2x or more. When I turned it towards Mars and Jupiter, I figured I would need to get up to something like 2700mm+.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

There was a thread about this. On the basis of the posts, I bought a Canon extension tube for my 1.4x and 2x series III TCs and 300mm f/2.8 II . The lens wouldn't focus on a 5DIII, irrespective of the order of the TCs.


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 27, 2014)

I thought all the extenders would do is allow you to focus closer up, but you lose infinity focus. Is there some other magic that happens when you put an extension tube between a 1.4x and a 2x magnifier?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> I thought all the extenders would do is allow you to focus closer up, but you lose infinity focus. Is there some other magic that happens when you put an extension tube between a 1.4x and a 2x magnifier?



The MkIII extenders cannot be physically stacked - putting the extension tube between them gets around that limitation.


----------



## Skulker (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There was a thread about this. On the basis of the posts, I bought a Canon extension tube for my 1.4x and 2x series III TCs and 300mm f/2.8 II . The lens wouldn't focus on a 5DIII, irrespective of the order of the TCs.



Have you tried manual Focus? Or using live View? Both work for me on the 5D.

normal A can be hit or miss. It's hardly surprising as we are doing something canon specifically don't facilitate as the converters don't stack.


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 27, 2014)

I put the 2x closest to the camera, then the 25mm tube, and the lens+1.4x on it. I used the live view mode and pushed the AF button to focus. It isn't the fastest, but it was able to lock in.

The next question is, other than the Moon pictures, there isn't much to gain from this setup. I don't actually own a 2x, I borrowed the one for this test. You do need a stable tripod and a slow moving subject. Maybe if you are a PI and looking to get some covert pictures...


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> yorgasor said:
> 
> 
> > I thought all the extenders would do is allow you to focus closer up, but you lose infinity focus. Is there some other magic that happens when you put an extension tube between a 1.4x and a 2x magnifier?
> ...



Ah, thanks. I guess I just assumed they could normally be stacked. I'm surprised the extension tube doesn't prevent the combo from focusing to infinity. I also saw some notes about using an extension tube between multipliers and lenses that don't normally allow them. I'm going to have to play around with that and see what kind of results I can get


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

Skulker said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There was a thread about this. On the basis of the posts, I bought a Canon extension tube for my 1.4x and 2x series III TCs and 300mm f/2.8 II . The lens wouldn't focus on a 5DIII, irrespective of the order of the TCs.
> ...



I'll try again when there is a clear moon, and use the 70D.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

I found some posts about stacking Mk II or Mk II + Mk III extenders, but didn't see any about two Mk IIIs. Skulker & Caps18, thanks for the posts, though I'm not sure how Caps18 took the shot with a 25mm tube. I tried mine and could not (manually) focus on anything that was more than about 20 feet away - I lost infinity focus. I see it was with the Mk II converters, so maybe that was why it worked.

Alan, since you have the same set up I'm looking to use 300 II + 1.4x & 2x III + 12mm tube, do you mean it wouldn't *auto*focus or do you mean it wouldn't (manual) focus at all using the 12mm tube?

P.S. I found this post from this thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9908.msg179147#msg179147) and now I'm really confused because I have read that they can be stacked with the 12mm tube in several places from respected sources:



bkorcel said:


> So I just tested the canon 2XIII stacked with the canon 1.4xIII using an extension tube in between on my 300mm 2.8L. 12mm tube did not offer enough clearance to stack them but was successful using the 25mm tube. In camera AF did not work, manual focus worked, so did Live View AF. However as expected it would not infinity focus. I got maybe 25-30ft before reaching the stop. for those interested in close up high magnification shots this may be an option while still using the canon high quality III extenders stacked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > yorgasor said:
> ...



The MkII (and MkI) versions can be stacked directly, and you can stack a MkII behind a MkIII. You just can't stack two MkIII's together (the extra elements in them compared to the MkII's didn't leave enough space at the back for the protrusion of the other extender).


----------



## K-amps (Jan 27, 2014)

I think it is by design... they could have extended the barrel length allowing two mk.iii's to be stacked and also used with other lenses like the 70-300L native.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

K-amps said:


> I think it is by design... they could have extended the barrel length allowing two mk.iii's to be stacked and also used with other lenses like the 70-300L native.


That's correct, Canon intentionally blocked the ability to stack Mk III teleconverters because, according to Chuck Westfall (http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/updates_supertelephoto_article.shtml)
"Canon does not recommend stacking Series III EF Extenders because the extenders’ optical performance and AF precision cannot be guaranteed in such cases."

I have read that they can be stacked with the 12mm tube, however, and that's what I'm curious about. Does it work (i.e. can they stack), and is it worth buying a 12mm tube, assuming the IQ isn't compromised to the point of being unusable or infinity focus is lost? I don't care about AF or having perfect IQ, but if it's decent and can be used in rare situations, I'd like to buy the tube.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

Here is the previous thread (5 pages): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13075.0


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Here is the previous thread (5 pages): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13075.0


Thanks, Alan, but I'm still confused. Alex has a photo of his 400 with this combo, but you say that it didn't even manual focus when you tried it with your 300, is that right?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the previous thread (5 pages): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13075.0
> ...



