# What extender for Canon 500mm F4 IS L II ?



## Go Wild (Feb 26, 2016)

Hello everyone! 

I wonder if someone can help me in this decision. 

I am going to to buy the Canon 500mm F4 IS L II and also a teleconverter to be able to improve my focal distance. 

I´m a wildlife photograhper so distance is always a big thing. The perfect lens probably would be a 600mmm, or a 800mm, but I have not the budget for thems. I do have for the 500mm 

I had the previous 500mm (version 1) and just loved the lens. But sometimes do feel short. I had also a 2x teleconverter from kenko but never convinced me so it was really rare to use. 

My doubt here is what to buy, the 1,4x III teleconverter or the 2x III teleconverter

- 1.4X is better in quality, as i seen in posts doesn´t loose so much detail in photos as the 2x does. But does it really justifies having "only" a 1.4x? It gives you an importan gain in distance? 

- 2x really gives you a significant improve in distance, you get a 1000mm and in 7D markII give´s me about 1600mm witch is insane! However i am really worried about posts that saying you loose a lot of detail. Just dont want that... 

I now, i now, there are not perfect solutions, but that concerns me...So i was looking for some advice of someone that really have the field experience with these combos. With the 500 F4 II or another telephoto lens II (400mm or 600mm. 

I am going to the north pole in June, and there especially the polar bears can be quite in a distance, so the 2x is the preference...but if it takes a lot quality in image can be better to have a 1.4 and make a small crop? 

I think its important to refer that i dont care with internet quality, i DO care about print quality 

Hope you can help me on this one, i am really confused... 
Thank very much!


----------



## Greatland (Feb 26, 2016)

I own the 600 version II and have owned the 500 version II as well. I purchased the Canon extenders, version III and I highly recommend them as they are the only Canon extenders that I have ever used that I wasn't disappointed with. However, even with your 500mm version II lens and the version III extenders you will see some slight softening with the 2x teleconverter in version III...with my 1.4 teleconverter in versiion III I see virtually no degradation in the quality of my shots. I shoot wildlife and I like to go big...I try to stay away from my version III extender for enlarged stuff....


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 26, 2016)

Greatland said:


> I own the 600 version II and have owned the 500 version II as well. I purchased the Canon extenders, version III and I highly recommend them as they are the only Canon extenders that I have ever used that I wasn't disappointed with. However, even with your 500mm version II lens and the version III extenders you will see some slight softening with the 2x teleconverter in version III...with my 1.4 teleconverter in versiion III I see virtually no degradation in the quality of my shots. I shoot wildlife and I like to go big...I try to stay away from my version III extender for enlarged stuff....




Hello greatland, thanks for your help! So, you think it is better to stick with the 1.4 instead of the 2x? Because for me, the final quality really it´s the point. I prefer to have a not so enlarged animal in frame, but to realy have quality print. However...  the 1600mm are really a temptation!!!


----------



## jmphoto (Feb 26, 2016)

+1 for the 1.4x
Have the complete combo. Besides perceived softness, I find real world "accurate" AF half as likely with 2x. Depending on your body, there may be fewer AF options with 2x-read the fine print. Certainly, start with 1.4x.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 26, 2016)

jmphoto said:


> +1 for the 1.4x
> Have the complete combo. Besides perceived softness, I find real world "accurate" AF half as likely with 2x. Depending on your body, there may be fewer AF options with 2x-read the fine print. Certainly, start with 1.4x.



Thank you jmphoto!! I have the 5D markIII and the 7D markII. I know that from the 2x the AF is slower and it´s dificult in BIF. I equally shoot mammals and birds, and for mammals it´s not a big issue. I maybe going for the 1.4x the only doubt is that if it reaally matters the gain in distance of the 2x comparing to the 1.4x, and what is the real loss in image quality. 
At this moment i am more convinced to get the 1.4x...And to pray that polar bears can get close!!


----------



## rancho_runner (Feb 26, 2016)

I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 26, 2016)

rancho_runner said:


> I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.



Hello rancho_runer! Thank you for your help. I guess i am convinced to buy the 1.4x although i recognize the importance of the reach of the 2x but i am really not in the mood to loose image quality, or to loose the shot because of the AF. For that, i stick with a 1000$ lens, a Tamron or a Sigma. Again, of course the ideal was a 600 and the 1.4x but can´t reach that budget and i also make soccer matches and the 500 is already sometimes too long. 600 would kill that works to me... 

