# What's the Difference: 1.4X EF Extender 2 Vs. 3



## RussRoc (Jul 1, 2013)

Can anyone tell me what changed on the version 3 (versis version 2) for the Canon Extenders?

Is there some advantage to shooting the 3 Vs the 2?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

One big difference is the AF circuitry, which was optimized to work with the newer MkII supertele lenses to provide faster and more precise AF when using the extender (AF performance with other lenses is the same as the MkII extenders). 

According to Bryan at TDP, the 1.4xIII has less barrel distortion and noticeably less CA. The 2xIII is slightly sharper in the mid frame and corners, and has slight barrel distortion (whereas the MkII had slight pincushion distortion - which is generally less noticeable than barrel).

Physically, the 2xIII has two more elements and is 22% heavier; the 1.4xIII also has two more elements (grouped differently, so one less group), but the weight is pretty much the same. The MkIII versions have the fluorine coating on the exposed elements which makes them easier to clean. Also, the MkIII extenders have the 'new' paint color which matches the MkII superteles, if that sort of thing matters to you...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 1, 2013)

They are a tiny bit sharper, probably not worth upgrading unless you are super critical, or, of course, if you have one of the new super-teles at $10K +, why not.


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They are a tiny bit sharper, probably not worth upgrading unless you are super critical, or, of course, if you have one of the new super-teles at $10K +, why not.


Have you verified that? I mean there are tests at TDP some of which show the III just a little better but some show them equal. I was thinking about version II telephotos in which case I guess everyone would say go for version III but come on have you made comparison tests? Even TDP has tests only with version III.

I am writing this because I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).

In addition, EF1.4X II is excellent. If I were to update I would update EF2X II.

On the other hand I happily stacked them in a non-critical case like a moon photo.

This cannot be done with version III...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

tron said:


> I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).



If you only shoot the moon and other things which move slowly or not at all, there's not a substantial benefit to upgrading. But if your subjects move, the improved autofocus performance with the MkIII extenders is reason to upgrade, if not for the IQ benefit.


----------



## tron (Jul 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).
> ...


I have read that autofocus speed decreases by 50% with EF1.4X III and by 75% with EF2X III.
Are there any measurements with version II ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2013)

IIRC, Canon stated improved precision with the MkIII extenders and MkII supertele lenses, not increased speed (although the latter may also be true due to better algorithms in the extender chips, not sure).


----------



## Harv (Jul 1, 2013)

I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.

I didn't really see any noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses. Across the entire frame. I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results. Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.

If I had it to do again, I would not bother to upgrade the 1.4x extender for my use.

Just my personal experience, for what it's worth.


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2013)

Harv said:


> I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.
> 
> I didn't really see any noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses. Across the entire frame. I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results. Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.
> 
> ...


It is worth. I have always been satisfied with my EF1.4X II but until recently the only use of EF2X II that was really worth was back in 2006 when I had used my 300mm f/4L (non-IS) with that 2X teleconverter and photographed the total eclipse. 
An improved 2x teleconverter is always useful.


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2013)

I have some purely sentimental reasons to not try to get rid of my II teleconverters though.
The version III cannot be used with any analog bodies except the 1V. The best analog bodies I have are EOS1n. 
That and the fact that I will not be able to stack them (but that is mostly for fun).
However 2XIII tempts me. (Maybe next year)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm pretty happy with my 2X III when used with the 300 F2.8 II.

6D 300 X2 1600th F10 ISO 1600 This is a pretty heavy crop shot at minimum focus distance which appears to be one of the advantages of the 2X. I have no complaints about focus speed but am not using it for BIF.

Jack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2013)

I've had the mkII and mkIII 1.4x TC together. I sold the mkII last year (I needed two at the time) and I found the mkIII to be a little better in every regard. Slightly sharper and slightly better with it's AF. Less Vignetting and less CA. But those differences didn't make huge difference in the final pictures.
I'm currently using the mkII 2x TC. I've used the mkIII version and it looks like a greater improvement over the mkII - mkIII 1.4x converters. There seems to be slightly more Image Quality improvements. Then again, not everyone needs a 2x TC!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 9, 2013)

Harv said:


> I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.
> 
> I didn't really see any noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses. Across the entire frame. I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results. Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.
> 
> ...



That matches my findings on my 1D4. The 1.4 Mk2 or Mk3 seems to make little difference on my (Mk1) lenses but the 2 x Mk3 really shines IMO. My 2 x Mk2 was really only usable on my 300 F2.8, the Mk3 produces very good results on the 300 F2.8, pretty good on the 300 F4 IS and 600 F4 IS and surprisingly useable images on my 800 F5.6 IS (MF or Live View). 
In my case the 2 x Mk2 was a waste of money, whereas the slight improvement that the Mk3 gives is the difference between print and delete - a small improvement in IQ that makes all the difference!


----------



## tron (Jul 9, 2013)

So it seems all of you who had compared EF2X II and III agree that 2X III has better IQ than version II. Next year I will give it a serious thought.
Thanks for the information.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 24, 2013)

@ Jack Douglas: awesome picture!!


----------



## RGF (Jul 24, 2013)

Harv said:


> I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.
> 
> I didn't really see any noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses. Across the entire frame. I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results. Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.
> 
> ...