I have just been sitting by an open window window with a couple of stars showing through. I tried in MF with my 70D and then 5DIII attached to the 1.4xTCIII before a 12mm tube before the 2xTCIII and then the f/2.8 300mm II. Both focussed. Yes, I WAS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Thank you, Alan! I didn't mean to make you eat your words, but thanks for the update . I think I'll go ahead and pick up a 12mm tube. I don't foresee a lot of use, but there are times when I've had a relatively stable subject (like a roosting bird) where I would like to get a little more magnification for some other compositions. Environmental conditions here in hot & humid Florida (I'm not complaining as it's 74°F today) are usually the limiting factor, but this could work for some tighter shots every now and then.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

Mac, I am not eating my words - if I make a mistake I say so as soon as I realise it. There is a resident bittern that haunts the reeds about 250 metres from my favourite hide. He occupies only about 300x300 px when I have 2x300mm on the 70D. I'll now take the 1.4xTC + tube and see what he is like at 420x420 px. This is the best I have done so far. It's a 100% crop, f/5.6, 1/1250 iso640, hand held resting on a ledge. It's not publication quality or anywhere near it, but it's the closest I have ever got.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

Alan, I really like the shot, as I know how challenging they are to shoot. I have tried to shoot bitterns from boats a few times and they are hard to spot (as your shot clearly shows!) and move so erratically in such dense cover it sure is tough to find them, get unobstructed shots, and finally get them in focus. I'll be curious to see your results and wish you luck!

I'm also thinking I would give this a try with my 180 macro. There are times when 2x magnification isn't quite enough and while the light requirements would be difficult, I bet it would work well with the 180.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 28, 2014)

1 AM, no moon and too cold so I just tried a shot of a rule at 45 degrees hand held. It wouldn't lock focus with my 6D and 300 II but I only had my 36mm tube to try out (12/20 is lent out). 2X is closest to the camera. This isn't a very good judge of IQ for sure but it resolves better than 128th inch at 10'.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2014)

I thought that the reason why the Mk IIIs don't stack is not because Canon don't want us to stack them but because the TC glass is pushed forward to be closer to the rear element of the lens, which gives better performance. It is a consequence of the new better design that prevents stacking.

My guess is that for moonshots, which are basically monochrome, the stacked TCs will be good and resolve more. But, when it comes to coloured plumage etc, the added CA etc will probably negate the added focal length.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I thought that the reason why the Mk IIIs don't stack is not because Canon don't want us to stack them but because the TC glass is pushed forward to be closer to the rear element of the lens, which gives better performance. It is a consequence of the new better design that prevents stacking.
> 
> My guess is that for moonshots, which are basically monochrome, the stacked TCs will be good and resolve more. But, when it comes to coloured plumage etc, the added CA etc will probably negate the added focal length.


I'm not sure anyone other than Canon's engineers really know, and I've read both things (better design, designed to prevent stacking). Either way, it looks like the 12mm tube works. I wonder about the CA, too, but the new extenders are much better than the MkIIs in that respect. I don't think I'd try it with anything other than the new big whites and the 180mm macro. I'm sure other combinations would probably disappoint for IQ or practicality (i.e. 70-200 2.8 IS II). I've got a 12mm tube on the way, but I'm guessing the winter storms are going to delay it considerably...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2014)

Mac
Good news. I got home early, the light was poor but I was able to test autofocus on my favourite medieval brick wall. It worked fine with the 5DIII and also worked with the 70D as the double extender set up reads as f/5.6 instead of f/8. The live view focus with the 70D was very good. The light was too poor to make a valid comparison with previous shots.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Mac
> Good news. I got home early, the light was poor but I was able to test autofocus on my favourite medieval brick wall. It worked fine with the 5DIII and also worked with the 70D as the double extender set up reads as f/5.6 instead of f/8. The live view focus with the 70D was very good. The light was too poor to make a valid comparison with previous shots.


Alan, that's great news and I'm happy to hear it works. Also, I see Canon USA has posted their second extender article today. Nothing earth shattering but interesting nonetheless. 

Part I: http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/ef_extenders_pt1.shtml
Part II: http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/ef_extenders_pt2.shtml

In Pt. 2, he specifically mentions the EF12:


> All other Canon EF, EF-S, TS-E and MP-E lenses are officially _not compatible_ with Canon’s EF Extenders and _we do not recommend_ attaching them. Some photographers use accessories like an EF12 Extension Tube to allow physical attachment of an EF Extender to non-compatible lenses and in some cases, they get good images. Likewise, some shooters have used the same Extension Tube to permit “stacking” two or more tele extenders onto a lens. But please understand that Canon does not officially recommend or endorse the use of EF Extenders with non-compatible lenses and we cannot guarantee proper operation.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2014)

postscript
I just tried focussing on closer subjects. The AF on 5DIII and 70D both failed, but the liveview on the 70D was spot on. So, perhaps this is the reason why I thought previously the tube didn't work? It makes me really glad I bought the 70D and sold the 7D because the latter had very poor AF on the 300/2.8 + 2xTC whereas the 70D is very good, and it has amazing liveview focussing.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 28, 2014)

When I get my 12 mm back I'll try again but I'm not impressed with this although there might be a circumstance where I'd try it. ISO 4000 Had to manually focus (auto was spotty) and it was tricky hand held.