I maybe start with the 1.4 and then later, maybe give a try with the 2x. I really don´t like using teleconverters but with this III generation, with the improvements of the construction and image quality, i took the decision to give them a try. Because reach is trully important in wildlife. 

I am hoping to read other opinions but i guess my decision is for the 1.4x 

One final consideration, in real life, or in final photo not numbers reading, is it big the diference betwen the reach of the 1.4x and the 2x? 

Thanks a lot!


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 26, 2016)

I had the 500mm F/4 original version and was happy with the 1.4x II and not the 2x II. I was never happy with the 2x.

Then over a year ago I traded up to the 500mm F4 II and the 1.4x III and 2x III. I hoped the 2x III with the new lens would give me the IQ I wanted for prints with this new combo. The 2x III never has. I hardly ever use the 2x III because of this.

Another thing to consider is the body you are using, maybe you said and I overlooked it. The old "crop factor" argument used to be more "hype" than "help" but it can be a real thing with the new 7D II vs the 5D III and older bodies. Over the older bodies the 7D II's resolution can let you be 10 -15% farther away and get comparable if not equal IQ on a shot cropped equally on a subject. But there is a caveat to this, it is only a benefit if you can not get equal framing with the FF body and you are cropping your FF picture to meet the size of the 7D II. In most other situations the FF picture will be far superior if you do not have to crop, so to me this is a big negative for the crop body. If you crop 100% of the time the crop is the way to go. Otherwise, it is not. To solve this dilemma though one just buys a 5Ds R and there is no crop benefit.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 26, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> I had the 500mm F/4 original version and was happy with the 1.4x II and not the 2x II. I was never happy with the 2x.
> 
> Then over a year ago I traded up to the 500mm F4 II and the 1.4x III and 2x III. I hoped the 2x III with the new lens would give me the IQ I wanted for prints with this new combo. The 2x III never has. I hardly ever use the 2x III because of this.
> 
> Another thing to consider is the body you are using, maybe you said and I overlooked it. The old "crop factor" argument used to be more "hype" than "help" but it can be a real thing with the new 7D II vs the 5D III and older bodies. Over the older bodies the 7D II's resolution can let you be 10 -15% farther away and get comparable if not equal IQ on a shot cropped equally on a subject. But there is a caveat to this, it is only a benefit if you can not get equal framing with the FF body and you are cropping your FF picture to meet the size of the 7D II. In most other situations the FF picture will be far superior if you do not have to crop, so to me this is a big negative for the crop body. If you crop 100% of the time the crop is the way to go. Otherwise, it is not. To solve this dilemma though one just buys a 5Ds R and there is no crop benefit.




Hello Takesome! 

Thank you for your post. You´ve just confirmed my suspicious...Tha is my fear about the 2x...the loss of quality in final image. One point more to the 1.4x!  

That´s an interesting point you mentioned so let me go a little offtopic. Yes, i mentioned in one answer before, I own a 5D3 and a 7D2. From my experience, i use the both bodys according to some factors: 

- If i shoot mammals or animals that don´t give me much (or fast) action, i use the 5d3. 
- If i shoot fast action, i use 7D2 
- If i need that extra reach, i use the 7D2, or else the 5D3 is the chosen. 
- If light is great preferencialy i use 7D2, if not the 5D3. 

In resume. What you said it´s true, image quality is by far better in 5D3 than in 7D2. Although, in good light, 7D2 can deliver excelent results if you have an excelent lens. I find it a trully "normal" camera with not so good lenses (i tested with tamron 150-600, didn´t liked the combo.) In addiction, you DO have to nail the exposure in 7D2 or else you can ruin totally the photo. I find it very impressive the lack of margin i have in 7D2 in post. Once you try to retouch the photo the quality goes all way down...Not talking of course in minor adjustmens. 
With the 5D3 it´s a entirely new world. Amazing quality, with great margin to post production and cropping. Normally I do prefer to crop a 20% of the photo in 5D3, than to use a crop camera. However....The 6fps and a baaaaad buffer in 5D3 does make a difference in wildlife when you shoot action! In that...uffff the 7D2 just blows away! And also the AFsistem in 7D2...its just great!! 

 

Thank you so much for your contribution!


