# Which Canon teleconverter should I get, the 1.4x iii or the 2x iii?



## Ripley (Mar 13, 2014)

I shot a play a few weeks ago and my 70-200mmii/5Diii performed admirably, but I found myself wanting a little more reach in the outer aisles of the theater. I've been thinking about getting a teleconverter for awhile but I'm not sure which one to get. I'm leaning towards the 1.4x because I don't think I really need a ton more reach (no wildlife, just events), I don't want to sacrifice much IQ if any at all, and I don't really like the thought of giving up two stops. It's hard to resist the extra reach of the 2x though seeing as how they cost the same price! The IQ penalty is probably my primary consideration but I've read varying testimonies regarding the 1.4 versus the 2x.

What's your advice based on your experience with both? I did a few forum searches and didn't find any threads that had the input I was looking for... please post up a link if you know of one. Thanks in advance for your input!


----------



## Eldar (Mar 13, 2014)

I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x. IQ loss is minimal with the 1.4x and, as you say, you lose 2 stops with the 2x. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 1.4x.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 13, 2014)

70-200 II with 2x III on a 5DIII, cropped to about 50% I think.
IQ was fine as far as I am concerned, but that is subjective.
1.4x wasn't so useful for me as I can just crop it anyway, and I wanted to make up the loss of magnification by going FF.



sagittariansrock said:


> Finally mustered some courage to post pictures here  Critiques and criticisms will be welcome, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## drjlo (Mar 14, 2014)

Ripley said:


> The IQ penalty is probably my primary consideration but I've read varying testimonies regarding the 1.4 versus the 2x.



There was an article on line once (gone now) that compared the Canon 1.4x III, 2x III, and Kenko's. Canon's 1.4x III did not have any better IQ than Kenko, but Canon 2x III was clearly better than third party 2x TC. 
I have the Kenko 1.4x, Kenko 2x, and Canon 2x III, and I would say Canon 2x clearly has better IQ than Kenko 2x, and if stopped down to f/8 on 70-200 f/2.8 II (with adequate shutter speed), the Canon 2x comes very close to the 1.4x in IQ. 

So I would recommend getting Canon 2x III as the relative best buy, but if you're worried about 2x IQ loss anyway, also buy the Kenko 1.4x which is excellent and cheaper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2014)

70-200/2.8L IS II with 1.4xIII vs. 2xIII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## Click (Mar 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x.



Same here.


----------



## Ripley (Mar 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 70-200/2.8L IS II with 1.4xIII vs. 2xIII.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0



Thanks for the link Neuro. Comparing the 1.4 to the 2.0 is interesting. Comparing the bare lens to the lens with teleconverters is depressing...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2014)

1.4 no question if loss of IQ is your primary concern.


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 1.4 no question if loss of IQ is your primary concern.


+1, 1.4xIII by all means to get maximum possible IQ. You got your 70-200 2.8 II for this very reason I assume.


----------



## Mediabug (Mar 17, 2014)

I do own the Canon 2X converter. I have used it with my 70-200 F2.8L IS II. I have Rebel T2i body. The issue becomes the cameras ability to focus in anything but really bright surroundings. The 2X also really degrades the image. If I were to do it over, I would have gotten the 1.4X, but only since I now know how much the 2X degrades the image. Now having said all of that, in specific cases, like outside in bright sunlight, you can get decent images. Good luck


----------



## Arctic Photo (Mar 17, 2014)

Hi, I got the 2x, I picked that up for reach. I was aware of the loss of IQ that people have mentioned here, but I have to say I still get quite nice pictures out of it. I use it with my 70-200 2.8 IS Mk2 on a 5D MkIII. I can live with the 2 stop loss as I only use it and plan to use it in daylight. The AF slows down significantly, or I should say, it tracks a lot having a hard time finding the subject. Get the 1.4x if these things are a concern for you.


----------



## greger (Mar 17, 2014)

Get the1.4 extender and after using it for a couple of years I was ready for the 2X. Pictures with my 70-200 f4 and
The 1.4 are excellent. I found the 2X pics were softer and needed more sharpening. As I had o manually focus with
The 2X I purchased the 100-400 L zoom lens which I like very much. There are other posts on CR that have covered
This topic in depth. Good Luck!


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 17, 2014)

I had the 1.4x II and 2x II. Sold the latter because it degraded the image too much. That said, I'm planning on selling the former and buying a 2x III. Go to www.the-digital-picture.com and compare the image quality of your lens with the teleconverter to something like the 100-400L. It's really a toss up on the image quality front, in my opinion. For you, the 2-stop penalty may be the deciding factor. I use my 70-200 f/4 IS for landscapes, so I'm shooting at f/16 and down anyway.