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Jan 29, 2014)

I finally got around to try this. I mounted the 600 w. the extenders and extension tube on a RRS TVC-34L tripod with RRS PG-02 pano-gimbal head. 

First observation was how shaky it was. I sold my Wiberley gimbal-2 head when I got the RRS head, so I cannot make a direct comparison. But I made some shots with the 400/2.8L II and 2xIII extender, mounted on the 7D, which is equivalent to 1280mm and as I recall, that was much more stable.

But, second observation, the sharpness and my ability to focus was so limited that I do not view this as a realistic alternative for practical use. I will wait and see what the 7DII will be able to do.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 29, 2014)

Alan, Jack, & Eldar, thank you for your experiments, and as Eldar says, I'm sure it's not practical for normal use. I still think there's some value for it in rare situations and look forward to giving it a try. And yes, if the 7DII turns out to be half as awesome as we all hope, I'll consider going back to a crop sensor...


----------



## Skulker (Jan 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> postscript
> I just tried focussing on closer subjects. The AF on 5DIII and 70D both failed, but the liveview on the 70D was spot on. So, perhaps this is the reason why I thought previously the tube didn't work? It makes me really glad I bought the 70D and sold the 7D because the latter had very poor AF on the 300/2.8 + 2xTC whereas the 70D is very good, and it has amazing liveview focussing.



I never got on with the 300/2.8 + 2xtc on the 7d. It was not workable for me, just too slow for wild life, but it should always focus using normal AF. I used to turn off the search for focus option. Or it would take ages to focus. But its great on the 5d3 or 1dx. In fact its probably my fav lens on the 1Dx and very often hand held at that.

But I don't think I would ever use the stacked converters for wild life. The IS is best turned off and the whole set up has to be well supported. Due to the lack of light you are going to need such slow shutter speeds its not really what you want for fast moving wild life in poor light. And that's always what I seem to be taking photo's of.


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 30, 2014)

Wildlife is tricky, especially if you use live-view and digitally focus with the AF button. Or manually focus by zooming in and pixel peeping (why isn't there a 50-100x zoom). I only have the 25mm tube, so it had to be that one, but I haven't come up with a reason to have a 840mm eq lens for non-moving objects yet.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

I have only just noticed that TDP has a shot of the moon through a 600mm with stacked extenders.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I have only just noticed that TDP has a shot of the moon through a 600mm with stacked extenders.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Cool find, thanks Alan.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanF, we've been two pleased customers with the 300 II and both converters. I'm holding off (still lots to learn and lots to do, with my 6D) on the decision on a second body. I might have even bought a 1Dx at my wife's urging  as my friend has just recently, but boy I don't like the weight.

So, my question for you is how have you found the 70D crop to be with the 300 and extenders 1.4X and 2X. Another friend has the 70D but he's so busy we haven't had time to get my lenses on his camera. 

We both know that getting beyond 600 would be very useful at times if the negatives are not too great. I'm still thinking 7DII. Any thoughts from your recent experiences?

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

Jack
The 70D is very good indeed with 300/2.8 II and TCs. I haven't had a chance to use them stacked yet. I don't think stacking is practical for bird photography. With individual TCs, the focussing is fast and accurate, the IQ very good. There is no doubt I am getting better reach than with the 5DIII, but the 5DIII does give slightly crisper and richer images, which makes up for some of the lower reach. DxO PRIME noise reduction without loss of detail is so remarkable that it greatly raises the iso performance of the 70D. Trouble is, the noise reduction takes about 2.5-3 minutes on my MacBook Pro and 11 minutes on my MacBook Air.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks AlanF, in other words a 7DII could prove to be a nice addition to the 6D, having both handy. I'm really pleased with my new 70-200 F2.8 and I'm guessing that with a 7DII (+_ extender) that might work for BIF??

Plus I have concerns about what I'd be willing to travel with. South American is in the not too distant future and I worry about the 300.

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Apr 4, 2014)

Just to say, I received my 2x III today, and had to try stacking. I've always used stacked teleconverters (as long as I've had them), and have had some good results with the 2x II + 1.4x III (+500 f/4 II). I used them plus a Kenko 2x recently again to photograph distant offshore birds (eiders and scoters, common here but they almost never come within half a mile of shore).