----------



## GuyF (Feb 26, 2016)

I've got the Kenko 1.4x and 2x as well as the Canon mk3 1.4x and 2x. With my 5D3 + 500mm IS II there is very little between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x with regard to sharpness. The Canon is maybe slightly faster to focus and track moving objects but it is hard to say for sure. Also the Canon has some weather sealing.

The Kenko 2x is quite soft and not as sharp as the Canon 2x (although the Canon is also soft compared to the 1.4x). Due to the lens now being f8 with the 2x, neither are good for tracking fast action.

If you've got the money for the 500mm mk II, just get the Canon as it was designed for use with the big whites.

Having both makes of TC allows me to stack both 2x to give me 2000mm which is useful for shots of the moon.


----------



## KarstenReis (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a thought if you haven't settled on the lens yet. If you aren't against used, look into used 600 mkII. I got mine for about the price of a new 500II and couldn't be happier. If you're in the US look at LensAuthority. It's where Lens Rentals two year old lenses and cameras go for sale. 

I would echo other's here and start with the 1.4 then go to the 2x if you feel like you aren't getting enough reach. The 2x only get's you center point which makes tracking anything moving quickly difficult. Definitely go for Canon v3 teles.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 27, 2016)

GuyF said:


> I've got the Kenko 1.4x and 2x as well as the Canon mk3 1.4x and 2x. With my 5D3 + 500mm IS II there is very little between the Canon and Kenko 1.4x with regard to sharpness. The Canon is maybe slightly faster to focus and track moving objects but it is hard to say for sure. Also the Canon has some weather sealing.
> 
> The Kenko 2x is quite soft and not as sharp as the Canon 2x (although the Canon is also soft compared to the 1.4x). Due to the lens now being f8 with the 2x, neither are good for tracking fast action.
> 
> ...



Hello GuyF i am definitly go for the Canon ones, not only because of the "better" performance, but also because of the "weather sealing" that the series III give me. 

Thank you!!  



KarstenReis said:


> Just a thought if you haven't settled on the lens yet. If you aren't against used, look into used 600 mkII. I got mine for about the price of a new 500II and couldn't be happier. If you're in the US look at LensAuthority. It's where Lens Rentals two year old lenses and cameras go for sale.
> 
> I would echo other's here and start with the 1.4 then go to the 2x if you feel like you aren't getting enough reach. The 2x only get's you center point which makes tracking anything moving quickly difficult. Definitely go for Canon v3 teles.



Hello Karsten, although i´m not from USA, i live in Portugal, i am not against the 2nd hand lenses, my first 500mm was a 2nd hand one. But, at this moment the 600mm its not option for me, because has written before, i also make some sports jobs, football (soccer) and the 600 it´s just too much long! The 500mm itself it´s in the limit...so i must have the 500mm because its the lens that give me the possibility to make the 2 worlds, sports and wildlife. Also it´s very dificult to get one used in these days around here. But it´s not an option. I will stick with the 500mm. I think i got my decision, I will go for the 1.4x and then if the 1.4 doesn´t reach my needs, i get the 2x. 

I thank you all for your opinions, they were quite important for my decision. However if someone still wnat to contribute i will apreciate!


----------



## gary samples (Feb 27, 2016)

1,4x III
you will never be sorry !


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 27, 2016)

gary samples said:


> 1,4x III
> you will never be sorry !



  Thank´s Gary! Another vote for the 1.4X I guess it´s the winner! I do loved to get that extra reach of the 2x, but the image quality prevails for me. Gues 1.4x is the answer!


----------



## rancho_runner (Feb 27, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> rancho_runner said:
> 
> 
> > I own a 5D III and a 7D II, that I use handheld with both the 1.4X III and 2 X III, on a 500 F4 II. In my experience, the 1.4X shows very little or no degradation in IQ, with just more tendency to hunt in AF and maybe a bit slower AF. Hit rate is very close to the naked 500. Also, AFMA becomes more important. Last, on both bodiess you can still use all AF points. With the 2x, things gets much more tricky. IQ takes a very minor hit but you'll get much less shots in focus, since AF is definitely slower, AF hunts much more if not already close to the target and only the central AF points are usable. Last, with moving subjects and handheld, it will be difficult to keep your AF point on the right spot all the time, and with the 7II, even on the viewfinder at times. AFMA is even more important. With all that, you can still use it even for BIF, just be prepared to shoot more, and you can really get unique/unusual pics. So my recommendation is that 1.4X is a no brainer, but think to add the 2X too later, if you are willing to put in the effort and patience.
> ...



