# Canon 1.4X III vs Canon 2.0X III



## silversurfer96 (Apr 12, 2013)

I am looking at both the Canon 1.4X III and Canon 2.0X III. What I am confused is why they are both at the same price. Been reading some reviews on the web, but given that both are the same price, which one to choose? I am aware of the loss of 1 or 2 stops of light as well as image quality being not as sharp. I have a 7D and 5D3 with 70-200 2.8 II. I would love the notion of extending the reach to 640mm on my 7D, but I don't know if that means that my image quality would suffer greatly or settle for the 1.4X and be limited to 448mm. Or I can settle for 280mm or 400mm on my 5D3. My intent for the extra reach would be for wild life. 

Any advise? Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2013)

The 2x does well on the 70-200 II.


----------



## heptagon (Apr 12, 2013)

The 2x only makes sense if your target is too small to fill the frame on 200mm with the 1.4x on a crop camera.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 12, 2013)

I agree with Neuro the 2XIII works great on the 70-200 II if you can live with F5.6 wide open. Sweet spot with the combo is around F/8. Note also that the AF speed drops...not by a lot but it is noticeable. Birds in flight can be a challenge for it but not impossible. You wont be happy with the reach using the 1.4X. Where the 1.4 comes in handy is when you are using the Large tele's 300MM and higher.





neuroanatomist said:


> The 2x does well on the 70-200 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> You wont be happy with the reach using the 1.4X. Where the 1.4 comes in handy is when you are using the Large tele's 300MM and higher.



Agreed - I use the 1.4xIII on my 600 II (and occasionally on my 100-400), but never on my 70-200 II.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 12, 2013)

I've had both the EX 1.4 and 2x in the II models. As East Wind already posted, the 1.4 is excellent on the 300/2.8. On the other hand, I used the 2x on my original 70-200/2.8 IS and the results were totally useless. Last year, when I replaced my zoom with the version II, I also got the latest 2x extender. The AF is a little slow, but still very useble and the IQ is so much better!


----------



## greger (Apr 12, 2013)

I use both 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders on my 70-200 F4 IS USM lens. 70-200 + 1.4 is my walk around BIF combo. I find no
image loss with this combo. Using the 2X hand held the pics are a little soft but usable. Mounted on a tripod and live view
F11 or 16 and a cable release. I got a pair of Eagles in a tree that I use as my desktop pic. It was shot at F16 on a nice sunny day. I bought the 1.4 Extender with the 70-200 and used this for 2 years before buying the 2X. We will always want more reach with our lenses. LOL 2X is manual focus for me which wasn't easy with live view because of the light hitting the LCD.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 12, 2013)

The 70-200 II might be good enough to take it well. It's a little dicey on even the 70-200 f/4 IS (it still pulls in a trace more detail than upscaling with the 1.4 or bare lens but it is starting to get ugly enough that I'm not sure it is worth that tiny bit of extra detail). But I hear that it works better on the 70-200 II.

On my 300 2.8 IS I've ended up using the 2x almost all of the time now. Sure you don't get the crazy micro-contrat of the bare lens or the close to that that you do with the 1.4x on but it still looks pretty decent, sort of like a bare tamron 70-300 at 300, and the extra detail it brings in is well worth it. Even 600mm is often frightfully short for birds, even on APS-C 7D and for sure on 5D3 so I don't use the 1.4x as much (unless I am in a special close blind scenario or shooting really large birds from a decently close distance). I even used it with the 2x for surfing to pretty good effect. The surfers are far away enough that the greatly slowed down close tracking speed doesn't matter enough to make it that bad.


----------



## RGF (Apr 12, 2013)

I know this is not what you asked, but I use the 70-300L rather than 70-200 w/ 1.4x. About the same range on the long end but much lighter. 

I used the 1.4x on the 70-200 until I got the 70-300L.


----------



## Northbird (Apr 12, 2013)

I use the 2X on both the 70-200 2.8 II and the 300 2.8 IS for stationary subjects when there is no other way to get the shot. As has been mentioned by others; to get the best from either combination requires good technique, stop down a bit, tripod, remote release, good post work flow. 

Otherwise, my opinion is that the results do not meet my image quality standards. And BIF with 2x, forget about it. 