These are not good shots but they prove it is possible. The gull washing and man are at 5600mm (500+1.4+2+2+2), and in poor light, manually focused. So sharpness and focus are out of the window - also I had to shoot at ISO 10000 to correctly expose. Still, it proves it's possible. The order was lens-2x II-2xIII-12mm extension tube-1.4x III (I think!). I don't know if order matters with regard to image quality. For scale, the man was nearly 1/4 mile away, on the other side of the lake. Both shots are uncropped, on a 5D3.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 6, 2014)

I might have to give my set a shot tomorrow - I've had them for a while but a scenario to use them hasn't presented itself yet...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 16, 2014)

A little update - and a warning! I had the 500 f/4 II with 2x III tc attached, with a Kenko 12mm extension tube behind that, and the 2x II and 1.4x III extenders behind that. I stood the camera upright, lens down (as I often do) on a bench while I fiddled with my bag. The camera fell over (which it sometimes does, and comes to no harm), but it hit the back of the bench and the lens combination just clean sheared in half! Thankfully, the strap stopped the camera falling onto the ground. Predictably, it was the extension tube that had failed - the front part had simply detached. Could have been costly! So be extra careful when mounting big lenses on teleconverters with extension tubes


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 16, 2014)

Very good advice. Obviously the Kenko had me a little worried just balancing on the gimbal and there is detectable "slop". :-\

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

scyrene said:


> A little update - and a warning! I had the 500 f/4 II with 2x III tc attached, with a Kenko 12mm extension tube behind that, and the 2x II and 1.4x III extenders behind that. I stood the camera upright, lens down (as I often do) on a bench while I fiddled with my bag. The camera fell over (which it sometimes does, and comes to no harm), but it hit the back of the bench and the lens combination just clean sheared in half! Thankfully, the strap stopped the camera falling onto the ground. Predictably, it was the extension tube that had failed - the front part had simply detached. Could have been costly! So be extra careful when mounting big lenses on teleconverters with extension tubes


Yikes!!! All I can say is Yikes!!! I'm glad it didn't turn into a disaster and thanks for the warning.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > A little update - and a warning! I had the 500 f/4 II with 2x III tc attached, with a Kenko 12mm extension tube behind that, and the 2x II and 1.4x III extenders behind that. I stood the camera upright, lens down (as I often do) on a bench while I fiddled with my bag. The camera fell over (which it sometimes does, and comes to no harm), but it hit the back of the bench and the lens combination just clean sheared in half! Thankfully, the strap stopped the camera falling onto the ground. Predictably, it was the extension tube that had failed - the front part had simply detached. Could have been costly! So be extra careful when mounting big lenses on teleconverters with extension tubes
> ...



Well it turns out the screws (that on the outer surfaces are in metal) are only mounted into flimsy plastic sockets. I thought it was fixable, but the sockets had disintegrated. The whole extension tube is a writeoff. I wonder if (hope that!) the Canon extension tubes are more sturdily constructed?


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 18, 2014)

scyrene said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


The Canon tubes are constructed similarly to the Mk II Extenders, but don't have the extra screws of the Mk III extenders. They are all metal from what I can tell, and I guess that's why they cost so much compared to the 3rd party tubes. All the same, I'm treating your post as a cautionary tale!


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 18, 2014)

scyrene said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


Maybe it was a good thing that the extension tube caved in - otherwise the lens or extender mounts might have been bent. The Kenko acted as what I believe is called a predetermined breaking point


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The Canon tubes are constructed similarly to the Mk II Extenders, but don't have the extra screws of the Mk III extenders. They are all metal from what I can tell, and I guess that's why they cost so much compared to the 3rd party tubes. All the same, I'm treating your post as a cautionary tale!



That's good to know, thanks. I'll get one of those for this use next time!


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> Maybe it was a good thing that the extension tube caved in - otherwise the lens or extender mounts might have been bent. The Kenko acted as what I believe is called a predetermined breaking point



Oh absolutely. Just lucky nothing fell onto the ground


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



In general, I'm quite comfortable recommending the Kenko tubes for macro use - why pay for Canon's costly air? But since one of my primary uses of the tubes is to shorten the MFD of my 600/4L IS II, I bought the Canon EF 12 II and EF 25 II extension tubes rather than the more economical Kenko tubes. Scyrene's example supports that as a wise decision.


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> In general, I'm quite comfortable recommending the Kenko tubes for macro use - why pay for Canon's costly air? But since one of my primary uses of the tubes is to shorten the MFD of my 600/4L IS II, I bought the Canon EF 12 II and EF 25 II extension tubes rather than the more economical Kenko tubes. Scyrene's example supports that as a wise decision.



Oh sure, I'll continue using cheaper tubes for macro work, where there's much less weight put on them.


----------



## Halfrack (May 1, 2014)

I'm still trying to understand where the mounting point and weight are at. I'd think the 500mm is on a gimbal, with a 2x directly attached, but does the mk3 not have the ability to directly stack like the mk2's? At some point it might be better to do either a Metabones/A7r method, or a 70D to get crop in space or a crop factor.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> I'm still trying to understand where the mounting point and weight are at. I'd think the 500mm is on a gimbal, with a 2x directly attached, but does the mk3 not have the ability to directly stack like the mk2's? At some point it might be better to do either a Metabones/A7r method, or a 70D to get crop in space or a crop factor.


The Mk IIIs were designed NOT to mount to each other. This was intentional but the 12mm extension tube gets around it.