Hi Go Wild, the difference imho between 1.4x and 2x is pretty substantial, and worth the effort is some cases.
As per the sharpness of the 2x III+500II combination, here is one handheld decent example (using a 7D II)


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2016)

I just stumbled upon this....http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/ef_extenders_pt1.shtml


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 27, 2016)

slclick said:


> I just stumbled upon this....http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/ef_extenders_pt1.shtml





rancho_runner said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > rancho_runner said:
> ...



Hello both!1 Well, now you have mixed these again!!  I really like the appearance of your photo, although you did notice a little bit of sharpness loss it is not really what i expected. I thought it was more noticeable ths sharpness lost. 
Well, my only concern about the 1.4x is that don´t get me enough reach and the 2x could give me "that" reach. 
I don´t think it is a biig diference in focal distance between the both, but the numbers make you think....

in fulframe: 
with 1.4 = 700mm 
with 2x = 1000mm

In APSC with 7D2 

with 1.4x = 1120mm
with 2x = 1600mm

Well...and 1600mm it´s just...insane!  Could give you so much reach! Thing is...does the reach compensate the quality lost? Does it justifyes the difference between the 1120mm (1.4x) and the 1600mm (2x)... I guess it depends on the situations...damn....Not an easy answer...suppose the ideal is to buy both....but money dont grow in trees....


----------



## rancho_runner (Feb 27, 2016)

Go Wild, my advice would be to start with the 1.4x, the combination is suitable to everyday usage; the 2 X may be special, but just in some situation and with a lot of patience/effort. In both cases, remember to AFMA the combination, or you'll see much more softness and IQ degradation.


----------



## Freddie (Feb 27, 2016)

I use them both. Usually, the 1.4X TC III is on the 100-400 and the 2X TC III is on the 500. The 1.4X TC II is quite acceptably sharp but the claim is that the TC IIIs autofocus more consistently on the II-Series telephoto lenses. The 2X TC II never worked at all well for me so I sold it years ago. The new 2X TC III works very well for me on the 500. Attached is a sample image from the 7D MK II using the Canon 500L f/4 II + Canon 2X TC III. Shot wide open @ f/8, uncropped. I have tons more from a trip to Arizona last week. The only restriction with the 2X TC III is the lack of autofocus on lenses slower than f/4.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 27, 2016)

FWIW - https://www.lensauthority.com/t/camera-systems/canon/lenses/canon-branded-lenses?utf8=%E2%9C%93&product_sort=descend_by_variant_price&per_page=48

A used 200-400 for $8,105 to $9k. Toss on a 1.4x indoors, but while out in the mess, you can slide in the builtin 1.4x, and as a zoom you have as many framing options as you want.


----------



## Freddie (Feb 27, 2016)

I tried the 200-400 a couple of years ago before CPS shortened the trial period. I was very enthusiastic about it until I'd tried it for a while. I could see no practical use for it as it was too big and heavy for its range and cost WAY too much money at the time. The 100-400 II is a far better solution for me and seems to be equally as sharp. I can snap a TC on that lens, if necessary, in a very short period of time.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 28, 2016)

rancho_runner said:


> Go Wild, my advice would be to start with the 1.4x, the combination is suitable to everyday usage; the 2 X may be special, but just in some situation and with a lot of patience/effort. In both cases, remember to AFMA the combination, or you'll see much more softness and IQ degradation.



Thank you Rancho_runner, i will have the attention of the AFMA. Still with some undefinition about the converter....I am more convinced to get the 1.4x...but the 2x its very desirable...



Freddie said:


> I use them both. Usually, the 1.4X TC III is on the 100-400 and the 2X TC III is on the 500. The 1.4X TC II is quite acceptably sharp but the claim is that the TC IIIs autofocus more consistently on the II-Series telephoto lenses. The 2X TC II never worked at all well for me so I sold it years ago. The new 2X TC III works very well for me on the 500. Attached is a sample image from the 7D MK II using the Canon 500L f/4 II + Canon 2X TC III. Shot wide open @ f/8, uncropped. I have tons more from a trip to Arizona last week. The only restriction with the 2X TC III is the lack of autofocus on lenses slower than f/4.



Wow...tha is a great example! Fine detail for the 2x! Now i am mixed up again!!  




