# 2x teleconverter mk2 vs mk3



## recon photography (Jul 19, 2011)

thoughts? mk2 seems to be $300 and mk3 seems to be $500 as far as i can tell just for some flourite coating is there a size or quality difference? Is the mk2 weather sealed?


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 19, 2011)

afaik, mk1 is not sealed, mk2 and mk3 are sealed.

the optical formula has changed, on the 1.4x it's 7/3 instead of 5/4, so there is an IQ difference according to TDP, quoting a bit:
mk3 has less barrel distortion, mk3 uses 'anomalous dispersion glass' for less CA and more contrast, mk3 has Super Spectrum Coating for less flare, mk3 has a better CPU for faster autofocussing (but same precision), and it's been made a bit stronger.

last time i looked, the difference in price was 500 euro to 300. mk3 not worth it for my money (don't have a lens that fits it for a start). the price on the mk3s might come down once the mk2 are sold out, most places seem to still have them in stock...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 19, 2011)

I read somewhere or other that the 2X is a new optical formula, whereas the 1.4X III is just updated with the anti-smear flourine coating and something else - it uses the same formula.

I haven't had any teleconverters yet, but I should be able to say a few more things about the 2X shortly as I have one coming in about a week. First thing will be to see if it fits the new Sigma telephoto zoom as I've read it does, and then to see how much of a quality hit it takes when that's on.

I mainly went for the III over the II because I wanted the ultimate in quality available for the Sigma zoom and after spending a lot on a lens it didn't seem right to hobble it with an outdated design (that might not fit in the first place). Going with a Canon instead of Sigma's on TCs (which would be a sure bet for compatibility) also seemed the better bet as I have some other Canon lenses that might benefit from it in rare situations, and it's more useful going forward as well.

The price dr croubie quoted, 500 euros, represents a huge step up from what it's costing me - only $500 USD which is much less considering the exchange rate is still far above 1:1 (last I checked anyway). The price difference from the Mark II to the Mark III is more or less in that ratio, though.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 19, 2011)

Just done a bit more reading, and the 2x mk3 is also a new formula, 9/5 up from 7/5.

and checked my latest prices (at one shop, too lazy to compare), 2x mk2 doesn't seem to be in stock anymore but listed for â‚¬325, and 1.4x mk2 not in the pricelist.
both mk3 are â‚¬479, that's AU$635 and US$680 at today's rates.
damn, that low US$ must be killing you guys, it's worth half as much in AU$ as i grew up with...


----------



## recon photography (Jul 19, 2011)

haha thanks again i am from Aus so all good i think ill have to get mk3 because it will take me a little while to get the kesh haha but it should be decent quality third time round


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 19, 2011)

if you can get an mk3 teleconverter for $500 aussie, uh, Please Share!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2011)

Performance-wise, the optical differences when the MkII vs. MkIII are used on Canon zoom lenses is very minor (and in some cases undetectable). The real difference (supposedly) comes with the MkII versions of the superteles - although since none have actually been released, that supposition is based on Canon's published MTF charts for the new lenses in combination with the new TCs.


----------



## recon photography (Jul 19, 2011)

mmm expense super teles so delicious!



dr croubie said:


> if you can get an mk3 teleconverter for $500 aussie, uh, Please Share!



i believe on amazon from adorama and a bunch of other places they are $499 us which after shipping is probably around $500 Aus of course since we are in Australia these would be considered 'grey market' but i think the warranty would be fairly easy to deal with they are reputable stores check it out on amazon here is the link incase i am looking at the wrong thing http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-2-0X-III-Telephoto/dp/B0040X4PV8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311080470&sr=8-1


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 19, 2011)

I had a look at TDP's ISO 12233 image chart crops for the Extender 2X Mark II and III with the EF 200mm f/2 IS L and the TS-E 90mm f/2.8. Either focus was off or indeed the III can become softer in some situations - on the 200mm it's hard to tell - the Version II image has a "Greek Key" pattern going on in the center crop's parallel lines. The center target looks noticeably worse, though distortion (especially in the mid-frame and corner) looks improved. Lighting appears less uniform, but maybe that's just the result of the testing methodology (or tests done at different times).