----------



## surapon (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> yorgasor said:
> 
> 
> > I thought all the extenders would do is allow you to focus closer up, but you lose infinity focus. Is there some other magic that happens when you put an extension tube between a 1.4x and a 2x magnifier?
> ...



WOW, WOW, WOW----THANKSSSSS, Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist.
Wow, that is a great Idea to us the Tub as the spacer between the back of the shallow lens and the 2X Extender----Wow, That make the Usage of EF 85 MM F/ 1.2 L MK II with 2X extender-----Wow, I will try.
Thanks again, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

Surapon, that's an interesting combination and several years ago I saw Art Wolfe (one of my favorite photographers) using the 1.4x II, 12mm extension tube, and 24-70 f/2.8 (I) to take macro photos of a tree frog in the jungle. I had forgotten about that until this post, but I might have to give that a try now that I have the 12mm tube. It won't replace a true macro, but might be okay if you need a close up shot and don't have a macro lens.


----------



## surapon (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Surapon, that's an interesting combination and several years ago I saw Art Wolfe (one of my favorite photographers) using the 1.4x II, 12mm extension tube, and 24-70 f/2.8 (I) to take macro photos of a tree frog in the jungle. I had forgotten about that until this post, but I might have to give that a try now that I have the 12mm tube. It won't replace a true macro, but might be okay if you need a close up shot and don't have a macro lens.



Thanks you, Sir, Dear Friend mackguyver.
Only disadvantage thing for use the tube = We lose 2 stop of exposure(??), And That mean the Photographer must be the Young and Strong Hands Plus Handsome , like you--------Ha, Ha, Ha, Old man like me, I must use the Tripods to shoot at slow shutter speed, If Not will get the Blur Picture, Like when I shoot at the Bigini at the pin point of beautiful Lady on the Beach.
Nice to talk to you again, Have a great Weekend.
Surapon


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2014)

surapon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Surapon, that's an interesting combination and several years ago I saw Art Wolfe (one of my favorite photographers) using the 1.4x II, 12mm extension tube, and 24-70 f/2.8 (I) to take macro photos of a tree frog in the jungle. I had forgotten about that until this post, but I might have to give that a try now that I have the 12mm tube. It won't replace a true macro, but might be okay if you need a close up shot and don't have a macro lens.
> ...



Guys, I've used the 85mm f/1.2 II with a 12mm extension tube a lot, and it's a sweet combination. Wide open it's rather soft, with what I would describe as ghosting, but stopped down to f/2 it works fine, and is great for food photography.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

surapon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Surapon, that's an interesting combination and several years ago I saw Art Wolfe (one of my favorite photographers) using the 1.4x II, 12mm extension tube, and 24-70 f/2.8 (I) to take macro photos of a tree frog in the jungle. I had forgotten about that until this post, but I might have to give that a try now that I have the 12mm tube. It won't replace a true macro, but might be okay if you need a close up shot and don't have a macro lens.
> ...


You're too kind and too funny. I would certainly need a tripod as well. The only macro I do handheld is butterflies and bees and the 180L gets heavy pretty quickly. Also, I think we might need to plan a CR trip to the beach - maybe a "Big White Convention"  Nice talking with you, too, one more workday to go...



scyrene said:


> Guys, I've used the 85mm f/1.2 II with a 12mm extension tube a lot, and it's a sweet combination. Wide open it's rather soft, with what I would describe as ghosting, but stopped down to f/2 it works fine, and is great for food photography.


scyrene, I think Surapon meant the 85 + 12mm + 2x extender, but that's cool to hear that the tube works really well with the 85.


----------



## scyrene (May 1, 2014)

Oops, sorry, I misread. I think you'd need to stop down a lot, as the 2x extender will exaggerate the lens's flaws, and ultrawide aperture lenses (even this one) have a lot of optical problems wide open. I've combined the extender with extension tubes and the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens and it worked a bit like I'd imagine the 180L does - near-macro to true macro magnification at some distance, but it wasn't the best quality and autofocus speed is abysmal.


----------



## arbitrage (May 7, 2014)

According to this article by Arthur Morris (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/10/19/suns-of-a-gunstacking-teleconverters-extenders-with-series-ii-super-telephoto-lenses-and-more/) if you stack with the 2xIII against the lens then you maintain AF at infinity but with the 1.4xIII against the lens you lose infinity focus. So camera+1.4xIII+12mm+2.0xIII+lens may give you infinity focus. I have tried this and AF is horrible but you can MF and get it to work. I tried with the 300II which should be the ideal lens to try such a combo with.


----------



## mackguyver (May 7, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> According to this article by Arthur Morris (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/10/19/suns-of-a-gunstacking-teleconverters-extenders-with-series-ii-super-telephoto-lenses-and-more/) if you stack with the 2xIII against the lens then you maintain AF at infinity but with the 1.4xIII against the lens you lose infinity focus. So camera+1.4xIII+12mm+2.0xIII+lens may give you infinity focus. I have tried this and AF is horrible but you can MF and get it to work. I tried with the 300II which should be the ideal lens to try such a combo with.