Here's an example shot with the 7D, 300 2.8 IS, 2X TC MK II.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 12, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> I agree with Neuro the 2XIII works great on the 70-200 II if you can live with F5.6 wide open. Sweet spot with the combo is around F/8. Note also that the AF speed drops...not by a lot but it is noticeable. Birds in flight can be a challenge for it but not impossible. You wont be happy with the reach using the 1.4X. Where the 1.4 comes in handy is when you are using the Large tele's 300MM and higher.
> 
> 
> neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Yep. I use the 1.4x on my 300mm f4 and it works well. Plus, running it on my 5D3 limits me to f5.6 as it is.
But, yes, in your setup, the x2 would be preferred.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Apr 13, 2013)

Thanks to all for sharing your wealth of knowledge. That's why I keep coming back to this forum. With the feedback I received, Canon 2.0X III it is... No doubt about it.

Thanks again!


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 13, 2013)

I have the 1.4x mk.3, but I have never used a 2x TC. 

I find the 1.4 x does not do a whole lot on my FF camera with a 70-200 lens, as others have said here. But it actually did make a big difference on my crop body, as long as you are not shooting tiny things like birds or squirrels. 

My feeling on birds is that they are terribly cheap, and will seldom pay much for even a great portrait of themselves. Spending $7k on a bird lens would take forever to recoup in shiny bits of junk and sunflower seeds.

My kindergartener plays soccer on a midget field, and the 1.4x would make the lens too long to shoot that.

Come to think of it, she never pays anything for her photos either!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 13, 2013)

I use the 1.4x (II) a fair amount with the TS-E 24 II. I don't think I've ever used the 2x with that lens, and I have a hard time imagining a time when I would.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## BrettS (Apr 13, 2013)

greger said:


> I use both 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders on my 70-200 F4 IS USM lens. 70-200 + 1.4 is my walk around BIF combo. I find no
> image loss with this combo. Using the 2X hand held the pics are a little soft but usable. Mounted on a tripod and live view
> F11 or 16 and a cable release. I got a pair of Eagles in a tree that I use as my desktop pic. It was shot at F16 on a nice sunny day. I bought the 1.4 Extender with the 70-200 and used this for 2 years before buying the 2X. We will always want more reach with our lenses. LOL 2X is manual focus for me which wasn't easy with live view because of the light hitting the LCD.



+1 except I have 1.4II and 2XIII on 70-200 f/4L IS USM & 500II f/4L IS USM


----------



## Gilbo65 (May 14, 2013)

1.4x or 2x?

I've tried both, but only own the 2x II

Anyone who owns one of these know their limitations and would rather use a longer prime. As a cyclist and nature lover: backpack weight, size and versatility of what's in the bag are just as important as "pixel-peep-proof" quality.

*2X extender used with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.* 
I'm not one to pick fights and value the comments in this excellent thread. I have read you cannot use a 2x for BIF. I'm guessing this is due to AF speed whilst tracking a fast bird. Well...

*Hobby - one fast BIF for 2x AF?*
One of the fastest and most manoeuvrable falcons is the Eurosian Hobby. With a 7D in centre spot, I had a great night tracking and tacking these amazing raptors with the 2x fitted. I don't know of a more difficult bird to track (100mph 160 kmh), and I got a good deal of keepers. It was sunset and into the light, but quite a nice capture:




Hobby hunting Dragonflies on the waters of Shapwick, Somerset by gilbo65, on Flickr

*IQ? Kestrel shot with 2x*



Kestrel Hunting Over Hayle Dunes, Cornwall by gilbo65, on Flickr

*2X perfect?*
No. Would love a 300mm f/2.8 II IS. The money is in the bank - not earning much interest. But that's not the point. I would need to get much fitter and stronger to enjoy my cycling / photography lugging even more equipment around.

Sometimes it's case of being honest, and asking if ultimate quality is what you actually need or simply crave. For myself, I enjoy the challenge of getting the most out of a 70-200 and 2x combination. More often or not, that means F8-F11 and getting busy with the centre-point focussing!