Agree. 2x is a big improvement


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm pretty happy with my 2X III when used with the 300 F2.8 II.
> 
> 6D 300 X2 1600th F10 ISO 1600 This is a pretty heavy crop shot at minimum focus distance which appears to be one of the advantages of the 2X. I have no complaints about focus speed* but am not using it for BIF*.
> 
> Jack


Hey! It is obvious that you are using it for IIF (Insects In Flight) ;D ;D ;D


----------



## nubu (Jul 24, 2013)

I use the extenders on the new 70-200/2.8IS II and the old 300/2.8IS and 500/4IS, mostly
with a 5DIII or 7D.

As already stated by some others:
Optically the 1.4x was not improved significantly but the Mark III 2x extender was really a change!
Before I used the 2x only in cases of emergency now I use it quite often on the zoom when I dont
want to carry the long stuff or on the 500mm for little birds (with workig AF on the 5DIII now!)

nubu


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jul 24, 2013)

Difference? about $200 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## sjprg (Jul 24, 2013)

I haven't paid much attention to the MKIIIs as I only use my TCs on occasions. I was thinking of upgrading the 2XII but someone on here say they can't be stacked with the 1.4. What is the story?

Here is a shot using the 1DSIII +100-400 + 1.4 +2.0 MkIIs but if I can't stack the IIIs this would not work.


----------



## nubu (Jul 24, 2013)

sjprg said:


> I haven't paid much attention to the MKIIIs as I only use my TCs on occasions. I was thinking of upgrading the 2XII but someone on here say they can't be stacked with the 1.4. What is the story?
> 
> Here is a shot using the 1DSIII +100-400 + 1.4 +2.0 MkIIs but if I can't stack the IIIs this would not work.



Thats true, no stacking any longer! But that was for me not really an option already before...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 24, 2013)

Another difference is that the MKIII extenders have more screws in the mount area providing more support. I rented a MKII extender before buying my mkIII and I was a bit nervous carrying by the camera with a 300 2.8 attached. After getting the MKIII I am not concerned with carrying that combo by the body.

It's a small difference and likely less important than IQ but if that kind of thing bothers you than it's something to consider as well toward the upgrade.



neuroanatomist said:


> One big difference is the AF circuitry, which was optimized to work with the newer MkII supertele lenses to provide faster and more precise AF when using the extender (AF performance with other lenses is the same as the MkII extenders).
> 
> According to Bryan at TDP, the 1.4xIII has less barrel distortion and noticeably less CA. The 2xIII is slightly sharper in the mid frame and corners, and has slight barrel distortion (whereas the MkII had slight pincushion distortion - which is generally less noticeable than barrel).
> 
> Physically, the 2xIII has two more elements and is 22% heavier; the 1.4xIII also has two more elements (grouped differently, so one less group), but the weight is pretty much the same. The MkIII versions have the fluorine coating on the exposed elements which makes them easier to clean. Also, the MkIII extenders have the 'new' paint color which matches the MkII superteles, if that sort of thing matters to you...


----------



## BL (Jul 28, 2013)

if money is no object, just get the mkIII

i rented a 1.4x III and compared it against a borrowed 1.4x II.

wound up buying the mkII for $230 new on ebay, and don't feel like i'm giving much of anything up against the performance of a $450 mk III.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 29, 2013)

Have the 2xMkIII and the 70-200 MK2. I think it gives pretty impressive results. A bit heavy and cumbersome to carry around. One thing I did not realize was that the 2x doesn't work with my 70-300L and wouldn't AF if it actually would fit the lens. So perhaps the 1,4 would have been the better choice. My own fault being too ignorant though. But for IQ I don't think you will be disappointed with the 2TC.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2013)

RussRoc said:


> Can anyone tell me what changed on the version 3 (versis version 2) for the Canon Extenders?
> 
> Is there some advantage to shooting the 3 Vs the 2?



for the 1.4:
a lot less lateral CA
sharper edges
but only BARELY better in the center (takes 200% view and flipping and high contrast subject to spot it)
apparently more precise AF when used with IS II supre-teles

(for the 2.0 I don't know since I never used the old Mark II)


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 30, 2013)

So, bottom line is:

1.4x III is slightly better than mk II
2x III is significantly better though.

I have the 2x III and was thinking about getting the 1.4x.... I might just try and pick up a mkII second hand.

thanks for the info all!


----------



## Kerry B (Jul 30, 2013)

For me both the new extenders are better than the Mkii versions, especially the x2 which shows a considerable improvement on the old ones. I am not sure that you will see a huge increase in image performance unless you use one of the new fluoride coated lenses. I have the 300f2.8 mkii and using extenders is now a non brainer.

Forget about lab reports, in real world shooting using extenders on zoom lenses is never as good as when used on a fixed prime lens.

Granted there is only a small difference in image quality between the Mk2 and Mk3 extenders but any improvement is better than nothing. Knowing what I now know I would buy the new Mk111 extender in preference to the Mk11 when used with the new prime fluoride coated lenses.

I can only go by my own experiences and say that the 300mm lens with the new x2 extender when used with a Canon 5dmkiii is better than using a bare 300 on a Canon 7D. Just goes to show what this combo can produce.


----------