I'm not at my house right now, but I remember that the order mattered as you say and yes, AF sucks, but the idea is to use this for rare situations where the extra distance is needed and IQ isn't the most important factor.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 7, 2014)

The best extender is a crop camera. It gives y deeper FOV (if y want), and by more pixel desity y get more magnification, without accepting IQ reduction by additional glass.

I have expierience with the old 300 2.8 IS, a 2xiii and a 50d. With this combination already its really difficult to overcome camera (and tripod and lens foot) shake, means its better than cropping only under ideal conditions. 

Other than from a technical point of view, i dont see much use for a manual Focus, 840mmm f8.0 combination on a crop camera, maybe exept under very bright lighting conditions. Normally, cropping will give better Image quality.

For the frequently seen moon shots, with normal techique athmospheric limitations may be more relevant than all other sources of IQ reduction.


----------



## scyrene (May 7, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> The best extender is a crop camera. It gives y deeper FOV (if y want), and by more pixel desity y get more magnification, without accepting IQ reduction by additional glass.
> 
> I have expierience with the old 300 2.8 IS, a 2xiii and a 50d. With this combination already its really difficult to overcome camera (and tripod and lens foot) shake, means its better than cropping only under ideal conditions.
> 
> ...



Well I for one don't carry a crop body and a full frame body on most of my hikes (except sometimes the EOS-M, which is hardly ergonomic with a super telephoto lens attached). I would double up (or more) the converters *only* if the target (invariably a bird) was very notable and very inaccessible (like certain sea ducks we get here, that stay hundreds of metres or more offshore). These shots will never match up in image quality to ones taken with just one extender attached (still less a bare lens) but they can be of use for recording species.

As for atmospheric conditions, once you get to those focal lengths they do make a huge difference - which is why I would recommend image stacking for static subjects. If you do that, you can indeed extract more detail the more focal length you have (with diminishing returns). My last moon shots were taken at 5600mm, and stacking revealed greater detail than 4000mm, 2800mm, etc.

One last thought - even if image quality is no better than cropping, with small/distant subjects, having them bigger in the viewfinder can help with manual focus (as autofocus is too unreliable/will not work with these setups). Also if the final images are resized to the same scale, noise will be less visible (with equal settings) in the image that was cropped less/shrunk more (although adding more extenders requires higher ISO which can introduce more noise, so they often even out). Edit: image stacking will also drastically reduce noise.


----------



## TexPhoto (May 7, 2014)

My cheap ebay 13mm extension tube, (no idea why they went with 13) is all metal, at least in the mount and body.


----------



## hovland (May 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > According to this article by Arthur Morris (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/10/19/suns-of-a-gunstacking-teleconverters-extenders-with-series-ii-super-telephoto-lenses-and-more/) if you stack with the 2xIII against the lens then you maintain AF at infinity but with the 1.4xIII against the lens you lose infinity focus. So camera+1.4xIII+12mm+2.0xIII+lens may give you infinity focus. I have tried this and AF is horrible but you can MF and get it to work. I tried with the 300II which should be the ideal lens to try such a combo with.
> ...



If needed you also have the option of stacking a 2.0xIII with a 1,4 sigma. Af works on my 70-200, but sucks. But it will probably be better to only use the 2.0xIII and just crop. Physically it also works to stack a 2.0xIII and a 2,0 sigma and even add the sigma 1,4, without using any extension tubes.


----------



## R1-7D (May 8, 2014)

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but since we're talking about extenders and extension tubes already I don't see the need to start another thread. 


If I use a 2x extender and then a 12mm extension tube...is it possible to use the 100 f/2.8L with this combination?


----------



## scyrene (May 8, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but since we're talking about extenders and extension tubes already I don't see the need to start another thread.
> 
> 
> If I use a 2x extender and then a 12mm extension tube...is it possible to use the 100 f/2.8L with this combination?



Yeah, I think I've done that. The 12mm extension tube should make the 2x extender fit any lens (although I'd be careful with ones like the 85L which has a very exposed rear element). With a macro lens like the 100L you'll get a pretty good setup for smaller insect subjects, although I'd stop down and you'll lose infinity focus as always with the extension tubes.


----------



## R1-7D (May 8, 2014)

scyrene said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but since we're talking about extenders and extension tubes already I don't see the need to start another thread.
> ...



Thanks! I just tried it... Man, unless the camera is on a tripod it's next to impossible to hold it steady. Sharpness really suffers, even when stopped down to f/8. 

The lens retained it's f/2.8 aperture, however, which was cool! 


Thanks again for the information.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

R1-7D, now you know how I feel when I put the 2x on my 180mm macro, which makes it a 360mm (non-IS) lens! I might have to give the double-extender a shot on it as it's also a crazy sharp lens and getting a 504mm 2.8x macro lens sounds pretty cool, other than the DOF and light requirements...


