# 5D MKIII w 70-200 2.8II using a 1.4x vs 2x extender



## Razor2012 (May 7, 2012)

Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!


----------



## untitled10 (May 7, 2012)

Really depends on what you use it for, weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of both for what you do.


----------



## pwp (May 8, 2012)

You have bought yourself a brilliant combination there. Why don't you wait and see how often you need more reach? There is always the walking zoom to get in closer when 200mm isn't quite enough. For nice balance in the hand spend a few hundred dollars on the vertical battery grip when they eventually start shipping.

The 70-200 is so good optically you shouldn't see a great deal of IQ degradation when using the x1.4 extender, though you do lose a stop, giving you 280mm at f/4. The 2x extender robs another stop and further, slight degradation. So you're down to 400mm at f/5.6. And with either extender you'll also collect a drop in AF performance. Extenders are a compromise. Valid reasons for using extenders are financial plus the fact that they take up very little room in the bag.

Read up here on the extenders:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-II-Teleconverter-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

Personally I'm not a great fan of extenders but others will sing their praises. When I get my FF 1DX I'll probably get a 400 f/2.8 as my 300 f/2.8 will lose the reach I currently have with the x1.3 APS-H 1D Mk4. A x1.4 extender on the 300 will give me 420mm but at f/4 and with reduced AF horsepower.

Paul Wright


----------



## Razor2012 (May 8, 2012)

pwp said:


> You have bought yourself a brilliant combination there. Why don't you wait and see how often you need more reach? There is always the walking zoom to get in closer when 200mm isn't quite enough. For nice balance in the hand spend a few hundred dollars on the vertical battery grip when they eventually start shipping.
> 
> The 70-200 is so good optically you shouldn't see a great deal of IQ degradation when using the x1.4 extender, though you do lose a stop, giving you 280mm at f/4. The 2x extender robs another stop and further, slight degradation. So you're down to 400mm at f/5.6. And with either extender you'll also collect a drop in AF performance. Extenders are a compromise. Valid reasons for using extenders are financial plus the fact that they take up very little room in the bag.
> 
> ...



Thanks Paul, just was wondering how some of you with field use felt about them. I definately want to get the grip also. When I picked up my camera & lens, the reps were there too. The tables were full of cams and glass. You couldn't miss the new 400 2.8, it wasn't heavy at all, almost light. For 12 grand I told him when I win the lottery, lol.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 8, 2012)

pwp said:


> You have bought yourself a brilliant combination there. Why don't you wait and see how often you need more reach? There is always the walking zoom to get in closer when 200mm isn't quite enough. For nice balance in the hand spend a few hundred dollars on the vertical battery grip when they eventually start shipping.
> 
> The 70-200 is so good optically you shouldn't see a great deal of IQ degradation when using the x1.4 extender, though you do lose a stop, giving you 280mm at f/4. The 2x extender robs another stop and further, slight degradation. So you're down to 400mm at f/5.6. And with either extender you'll also collect a drop in AF performance. Extenders are a compromise. Valid reasons for using extenders are financial plus the fact that they take up very little room in the bag.
> 
> ...



+1. Got the 1.4x III when I moved full-frame to compensate for losing the 1.6x crop factor. IQ takes a very slight hit, but AF speed was affected more than I expected. I use it 1.4x III primary at places like the zoo or for outdoor sports. Still cheaper and lighter than getting another longer lens.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 8, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > You have bought yourself a brilliant combination there. Why don't you wait and see how often you need more reach? There is always the walking zoom to get in closer when 200mm isn't quite enough. For nice balance in the hand spend a few hundred dollars on the vertical battery grip when they eventually start shipping.
> ...



The price of the 400mm 5.6 is about $1300, so saving about $800. The 400 will be sharper though.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 16, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!



+1...I'm in the same boat.

I was thinking, instead of getting extender(s). It's better to get decent crop body like 7D. 

Pro:
1. stay the same at 2.8
2. Reach: 70-200 = 112 - 320
3. AF stays the same

Cons:
1. not FF sensor
2. noise, in low light

anybody???


----------



## Random Orbits (May 16, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> +1...I'm in the same boat.
> 
> I was thinking, instead of getting extender(s). It's better to get decent crop body like 7D.
> 
> ...



Yes, but sometimes you just need to have a crop body with an extender. ;D


----------



## Aaron78 (May 17, 2012)

I own the same 70-200 lens as well as the 1.4 and 2x III extenders, and used them on my 7D and now sold 5DII. The 1.4 gives very sharp images at F/4 and even sharper images at F/5.6. The 2x gives very usable images as long as the subject you are focusing on occupies a good amount of the frame. The 2x really surprised me on the amount of detail in the image when you zoomed in to your subject on the 5DII, way better fine detail than you would see on the 7D. To me, if you buy them at the right time, you can get both for $900, and i feel each has a place and time where they will be useful. I would honestly recommend both, but the 1.4's strong point is slightly better IQ, and the 2's strong point is basically the noticeably longer reach with good IQ.


----------



## RuneL (May 17, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!



I've used the 2x on the same lens with a 1D IV and the results were quite honestly appalling, the pictures were unusable both due to loss in IQ and because AF became so sluggish that nothing remotely in motion could lock/track. The 1.4 I've used and that worked ok on a 1D II, I think. But the 2X is terrible. I returned it the next day and proceeded to rent a 400 2.8 when I needed it  

So, my advice don't get the 4X.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 17, 2012)

RuneL said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!
> ...



