# initial thoughts on the new Canon 2X III



## kubelik (Jan 26, 2011)

hi everyone,

for anyone who's looking into picking up the new Canon Extender 2x III, I've paired it up with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM and put together some intial thoughts on the combination over on my blog:

http://teatrayinthesky.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/tuesday-gear-day-%e2%80%94-canon-extender-ef-2x-iii/

I hope to add more entries soon after some zoo-testing. if anybody is really dying to see the tree bark-and-branch images I omitted from the blog entry, I've got no problem emailing them to you, or posting them here


----------



## WarStreet (Jan 26, 2011)

Thanks for the info. This is helpful since I am interested to get the 2x III for the same lens too. I would need to use it 400mm wide open.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 26, 2011)

I've gone ahead and updated the blog entry with full-size samples taken at f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 with the lens at tree branches and bark, as well as 100% crops. you're welcome to download the full-res files and take a look for yourself. 

do note that I messed up somewhat by leaving IS off, so the f/11 shots taken at 1/200s aren't as sharp as they should be.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 26, 2011)

Sorry bud, but not a lot of difference to the mkII version.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 26, 2011)

GMCPhotographics said:



> Sorry bud, but not a lot of difference to the mkII version.



mostly I'm excited about the combination of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II and the 2x III. compare that to the older 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 2x II ... it's a pretty significant difference.

I never shelled out for the 2x II because that combination was so dumpy. you're right in that, if you already have a 2x II, it looks pretty decent on the new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2011)

I agree, at least based on the ISO 12233 charts - the 2x III is a _very_ slight improvement over the 2x II when used on the 70-200 II. When I look at the 1.4x II vs. III it almost seems to be a wash.

Even though Bryan's charts with the 70-200 II + 2x III show a performance hit from the TC, looking at kubelik's shots the combo delivers good IQ in the real world.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 27, 2011)

I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 28, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.



For a trip like yellowstone, it could be worth it to rent a supertele. I don't know if you've been to yellowstone before, but in my two trips I've found 500mm on a full-frame to be the minimum. There'll be times that you get lucky (usually with bison) walking right up alongside the car, but often you'll want serious reach. A 500 with 1.4x sounds pretty ideal


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 28, 2011)

kubelik said:


> UngerPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.
> ...



I plan on spending at least 2 months there, so renting is going to be out of the question.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 28, 2011)

ah ... well I'm sure the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the 2x III will serve you well in yellowstone. that's exactly what I'm bringing down to Ecuador this year. was debating renting a 500 f/4 but I'm not sure about the cost or the weight of hauling it around.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 28, 2011)

kubelik said:


> ah ... well I'm sure the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the 2x III will serve you well in yellowstone. that's exactly what I'm bringing down to Ecuador this year. was debating renting a 500 f/4 but I'm not sure about the cost or the weight of hauling it around.




70-200mm with 2X is not long enough for wildlife in Yellowstone unless you are photographing the elk on the lawns, or buffalo that come up close. Even 100-200 yards away is a long ways.

Here is my 70-200mm with 1.4X and the animal looked to be quite close.








On the other hand, a 70-200mm zoom isn't the best choice at Old Faithful.

70mm backed off a long distance such that it was difficult to keep the crowd out of the image.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 28, 2011)

I am possibly considering investing in a 7D and 2x III. For about $2000, I get a fast camera with good AF and 1.6x crop factor. Combined with the 70-200 and 2x III, that gives me a reach of 640mm. Ideally I would like to save up for the next 1D, or whatever it is they come out, but I think that will still be out of my pay reach for a while. At least with this combo, I can get some great shots and use it for wildlife as well as sports and build up my career before diving into the Canon top of the line.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 29, 2011)

scales, in a perfect world, we'd all get to have 500mm f/4's and TC's to boot. but realistically, money is money and I think a 400mm lens on a crop body is pretty decent for yellowstone.

I've seen not only bison and elk, but bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and a fox, all within yards of main roadways (and pictures to prove it; although unfortunately I was using the nasty BigmOS that trip). almost all in Lamar Valley; that's definitely the place to be for wildlife. even stuff that's out on the grasslands, you'll at least have a fighting chance to get a decent shot at 640mm equivalent.

the other alternative is to get one of the big sigma zooms ... but other than the 100-300 f/4 (which doesn't give you much of a reach advantage at all), I haven't been satisfied at all with their image quality


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 29, 2011)

kubelik said:


> scales, in a perfect world, we'd all get to have 500mm f/4's and TC's to boot. but realistically, money is money and I think a 400mm lens on a crop body is pretty decent for yellowstone.
> 
> I've seen not only bison and elk, but bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and a fox, all within yards of main roadways (and pictures to prove it; although unfortunately I was using the nasty BigmOS that trip). almost all in Lamar Valley; that's definitely the place to be for wildlife. even stuff that's out on the grasslands, you'll at least have a fighting chance to get a decent shot at 640mm equivalent.
> 
> the other alternative is to get one of the big sigma zooms ... but other than the 100-300 f/4 (which doesn't give you much of a reach advantage at all), I haven't been satisfied at all with their image quality



I live less than a days drive away, and have been there a few times. I also have to make do with a 70-200mm L plus TC's. What I am saying is that he should not have too high of expectations. If he is able to spend a few days and be at the right places, the odds go up. Certainly a 500mm f/4 plus TC would get more good captures, but the price is out of my reach for the few uses it would get each year.

He also needs to take a wide angle lens.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 29, 2011)

I have the Canon 24-70 for the wide.

My main reason for going is for landscape photos. I'd just also like to be able to take some good wildlife as well. If it's not in the cards for this trip, then it will just have to wait.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 29, 2011)

the great thing about yellowstone is ... you could be bringing just a rebel with a kit lens, and still have plenty of opportunities to take some fantastic photos in amazing scenery. I'd definitely recommend taking a day to hike some trails away from the main roads; you end up experiencing the park on a totally different level.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 29, 2011)

kubelik said:


> the great thing about yellowstone is ... you could be bringing just a rebel with a kit lens, and still have plenty of opportunities to take some fantastic photos in amazing scenery. I'd definitely recommend taking a day to hike some trails away from the main roads; you end up experiencing the park on a totally different level.



This all depends on whether or not I end up getting a job at the Santa Fe Photographic Workshops for the summer, but I if I don't, I plan on staying in Yellowstone from at lease beginning of June to the end of July. Maybe even longer depending on how much I like it. I plan on spending just about every day exploring the park, finding the best spots and learning on when to be where, and perhaps just being in the right place at the right time. 

I'd love to have a great setup for wildlife, but I'm not sure if I want to spend close to $2500 on a 7D setup, or just focus on landscapes and go back another time with better equipment (1D and 500+ prime lens) for wildlife.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 29, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> I have the Canon 24-70 for the wide.
> 
> My main reason for going is for landscape photos. I'd just also like to be able to take some good wildlife as well. If it's not in the cards for this trip, then it will just have to wait.



The 24-70 should be wide enough on a FF for most use, on a crop it will be limited to wide vistas. Many of the areas where you want wide scenes have no space to back off, since you are on a boardwalk 8 feet wide. if you have a 18-55mm kiit lens, be sure to take it.

This was shot from the boardwalk at 28mm on my 5D MK II, or 17.5mm on a crop camera. Unfortunately, I had my 24-105mm lens on the 5D and not my 17-40mm lens, so I could not get some of the wide shots I wanted at that location.


----------