----------



## jprusa (Mar 17, 2014)

Click said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I have both, but I use the 1.4x a lot more than 2x.
> ...


Same here


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 17, 2014)

Mediabug said:


> I do own the Canon 2X converter. I have used it with my 70-200 F2.8L IS II. I have Rebel T2i body. The issue becomes the cameras ability to focus in anything but really bright surroundings. The 2X also really degrades the image. If I were to do it over, I would have gotten the 1.4X, but only since I now know how much the 2X degrades the image. Now having said all of that, in specific cases, like outside in bright sunlight, you can get decent images. Good luck


That's on a crop camera.... I did tests on a 60D to see how much detail you could resolve on a target 25 meters away. The most detail was with the 70-200 and a 1.4X, then the bare lens, and then with the 2X.....

When I did the test with a 5D2, the most detail was with the 2X, then the 1.4X (to be fair, not much difference), and then the bare lens.


----------



## rudiholt (Mar 17, 2014)

I have the 2x III. I find it to be really soft. So soft that I don't really want to use it. I get a better shot from a 70-200 2.8 II and cropping then I do using the 2X. Also focus is affected on some lenses and i also found that you need to shoot at F9 or more for the image to be very sharp. I would get the 1.4 over the 2 anyway day.


----------



## alexturton (Mar 17, 2014)

neither.

The IQ + loss of light with a 2x is a non starter for me. 1.4x is ok, but blank sheet of paper I'd go with a sigma 120-300 2.8 instead of a 70-200 + 1.4x.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 17, 2014)

The 1.4x doesn't give you as much boost as you'd hope but has little effect on IQ or AF speed, so it's still great to have. The 2x is great for the big whites, but makes the 70-200 awkward from an ergonomic standpoint and compromises IQ a fair amount. I'd get the 1.4x - it makes a great "short" wildlife lens with the 70-200.


----------



## Vern (Mar 17, 2014)

I have both 1.4 and 2 III's and only use the 2X with the 300 2.8 II as an easy to carry 600 5.6. The IQ is good enough with this combo, but I don't like the 2X with any other lens b/c the IQ is too degraded. The best option, of course, is to have a lens w the right native focal length, but the 1.4X adds a little reach w/o too big a detriment if you start w a great lens like the 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 17, 2014)

I picked up the 1.4 mkii. I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well. I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.

I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 17, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I picked up the 1.4 mkii. I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well. I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.
> 
> I think my out the door price was $150... which wasn't bad for the three times a year I use it.


There is very little difference in the 1.4x II and III so that was a wise buy, and just 3x a year? I use both of my TCs almost every time I shoot!


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I picked up the 1.4 mkii. I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well. I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.
> ...



Last year I used it when I shot some football games and recently when I shot my daughter skiing... but usually for what I do.. I'm close enough that the 70-200 is plenty long enough....


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 17, 2014)

Unless you have the new Mk11 big prime lenses I would forget the 2 x extender, I have the Mk11 300f2.8 lens and both Mk111 extenders work brilliantly. The 1.4 extender is far more useful and can be used on many lenses with good results. The thing with extenders you really do need good glass to get the most out of them.


----------



## Ripley (Mar 28, 2014)

There are several good posts here that give perspective and share experience. Thanks for the input everyone, I appreciate it. If I was going to pull the trigger tonight I would get the 1.4x, and I probably will when the next venue appointment comes in.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I picked up the 1.4 mkii. I dropped the kenko from consideration because it doesn't work with afma very well. I'm cheap and I didn't think the advances in image quality warranted the additional cost.
> ...



That is very good to know. Have you used both? Bryan Carnathan says the vIII is better, but if the differences aren't that great in real life, it makes sense to save some money.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 28, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better. I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade. It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens  Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos, mainly because it can use AFMA data from what I've read, and with the 300 2.8 IS II, there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've never used the mkiii.... but I don't disagree it is better... but from what I heard and read... it wasn't significantly better. I have a motto... make sure your upgrade is exactly that... and upgrade. It doesn't have to be 10x better... but it should be a significant improvement to warrant the additional investment... and I personally wouldn't be sure that the mkiii is that.



That's very sound logic. And $ 150 compared to $ 450 is a pretty good price! 
Of course, you are really good with used lens purchases and sales, the best I can find is around $ 200.



mackguyver said:


> I upgraded to make sure the extender matched the color of my lens



LOL- even my Mk III doesn't match my lens, so I guess that won't matter for me 



mackguyver said:


> Actually I upgraded because it gives better AF performance with the Mk II super telephotos...



