# TC mark 4?



## JEL (Jun 2, 2017)

Just wondering if Canon's 2 latest TCs (1.4 and 2.0) are still going to be the mark3 versions for the foreseeable future, or if a mark4 version (of either of them) is perhaps coming?

I googled and the mark3 seems to be the latest (of both the 1.4 and 2.0)

I'm asking because I want to be sure I'm not going to buy something now if there's a new model coming soon (soon being sometime this year)

Thanks in advance (for easing my mind and my little wallet)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2017)

I haven't seen any rumors posted here of updates to the TCs. For the 1.4x, the II → III update really didn't add anything optically, and the the 2xII → III update, the optical improvements were minor. In both cases, the main improvement was autofocus performance when paired with the then-new MkII supertele (300/2.8 through 600/4) lenses. Oh, and they changed the 'white' paint color to match the new lenses, too. 

So, I would not hesitate to buy a MkIII TC at this point. For the 1.4x, unless you are planning to use it with a MkII great white, you could also consider a used 1.4xII.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 2, 2017)

I agree - MkIII was as much about AF performance as it was about image quality and were tuned to work with markii lenses


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2017)

I would not worry about a update, the MK II versions work fine, and often can be found for bargain prices. You can also stack a 1.4X MK II with a 2X MK II. You can't do that with two MK III's, but can stack a combination 1.4X III with 2X II. I have the latter combination, the 2X very seldom gets used, and stacking them is just for fun.


----------



## JEL (Jun 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and they changed the 'white' paint color to match the new lenses, too.



Lol, thanks 



Mikehit said:


> I agree - MkIII was as much about AF performance as it was about image quality and were tuned to work with markii lenses



Thanks. I'm thinking of pairing one with the "Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM" (on a 5D3 and 80D)



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You can also stack a 1.4X MK II with a 2X MK II. You can't do that with two MK III's, but can stack a combination 1.4X III with 2X II. I have the latter combination, the 2X very seldom gets used, and stacking them is just for fun.



Ahh I see, that's very good to know, because I was actually thinking about getting both a 1.4 and a 2.0 and stack them (despite the aperture of the 100-400 lens not being ideal for it)
If that's impossible with the 2.0 mark3, then I will need to reconsider.

Yes, I have read several accounts of the 2.0 being somewhat difficult to use in the wild (with the 100-400 lens)
However, that was mostly by people doing wildlife (birds etc), where I'm more into aviation and astronomy (where there aren't many surprises or a lot of erratic movements)

I'll give it some more thought.

Thanks a lot for all the answers


----------



## CSD (Jun 3, 2017)

I use a Mk II 1.4 TC with a 70-200L f/2.8 Mk II for sport (football and polo) and I've also used it for covering gigs when I was stuck in the Gods. The focus is pretty good and the quality is acceptable for such scenarios. You do need a good body to make the AF work though, wasn't all that reliable with the older cameras (5D II etc) but it's fine with a 5D III and IV (or the 1Dx series). I don't cover enough sports to justify getting a 100-400 so I just use as a stand in when needed.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 3, 2017)

JEL said:


> Yes, I have read several accounts of the 2.0 being somewhat difficult to use in the wild (with the 100-400 lens)



Only insofar as you don't get AF - manual (or LiveView) focus only.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, I would not hesitate to buy a MkIII TC at this point.



This.

These are all with a Mk III 2x (on a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS/7D Mk II), handheld at 600mm.



























Sharpness is not an issue...


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 4, 2017)

JEL said:


> Ahh I see, that's very good to know, because I was actually thinking about getting both a 1.4 and a 2.0 and stack them (despite the aperture of the 100-400 lens not being ideal for it)



The issue with Canon converters is that the converter informs the camera of the effective aperture and if it is above f8 it blocks the AF function. However, if you put the 1.4x next to the body, it is the 1.4x that reports the aperture. If y ou put the 2x on top of the 1.4x the camera recognises the aperture as f16, but does not block the AF from working (does that make sense?).
IIRC, you also need to put a 12mm extension tube between the tcs


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> However, if you put the 1.4x next to the body, it is the 1.4x that reports the aperture. If you put the 2x on top of the 1.4x the camera recognises the aperture as f16, but does not block the AF from working (does that make sense?).



Interesting - I might have a go.

Except that...


> IIRC, you also need to put a 12mm extension tube between the tcs



Yep, they won't attach otherwise (there is a recess in the back of the Mk III 2x, but it takes more force than I'm prepared to apply to try and get it and the 1.4x's front element to mate up) and I don't own an extension tube.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The issue with Canon converters is that the converter informs the camera of the effective aperture and if it is above f8 it blocks the AF function. However, if you put the 1.4x next to the body, it is the 1.4x that reports the aperture. If y ou put the 2x on top of the 1.4x the camera recognises the aperture as f16, but does not block the AF from working (does that make sense?).
> IIRC, you also need to put a 12mm extension tube between the tcs



The issue with the MkIII TCs is that they're physically unable to be stacked. Unlike 3rd party TCs, the Canon ones have a protruding front element. That's what precludes them from working with all Canon lenses (you can out a Kenko TC behind a 100L macro, for example, but not a Canon TC. I've done that with the EF12. 

In the case of stacking TCs, the 1.4x goes in back so its protruding front element can fit in the space behind the rear element of the 2x. But with the 2xIII update, Canon added more elements so the 1.4x can't fit. You can still put a 1.4xIII behind a 2xII. But, with both MkIIIs, you must put an extension tube between them.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> You can still put a 1.4xIII behind a 2xII.



But not vice versa.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The issue with Canon converters is that the converter informs the camera of the effective aperture and if it is above f8 it blocks the AF function. However, if you put the 1.4x next to the body, it is the 1.4x that reports the aperture. If y ou put the 2x on top of the 1.4x the camera recognises the aperture as f16, but does not block the AF from working (does that make sense?).
> ...



Have you tried and found that it works? I bought an extension tube on the advice of a CR forum discussion only to discover the 7DII and 5D3 would autofocus only over a limited intermediate range at f/8 (2.8xTCs + 300mm f/2,8 II).


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 4, 2017)

What do you mean by 'limited intermediate range'?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2017)

It was some time ago. I recall it was between a few metres and about 20.


----------



## JEL (Jun 6, 2017)

Extension-tubes to stack 2 TCs... Ok  This is getting a bit too long-haired for my taste I think 

I do have a set of extension-tubes, but after reading all this I think I'll just keep it simple and live with Canon limiting things to the 2 or the 1.4 (they seem to know what they're doing, so if they don't make it possible it's likely not really worth it  )

In fact I think the 2 is bringing things up close to the max I'd like to go to anyway. 700mm is already very shaky (I've used a 700mm refractor telescope earlier. Lousy image-quality and shaking all over the place), so I can only imagine 800mm (or whatever mm a 2.0 TC actually takes the lens to, I know it's not a strictly linear relationship) is even tougher to work with 

Had the 1.4 and 2 stacked in this order: lens, 1.4, 2, body, then I would obviously have tried it, but with all the trickery it seems to take to get it working I'm less tempted.

Thanks for all the good info 
Happy snapping.


----------