----------



## scyrene (May 8, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > R1-7D said:
> ...



Well remember, the reported aperture won't take account of the extender, since the camera body won't know it's there. So "f/2.8" is actually f/5.6. Also, at that magnification (up to 2x), use of a flash is almost essential. Add a flash, set it to the sync speed (e.g. 1/200), and you can hand hold easily. I was hand holding to 10x magnification today, albeit half resting on a surface (MP-E at max + 2x).


----------



## R1-7D (May 9, 2014)

scyrene said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...




Interesting about the aperture. I was using a flash -- 580 EX II -- at exactly 1/200. Still, at extreme close-ups of subjects...I did not have much luck keeping it steady. 

I also found manual focusing was an absolute must. Normally with Macro I like to manual focus anyways, but I sometimes use autofocus to get an approximate...but this lens combo did not want to focus at all. It just kept hunting and hunting.

Anyways, it's cool that this can be done. Gotta love tinkering with all the equipment. Thanks for the help.


----------



## scyrene (May 9, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > R1-7D said:
> ...



I'm glad you're having fun! Macro is one of the most fun areas of photography I reckon. As for steadiness, you'll get better - it takes practice.

I don't even bother with AF on that lens bare if I'm going to 1x magnification, let alone 2x - it just can't keep up with tiny movements of you or the subject, even with its IS function. With the flash, you might want to boost the power (manually dialling it a stop or two higher) as you lose a lot of light getting very close to subjects. Or use the flash off-camera if you can. If it has high-speed sync (I've only used the 600EX-RT which does), you could try going to a faster shutter speed. Lots of variables to play around with, I'm sure you'll find something that works


----------



## weilin (May 11, 2014)

Since we're messing around with stacking teleconverters... why limit it to EF lenses, what about... a telescope...

The images attached are shot with a sky-watcher ProED 120mm Doublet APO Refractor + 0.85x reducer/field flattener. It's natively 900mm but with the reducer it's 765mm. The Camera is EOS 5D3 at ISO 800.

Image 1: ProED + reducer (765mm)
Image 2: ProED + reducer + 1.4x tele (1071mm)
Image 3: ProED + reducer + 2.0x tele (1530mm)
Image 4: ProED + reducer + 1.4x tele + 12mm extension + 2.0x tele (2142mm)

Any thoughts on which is the sharpest?


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 29, 2014)

I _finally_ had a suitable subject to try the stacked extenders - in this order (1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III, then 300 f/2.8 IS II) and I had some trouble with focus because the tree the owl was on was moving, but I found with IS on, I was able to do a good job using the viewfinder. It was too dark in the shade to use LiveView unfortunately, but I did use a cable release & tripod. CA was minimal, but contrast was reduced around 25% and sharpness probably around 50%. It's still a very usable image for anything 8x10 and smaller - here's the full photo, uncropped:


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2014)

Was the order camera 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III lens or lens 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III camera?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I _finally_ had a suitable subject to try the stacked extenders - in this order (1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III) and I had some trouble with focus because the tree the owl was on was moving, but I found with IS on, I was able to do a good job using the viewfinder. It was too dark in the shade to use LiveView unfortunately, but I did use a cable release & tripod. CA was minimal, but contrast was reduced around 25% and sharpness probably around 50%. It's still a very usable image for anything 8x10 and smaller - here's the full photo, uncropped:



Looks good to me! Which lens was that? I find CA noticeable with the 2x extenders, and adding a second one will only exaggerate that, but maybe I have a very low tolerance for it  (not that I can see any in that photo, especially good given the white background).

Ps did you stop down? I find it helps a lot with sharpness in this situation.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I _finally_ had a suitable subject to try the stacked extenders - in this order (1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III) and I had some trouble with focus because the tree the owl was on was moving, but I found with IS on, I was able to do a good job using the viewfinder. It was too dark in the shade to use LiveView unfortunately, but I did use a cable release & tripod.  CA was minimal, but contrast was reduced around 25% and sharpness probably around 50%. It's still a very usable image for anything 8x10 and smaller - here's the full photo, uncropped:



What does sharpness being reduced 50% mean? Does that mean with 2x+1.4x relative to bare lens? Since adding a 2xTC can increase resolution by a maximum of x2 and a 1.4xTC by a maximum of x1.4, it doesn't look as if you are gaining anything by stacking them.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> What does sharpness being reduced 50% mean? Does that mean with 2x+1.4x relative to bare lens? Since adding a 2xTC can increase resolution by a maximum of x2 and a 1.4xTC by a maximum of x1.4, it doesn't look as if you are gaining anything by stacking them.



You've got a point. But remember the 2x extender increases the pixels on target by 4x. 2x in two dimensions, if that makes sense (so, say the bare lens gave you a subject 1000x1000 pixels, that would be 1MP; doubling the focal length gives you 2000x2000, which is 4MP).

It has a couple of advantages I would say. First, it makes the subject bigger in the viewfinder, which can help if you're focusing manually. Second, if you were to crop to the same size the noise patterns would be different. again it's hard to put into words. But shrinking down an image taken with a longer focal length would reduce the appearance of noise, whereas simply cropping to give the same field of view at a shorter focal length makes the noise more apparent.