----------



## wickidwombat (May 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 2x does well on the 70-200 II.



+1 (2x mk 3 that is)

its also very good on the venerable 300f4L IS


----------



## Northstar (May 24, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> I agree with Neuro the 2XIII works great on the 70-200 II if you can live with F5.6 wide open. Sweet spot with the combo is around F/8. Note also that the AF speed drops...not by a lot but it is noticeable. Birds in flight can be a challenge for it but not impossible. You wont be happy with the reach using the 1.4X. Where the 1.4 comes in handy is when you are using the Large tele's 300MM and higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Eastwind nailed it...my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Bruno97 (May 24, 2013)

I recently bought a 70-200 2.8 L II and then sold my 70-300 L. Tooking advantage of this sell and buying a 2x III extender was a big wait for me.

I recently had the opportunity to give the 2x III a try on my 70-200 2.8 II during a Canon show... and I was damn so disappointed !
I compared many shots @200mm f/2.8 vs @100mm+extender f/5.6 and I found the difference was more than noticeable in terms of sharpness in favor of the shots made @200mm f/2.8.

The Canon salesman couldn't agree more... he admitted the 1.4x & 2x extenders were not made to be combined with any 70-200 lens ! Their purpose is to be mounted with the long prime lens such over 300mm. Especially the newer versions III.

Honestly, I'm getting lost when I see some people posting sharp pictures with the 2x III - 70-200 2.8 L II combo. 
Please don't tell me Canon gave me a bad copy of their extender...


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 24, 2013)

You can make considerable correction to sharpness with DPP or Photoshop. It wont be the same as without the extender but it can help. You also need to make sure that it is focusing properly with the extender on. There are some variations between cameras lenses and even the extenders themselves and the error can compound if all three are just off by a small amount. Try manual focus using live view with 10X magnification and see how it compares with using just the center AF point in normal AF mode.

Also, the sweep spot for that combo will be around F8 for the best possible image quality.

quote author=Bruno97 link=topic=14164.msg272906#msg272906 date=1369403989]
I recently bought a 70-200 2.8 L II and then sold my 70-300 L. Tooking advantage of this sell and buying a 2x III extender was a big wait for me.

I recently had the opportunity to give the 2x III a try on my 70-200 2.8 II during a Canon show... and I was damn so disappointed !
I compared many shots @200mm f/2.8 vs @100mm+extender f/5.6 and I found the difference was more than noticeable in terms of sharpness in favor of the shots made @200mm f/2.8.

The Canon salesman couldn't agree more... he admitted the 1.4x & 2x extenders were not made to be combined with any 70-200 lens ! Their purpose is to be mounted with the long prime lens such over 300mm. Especially the newer versions III.

Honestly, I'm getting lost when I see some people posting sharp pictures with the 2x III - 70-200 2.8 L II combo. 
Please don't tell me Canon gave me a bad copy of their extender...
[/quote]


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2013)

Bruno97 said:


> Honestly, I'm getting lost when I see some people posting sharp pictures with the 2x III - 70-200 2.8 L II combo.
> Please don't tell me Canon gave me a bad copy of their extender...



The combo should less sharp than the bare 70-200 II, but still quite sharp.

Example with the 5DII:



EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

Example with the 7D:



EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200

If your not getting sharp images, the first question I'd ask is if you've done an autofocus microadjustment. Do note that the AFMA needs to be done separately for the lens + TC combo.


----------



## Skulker (May 24, 2013)

I use the 2x with the 70-200 on the 5D3 and find it very good. Although the setup is a bit on the long side when you have it on there.

I never used it much with the 7D a camera that I really liked, with any lens. I think these latest TC's really only work to their best with the latest generation of lenses and cameras. But as show by Neuro above, they can produce good results.


----------



## TommyLee (May 24, 2013)

I use a Tamron sp pro 1.4x on the 70-200 II... just fine

but the 2x III is fairly good..... on that lens too

having f8 NOW, on the 5D3, also allows me to use the 2x III on my 70-200 f4 I.S. ...
but the native lenses are much better in focus speed and clarity

TOM


----------



## RGF (May 25, 2013)

I have both and routinely use the 1.4 while avoid the 2x - perhaps because I put this on a 500 F4 which makes it F8 which is hard to focus. I have a mix results with the 2x, I think the problem is with the photographer, not the equipment but it is much harder to use the 2x on an F4 lens than it is to use 1.4x

I have spent much time using either TC on 2.8


----------