For the TS-E 90mm, there seems to be some color shifting in the center of the frame. Otherwise the pattern looks similar to before. I wonder if there is something wrong with those sample images. But they're probably close enough to be evidence of the overall point - no huge variation either way.


----------



## afira (Jul 21, 2011)

I just hand tested the two 1.4x extenders on a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. I'll note that the 1.4x Mark II to Mark III performance is on par with or slightly better. I noticed a slight improvement outdoors with the III over the II, but nothing noticeable indoors/dim lighting. The store owner said that she felt there wasn't a significant difference between the two for the 1.4x, but in the 2x range, the III was the only way to go - 20-25% improvement on sharpness and photo quality. She did mention something I didn't look at - there are 4 screws securing the 1.4x II, and 7 on the III, and said she had less returns on the III (1) for mechanical/bad quality faults in the same time period (one year of release) and the II (4). Take that for what you will.



I live in Australia and I actually purchase my equipment from B&H USA. They were my dealer in the States, and they still remain my dealer here in Australia. I just ordered $184 dollars worth (converted and including shipping) of two Canon lens hoods, a Hoya 77mm ND filter kit and an additional UV filter. I priced them here locally for $430.

You can guarantee that the equipment you are purchasing isn't from Hong Kong, grey market or otherwise, and Canon warranties their lenses purchased from the US in Australia and worldwide. Be careful about ordering camera bodies from the States though, they need to be sent back to the US for repair work.

Australian customs limits your purchases by imposing Customs duty on a package worth over $1000. If your items are less than $1000 - converted, no duty and no fees. Anything over (like my 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS did at $2700 inclusive of duties) will incur fees. Even still, it was $500 cheaper than the quote from the local dealer.


----------



## afira (Aug 2, 2011)

WFT said:


> Hi
> 
> First time post from a long term lurker.
> Sorry to the OP as this is a little of topic, but I had to ask afira to confirm the statement,
> ...



I spoke to Canon Australia approximately 4 weeks ago after I purchased my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, they confirmed they would warranty/repair US purchased lenses through the Brisbane, QLD base. They said no US purchased cameras would be fixed through the international side though.
__

Just spoke to Canon Australia - L series lenses carry an international warranty. Working on finding out information regarding other non-L lenses.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 2, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> afaik, mk1 is not sealed, mk2 and mk3 are sealed.
> 
> the optical formula has changed, on the 1.4x it's 7/3 instead of 5/4, so there is an IQ difference according to TDP, quoting a bit:
> mk3 has less barrel distortion, mk3 uses 'anomalous dispersion glass' for less CA and more contrast, mk3 has Super Spectrum Coating for less flare, mk3 has a better CPU for faster autofocussing (but same precision), and it's been made a bit stronger.
> ...



I've only tied the 2x III so I can't compare there.

As for 1.4x II vs III, the III is very slightly sharper in the center, you have to really look, it has considerably less CA and is somewhat sharper at the edges even after running through ACR CA remover. If all you care about is the center then it's not really much there for the extra hundreds if you care about borders too then the new one is better and the cost is up to you. If you shoot only in cam jpgs then the III is absolutely worth it since the CA is at least 3x less.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 2, 2011)

An interesting observation with the TS-E 90mm + 2X III + T1i (15MP APS-C DSLR) combo:

When I turned the camera on, I was surprised to see the camera reporting the aperture as f/2.8.

More than this I can't say. Did the images seem a bit dark (which is what I'd expect from the camera misreading the aperture setting)? Was the image quality off? I took some shots with the combo just a couple days ago but honestly can't remember a thing about them. I think that stopped down it should be a reasonable combination, but it didn't seem as good as I'd have expected from a dedicated macro lens (no surprise there).


----------