In my subjective view, 2x + 1.4x does give extra resolution. Beyond that, you're not gaining any extra details, but the above points hold (the big exception being stacked astrophotography, where you regain all that resolution by combining multiple images, so any extra focal length is good).


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 30, 2014)

I guess I was still pretty tired from getting up so early...so sorry about the details. It was the 1D X + 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III + 300 f/2.8 IS II - in that order. The technical details are: f/9, 1/320s ISO6400 +1 &1/3 EV. It was somewhat windy and the tree he was in was shaded and moving, so not really a great subject because I had to use ISO 6400, which kills some detail on it's own. Manual Focusing wasn't too hard except that the owl was moving because the tree was moving. Perfect for AI-Servo, not so great for MF!

The CA was remarkably low, pretty much non-existent between the dark branches and bright sky, and just around 1 pixel wide around the owl's eyes. What I meant by percent reductions were in comparison to the bare lens in terms of contrast (ability to resolve differences between dark & bright areas) and resolution (ability to resolve fine detail). The sensor resolution stayed the same, obviously, and the magnification increased, but not enough to overcome the additional softness, at least in my estimation. *Subjectively* and based on this and a couple of other trials, I would say it's like this:

300 f/2.8 IS II: Contrast: 100% Sharpness: 100%
300 f/2.8 IS II + 1.4x III: Contrast: 95% Sharpness: 95%
300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III: Contrast: 90% Sharpness: 80%
300 f/2.8 IS II + 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III: Contrast: 75% Sharpness: 50%

Maybe I'll get some test charts out and compare under controlled conditions someday, specifically to see if up-resing the 600mm files is better than the stacked extenders (I suspect it is).

It's no substitute whatsoever for a 600+1.4x or 800mm lens, but an interesting tool if you'd like to get closer to a subject and don't need super sharp files. I wouldn't use it for paid work or until I had a nice shot with the 2x, but it's fun to play with if you have the opportunity.

The necessary high ISO made this test tough, but I'll try it again if a similar situation comes up under better lighting conditions, and I'll post those results.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 30, 2014)

scyrene said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What does sharpness being reduced 50% mean? Does that mean with 2x+1.4x relative to bare lens? Since adding a 2xTC can increase resolution by a maximum of x2 and a 1.4xTC by a maximum of x1.4, it doesn't look as if you are gaining anything by stacking them.
> ...



In terms of number of pixels, sure doubling f means you get 4x more on target. However, if you halve the the resolution in 1 dimension you lose 2x2 = 4x in two dimensions. So, you have got nowhere. Now mackguyver has just found that adding the 1.4 to the 2x lowers the sharpness from 80 to 50%, ie by a factor of 1.6, for an increase in f of 1.4x. So you have actually moved back in resolution for a loss of autofocus and aperture.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Oh, I think I interpreted '50%' differently. It's definitely something worth testing, I've never done it systematically. If I do, I'll post my results here (as I said above, my subjective impression is it's worth it up to a point).


----------



## rbtree (Jul 3, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I _finally_ had a suitable subject to try the stacked extenders



Great! Just skimmed this whole thread.....I've just gotten both III extenders, and want to stack, as I could do with my II units...... I'll need a Canon 12mm tube, as my off brand set of tubes won't work.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

rbtree said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I _finally_ had a suitable subject to try the stacked extenders
> ...


Congrats on the extenders and let us know when you get a chance to try it. I've also been thinking that my shot was probably degraded not only by the higher ISO setting but also by the humidity. It was at least 90% when I shot this - early morning, hot day, 1/4 mile from the ocean, 50yds from flooded salt flats - in Florida...and I was probably 50+ feet from the owl.


----------



## applecider (Jul 13, 2014)

*Re: Stacked TCs - 5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon*

5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon

The "old 2x tele ii" does stack with the 1.4iii here are some moon shots from inside Portland city limits. I really like the definition the shots are adjusted for WB and contrast as well as exposure. Most are reported as F8 but must be f11, LV tried to focus but rarely did. No extension tube used.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 13, 2014)

*Re: Stacked TCs - 5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon*



applecider said:


> 5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon
> 
> The "old 2x tele ii" does stack with the 1.4iii here are some moon shots from inside Portland city limits. I really like the definition the shots are adjusted for WB and contrast as well as exposure. Most are reported as F8 but must be f11, LV tried to focus but rarely did. No extension tube used.



Good stuff. The moon is a great target for this sort of thing. The mark II 2x will stack with any of the others afaik, as it has such a deep recess at the rear (it has to go in front of the others). The camera won't register the fact there are two - it will only recognise the TC closest to the lens, so exif for aperture and focal length will be incorrect as you've noted. I wouldn't bother with autofocus, but IS works as normal


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: Stacked TCs - 5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon*



scyrene said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > 5diii + 1.4x III + 2x II + 600 f 4 ii +moon
> ...


+1 and I've also found that AF is useless (phase and contrast AF) with the stacked TCs, but manual focus isn't as hard because of the thin DOF. Nice moon shot!


----------