Halfrack said:


> FWIW - https://www.lensauthority.com/t/camera-systems/canon/lenses/canon-branded-lenses?utf8=%E2%9C%93&product_sort=descend_by_variant_price&per_page=48
> 
> A used 200-400 for $8,105 to $9k. Toss on a 1.4x indoors, but while out in the mess, you can slide in the builtin 1.4x, and as a zoom you have as many framing options as you want.





Freddie said:


> I tried the 200-400 a couple of years ago before CPS shortened the trial period. I was very enthusiastic about it until I'd tried it for a while. I could see no practical use for it as it was too big and heavy for its range and cost WAY too much money at the time. The 100-400 II is a far better solution for me and seems to be equally as sharp. I can snap a TC on that lens, if necessary, in a very short period of time.



The 200--400 it´s not an option to me. I really don´t make that lens "my lens..." I thing it´s good for sports, or for video, and also for some wildlife photographers...for me no. Too expensive, and for that combo, y definitly buy the 500+1.4x and still get more reach for less price. I shoot with the 500mm (vers.1) for about 3 years and only once i needed "less" focal distance.....most of the times, the more you have the best the shot. Regarding the lens, the decision is taken, i love the 500mm and the only option that could make me think is the 600mm, but i already ecplain why not that one... 

So...the big question is the teleconverter....1.4x or 2x. I need the reach but not at any price (regarding to quality of the image). If the 2x can give a photo wiht the quality of the detail show by Freddie, then i think i can change my mind a go for the 2x instead of the 1.4x....


----------



## candc (Feb 28, 2016)

If you are going to get one or the other then no question its the 1.4xiii that you want. The 2xiii is nice to have but its only useful in limited situations. You can get good results with the 2x tc but it affects the lens performance and iq in a noticeable way. Most everyone avoids using the 2x's unless you really need to. On the other hand, you can put the 1.4x on and pretty much shoot without thinking about it.


----------



## Freddie (Feb 28, 2016)

The only real disadvantage I have found in using the 2X TC III with several lenses is that the autofocus is lost with any lens slower than f/4.
Despite the conventional wisdom that the 2X TC III costs image quality, my experience suggests that using the TC is still far better than enlarging the image file by the same factor.
Attached is another image from the same day as the House Finch. Same specs. Canon 5D MK III, f/8 (wide open). This is a full frame image with no cropping. I have already said that the 2X TC II was not satisfactory. The newer TC is quite satisfactory.
The 2X TC III is less useful for low light or for lenses that lose autofocus when it is mounted to them. Other than that, in testing two different 2X TC III converters, there is no real disadvantage in image quality.
I should add that I've been using the 2X TC III for five years.


----------



## luckydude (Feb 28, 2016)

I've got the 600mm f4 II and the 1.4x and 2x tc III. The 1.4x is good, the 2x is not as good. It's OK.

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/moon.jpg

is the 2x + 600mm.


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 29, 2016)

Hello!! 

Thank´s a lot fo all of your kind answers! They helped me and thank you for that. I ordered today my lens and the teleconverter 1.4x . So i decided to get the 1.4x.

I think it´s the most certain choice for me and my goals. I will get my experience with him, and then, if i see that the reach is not enough i make an economic effort and get the 2x. For now, i think it´s the wiser choice. Then i´ll let you know about my thoughts. 

Thank´s again all off you, and if you want to continue to comment this post, please continue because i supose ther will be more people with my doubt and i really couldn´t find much thing in the internet. By the way...Why there isn´t one post wiht photos taken by 500mm F4IS II?? The so called posts: ""Something shot with....?""


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> By the way...Why there isn´t one post wiht photos taken by 500mm F4IS II?? The so called posts: ""Something shot with....?""



Check the Lens Gallery. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2605.0


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > By the way...Why there isn´t one post wiht photos taken by 500mm F4IS II?? The so called posts: ""Something shot with....?""
> ...



Hello Neuro! I did see this one, but this isn´t for the 500mm F4 IS I ? I was talking about one specific for the new generation, the 500mm F4 IS II. I did found one for the 600mm II but not for the 500mm II 

Thank you


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



Right you are, my mistake – I grabbed the wrong link. 