I did hear about that- I am guessing that wouldn't affect me. I would be able to afford a Mk III long before I can afford a Canon supertele... 



mackguyver said:


> there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.



I think that's what the TDP review said. Is it possible to correct some of the CA in post? I wouldn't make big prints, but the lighting here in Houston is pretty harsh.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 28, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > there is noticeably less CA with the 1.4 Mk III which makes a difference for some of the big prints I make and in the harsh lighting that I often encounter here in Florida.
> ...


Thanks for the reply and I'm sure the lighting is every bit as harsh there. The CA with the Mk II isn't bad at all and yes, it can be corrected in post, but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear. This is especially true with osprey wings against a gray sky and things like that. I do a fair bit of macro with my 180L and that is actually where I've seen the biggest difference between the 1.4x II and III.

Also, the other thing that I've noticed (and meant to mention) is that the flare resistance with the Mk III seems better. In bright light, it seems to hold contrast better than the Mk II. This isn't something most reviewers would test, but it's what I've seen. 

They are subtle differences and probably not worth the extra money considering how much extra money it is. The only thing that is probably worth the money are the extra screws and better construction. With a $7k camera on one side and a $7k lens on the other, more screws holding it all together is definitely better!

For the 1.4x, unless you have a Mk II supertele (and money to burn), it's not worth the huge difference in cost. The 2x extenders are much different, however and worth it, even with the 70-200s, 135, 180, 100-400 and others.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Great advice as always, Mackguyver! Thanks!


----------



## gary samples (Mar 28, 2014)

love the 1.4 III but some people forget it also magnifies bad camera skills !!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 29, 2014)

I've started mostly using the 2x on my 300 2.8 since it's hard to ever get close to most wildlife, but in your scenario the loss of stop and so on, 1.4x is probably the best bet, plus you are using it with a zoom as well.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 29, 2014)

My own experience with the Big Whites I own, or have owned, 1.4x III excellent on all, very slight loss of IQ that is hard to determine mostly. 

2x III I have only had very good results while used on my 300f/2.8 II, it's Ok on the 200f/2, 400f/2.8 II & 600F4/II.

1.4x III excellent on the 70-200f/2.8 II, 2x III not so good but usable.

Using either on the 200-400f/4 with the built in 1.4x engaged is close to useless.


----------



## pwp (Mar 29, 2014)

Ripley said:


> I shot a play a few weeks ago and my 70-200mmii/5Diii performed admirably, but I found myself wanting a little more reach in the outer aisles of the theater. I've been thinking about getting a teleconverter for awhile but I'm not sure which one to get...


Teleconverters do have their place, particularly for wildlife shooters and some sports shooters. But shooting theatre? I wouldn't get a TC at all, even f/2.8 stretches the friendship. Giving away a whole stop makes a TC a complete non-starter for theatre work. No-one shoots a typical theatre production with f/4 or slower glass. All you'll get are dreary completely static shots except in rare, very brightly lit sequences. Dynamic theatre shots sell better, and you'll get return business. I'd try making different compositions with more space around your subjects, or consider a f/2.8 300is. I take the f/2.8 300 to theatre jobs, but would only use it briefly on about one-in-ten jobs. Or there is always the famous, free walk-in zoom. (I'm assuming you're shooting final dress-rehearsals rather than public performances with their necessary strict noise and movement restrictions)

Bottom line for your theatre work? TC-x1.4 or TC-x2? Don't get either. Just refine your technique to suit the situation.

-pw


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2014)

I have shot a lot of stage, music, and concert (as in philharmonic) with a 300 f2.8 and a 1.4TC, the 1.4TC is a very useful tool indoors, especially the MkIII,, the 2x I couldn't recommend.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 29, 2014)

Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.



No, because you are not stopping down.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question. Does the image quality improvement from stopping down balance out with the fact that you are running the image through a magnifying glass.
> ...


Ago the aperture stays the same but the amount of light that reaches the sensor changes?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



The apparent aperture stays the same, that is, the actual size of hole the light goes through is not changed by the TC (and hence the amount of light through the aperture stays constant), but the numeric value of the aperture does change because of the change to the focal length, and you collect less of the light that goes through that aperture because you are recording less of the projected image circle. This means you get less light per unit area of sensor.

So yes, you are correct, the amount of light falling on the sensor reduces by one stop for a 1.4TC and two stops for a 2TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2014)

F/number is the ratio of focal length to the physical diameter of the aperture. A TC increases focal length, but doesn't change the lens' iris diaphragm diameter, thus a TC changes f/number.


----------