Here's the 500/4 II gallery:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11947.0


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 1, 2016)

candc said:


> If you are going to get one or the other then no question its the 1.4xiii that you want. The 2xiii is nice to have but its only useful in limited situations. You can get good results with the 2x tc but it affects the lens performance and iq in a noticeable way. Most everyone avoids using the 2x's unless you really need to. On the other hand, you can put the 1.4x on and pretty much shoot without thinking about it.



+1

The 2xiii is great on the 300 f2.8L II for a quick and dirty 600 f5.6 but using it on my 600mm is only for a very specialized purpose and not something i would consider on a regular basis.

As already noted the 1.4xiii is the better option for the 500 and 600.


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...





Yes, thanks Neuro! That is the one! Still don´t have many photos, hope i can contribute soon. 



East Wind Photography said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to get one or the other then no question its the 1.4xiii that you want. The 2xiii is nice to have but its only useful in limited situations. You can get good results with the 2x tc but it affects the lens performance and iq in a noticeable way. Most everyone avoids using the 2x's unless you really need to. On the other hand, you can put the 1.4x on and pretty much shoot without thinking about it.
> ...



Thank you East wind, i did take the option for the 1.4x because of that reason, i think the gain in reach of th e 2x maybe don´t compensate the loss of IQ... 
I do believe it´s the best choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> Yes, thanks Neuro! That is the one! Still don´t have many photos, hope i can contribute soon.



Looking forward to it! 

I have both MkIII TCs that I use with my 600 II, overall I'd say my shooting comprises 30% bare lens, 60% 1.4x, and 10% 2x.


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, thanks Neuro! That is the one! Still don´t have many photos, hope i can contribute soon.
> ...



I did tryed once the 2x II on my 500mm Version 1, but honestly i didn´t liked very much of the result, but, it was a "only one day" use in a friend loan of the 2x II. 

I do need the extra reach, i often photograph wolfs, deers, eagles and other wildlife animals that intend to be shy...But I just give priviledge to IQ. So the 2xIII "afraids" me.. For this o have chosen the 1.4x i think its a secure choice...Although the improvements on this III series, maybe the 2x it is not a solid choice. Buuut....however, i do not discard buying it in a month or two if i feel i do need that extra reach....We´ll see...in the meantime i will use the 1.4x. 

Sorry about some gramatical errors that i can write...   (i´m not from US)


----------



## Freddie (Mar 1, 2016)

Good choice. I do agree that the 2X TC II is not usable if you want decent image quality.

My usage is about 10% bare lens, 70% 1.4X TC III, 20% 2X TC III.

Here's another shot using the 5D MK III, Canon 500 II, and Canon 2X TC III. Shot wide open.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 1, 2016)

I've skimmed through the thread, apologies if I'm repeating others too much.

I have the 500L II, the 1.4x III, the 2x II and the 2x III. I've used all combinations extensively.

I agree with the general sentiment that the 1.4x is better. It does not degrade image quality to any appreciable degree, and the combination functions as a solid 700mm lens. Autofocus may be slightly impaired, but not to any extent that I've noticed before.

Using a 2x extender does soften the image, and add some colour fringing. BUT it is by no means a deal breaker - you can get excellent images with this combination. It doesn't feel like one lens unit though, you can really tell there's something in between the lens and the camera. Autofocus is much slower, and you are restricted to the central focus points on those cameras that do autofocus at f/8 (except the 1Dx II?). Note one major difference between the two extenders - should you be interested in birds in flight, the 1.4x is usable, the 2x mostly not for this. However, as someone else said, you get more detail with the 2x than you would by digitally enlarging an image taken with the bare lens or 1.4x, so it can be worth it for smaller/more distant subjects. In fact I use the 500+2x III most commonly of all now.

I would recommend to anyone doing this to stop down the aperture slightly. I use f/10. It regains a little of the sharpness that is lost by adding the extender. There is no need to stop down with the 1.4x.

Oh and fwiw it is my understanding and experience that the mark II extenders are not optically worse than the mark IIIs, just that the newer version works better (for autofocus?) with the latest supertelephoto lenses.

If you want examples, here's a gallery of images taken with the 2x III: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjWv9M6b


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I h and fwiw it is my understanding and experience that the mark II extenders are not optically worse than the mark IIIs, just that the newer version works better (for autofocus?) with the latest supertelephoto lenses.



I'd say that's true for the 1.4xII vs III, but the 2xIII is optically better (based on reviews and personal experience).


----------



## candyman (Mar 1, 2016)

scyrene said:


> <snip>
> 
> If you want examples, here's a gallery of images taken with the 2x III: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjWv9M6b



Lovely birdphotos scyrene. 
I am impressed with the result of the 2x III. It is on my list


----------



## scyrene (Mar 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I h and fwiw it is my understanding and experience that the mark II extenders are not optically worse than the mark IIIs, just that the newer version works better (for autofocus?) with the latest supertelephoto lenses.
> ...



Ah ok, maybe I got mixed up


----------



## scyrene (Mar 1, 2016)

candyman said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



Thanks! When they introduced f/8 autofocus on the 5DIII it gave my photography a boost


----------



## cervantes (Mar 1, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> Hello!!
> 
> Thank´s a lot fo all of your kind answers! They helped me and thank you for that. I ordered today my lens and the teleconverter 1.4x . So i decided to get the 1.4x.
> 
> ...



I have some examples also with extenders on my website:

http://www.focrates.com/gear/gear.html

At the bottom of the page.


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 3, 2016)

I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions. 

By your last posts, i still get an idea that the 2x extender it´s not so bad...however i think for now the best choice will be the 1.4x. With the 7D mkII gives me a 1120mm. I think it is enough for most of the situations. If it´s not...well....a bit of crop it´s the solution. Still getting the idea in the future to get the 2x....we´ll see how finances and works run....

Thank you all!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 3, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions.
> 
> By your last posts, i still get an idea that the 2x extender it´s not so bad...however i think for now the best choice will be the 1.4x. With the 7D mkII gives me a 1120mm. I think it is enough for most of the situations. If it´s not...well....a bit of crop it´s the solution. Still getting the idea in the future to get the 2x....we´ll see how finances and works run....
> 
> Thank you all!



Make sure To AFMA with and without the extender for best results.


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions.
> 
> By your last posts, i still get an idea that the 2x extender it´s not so bad...however i think for now the best choice will be the 1.4x. With the 7D mkII gives me a 1120mm. I think it is enough for most of the situations. If it´s not...well....a bit of crop it´s the solution. Still getting the idea in the future to get the 2x....we´ll see how finances and works run....
> 
> Thank you all!



I am sure you will be liking the new lens. I don't think have ever heard or read of anyone being disappointed with it. 500 with the 1.4x on your 7dii is more than enough for just about anything. I don't think you would have much use for the 2x with that camera.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 3, 2016)

candc said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions.
> ...



I concur. Will add that at that magnification you need a lot of light and a really high shutter speed to get a sharp image. The shutter slap itself is enough to blur the image. I generally only use the combination for very special cases one of which is shooting video.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 3, 2016)

Nice shot of the quail!


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 3, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions.
> ...




I will!   Thank you! 




candc said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > I will get my lens and extender on Friday, maybe on Monday i can let you know the first impressions.
> ...






East Wind Photography said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



Yes, i already had the previous version of the lens, the 500 F4 IS and it was an amazing lens, so the expectations for this new one are high, but realistic. This is the kind of lens that don´t disapoint you.

Yes, you do need to be extra carefull at that magnification! It is easy to blur a photo. You do need a shutterspeed of at least 1250/1600 to get a sharp photo, well...at least not to risk the sharpness. With the good performance of ISO in the actual cameras it will make it easy. However, I don´t pass the 1600 ISO on the 7d markII in low light...for that i change for the 5D markIII. Honestly, unless i need the reach, or unless the action is realy fast, my number one camera is the 5D markIII. I just love the camera...unfortunatly with some dislikes regarding to wildlife...6FPS, bad buffer and a good, but not so good af sistem...in these thinks, 7D markII just shines!! Well, fortunatly i do have this 2 options and i can choose according to the situation.  

Thank you all for the thoughts!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 4, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



I wouldn't worry too much about the shutter speed. I find the lower limit for bird photography is 1/250-320 for perched birds. Now I'm using full frame, but the difference between that and the 7D2 isn't so much as to need massively faster shutter speeds. Don't be too cautious!


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 4, 2016)

[/quote]

I wouldn't worry too much about the shutter speed. I find the lower limit for bird photography is 1/250-320 for perched birds. Now I'm using full frame, but the difference between that and the 7D2 isn't so much as to need massively faster shutter speeds. Don't be too cautious! 
[/quote]

 Thank´s Scyrene i apreciated!!!


----------