I've had my doubts about the 2x right from the beginning, so if I get any extender it will be the 1.4III.


----------



## Hesham (May 17, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!



I have 5DM3 and just purchased the 70-200 F2.8L IS II and 2X III. I am still testing the combination but I can tell you for sure that the AF is still blasingly fast. Gave it a try outside and have no AF issues at all. I had the sigma 150-500 and took pictures on 5DM3 and I am trying to compare with the canon combination. Ill post if I managed to do so ASAP.


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

Half the price to have a 70-300L rather than a 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4III


----------



## Radiating (May 17, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Hi, picked up a 70-200 2.8II with my 5DIII and was wondering what your thoughts were using a 1.4x vs 2x extender? Thanks!



cropping with the 1.4x Mk III extender shows almost no diffeence compared to using the 2x extender (there is a very slight benefit though).

Considering you get faster AF and higher quality on the wide end I preffer the 1.4x mk III


----------



## bkorcel (May 17, 2012)

Both work great with the 70-200 II. The 70-200 with 2XIII is sharper than the 100-400 L and focuses faster. There is a slight softness with the 2XIII but it's minimal and unless you are shooting birds, you wont see it. I use it for sports events and it's great. With the 1.4x you cant see any difference at all in sharpness.

BUT understand to get the most out of the combo you need to shoot AT f/8 with the 2X extender. More or less softens it up a bit.

I also recommend you go get the Focal AMFA software from Reiken. The focus point is in fact different with and without and between extenders. (shouldnt be but most are). the 5DIII will allow you to register MFA settings for each lens extender combination... AND wide vs. Tele.

So in a nutshell, you wont be happy unless you have BOTH extenders so dont bother chosing. Just get them both.


----------



## helpful (May 17, 2012)

I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.

Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.

It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses. But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

helpful said:


> For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X.



Only if the iso is 800 or less .....


----------



## rsk7 (May 17, 2012)

I have the 1.4xII and the 2.0xIII with the 70-200 2.8II and the 5D3. The 2.0xIII is slightly softer than the 1.4xII and noticeably slower to focus. With the 1.4xII I barely see any difference in softness or focus speed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2012)

I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine. For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 17, 2012)

helpful said:


> I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.
> 
> Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.
> 
> It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses. But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.



Hmmm, that's good to know, ty.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine. For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.



Or just a straight 400 5.6.


----------



## Aaron78 (May 17, 2012)

^^^^^ Plan on carrying a tripod then, the 400 F5.6 has no IS and being F5.6, it's a slow lens as well.


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

Aaron78 said:


> ^^^^^ Plan on carrying a tripod then, the 400 F5.6 has no IS and being F5.6, it's a slow lens as well.



For shooting BIF then IS will not be required


----------



## sublime LightWorks (May 18, 2012)

helpful said:


> I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.
> 
> Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.
> 
> It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses. But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.



I must disagree with this. I've shot the 7D with this combo and got excellent results. I'll post a few tomorrow in a follow up posting. They are just a hair less in IQ compared to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L. I own both, and if I need the extra stop at the far end, I have no problem shooting the TC combo.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 18, 2012)

Some comparitive shots will be nice.


----------



## Northstar (May 18, 2012)

i have the 70-200 is ii w/ 2x iii. it is very good. you lose very little in IQ, and just a little in AF. of course you miss 2 full stops, but if you have good lighting it shouldn't matter too much.

here's an image of a heli that flew by while I was out and about the other day testing this combo....

handheld - jpeg
straight out of camera, only cropping done
heli was about 450 yards away

what do you think, is this is a sharp combo or not?


----------



## Razor2012 (May 18, 2012)

Northstar said:


> i have the 70-200 is ii w/ 2x iii. it is very good. you lose very little in IQ, and just a little in AF. of course you miss 2 full stops, but if you have good lighting it shouldn't matter too much.
> 
> here's an image of a heli that flew by while I was out and about the other day testing this combo....
> 
> ...



Hey that looks pretty sharp to me, especially @450 yds.


----------



## bkorcel (May 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've found that the TC slows down AF, but, if you do not need fast AF, or focus in limited light, the IQ is fine. For a little more than the $1K price of two TC's, a 100-400mmL will be much better.



Not really. I compared both and the 70-200 II with 2X extender was sharper and focused faster than the 100-400 also much less focus hunting. 100-400 at the 400 end loses so much light and contrast that AF has a tough time especially with things like flying birds. I got about 10% in focus shots with the 100-400 on flying birds. 70-200 with 2X was at 80% in focus.


----------



## bkorcel (May 18, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



You will end up with both.


----------



## Frankie T Fotografia (May 18, 2012)

I shot this 4 hours ago with the same exact combination (5D Mk III, 2x Extender Mk III, 70-200 II). I cropped it all the way down to 1.6 Megapixels 300dpi and did some sharpening to it (maybe a little too much sharpening). I like this camera/extender/lens combination.


----------



## Axilrod (May 18, 2012)

helpful said:


> I am quite disappointed with the performance of this exact combination.
> 
> Yes, the results from the optical magnification of the 1.4X III converter are better than interpolating the image to larger resolution. However, it noticeably diminishes image quality and contrast. Perhaps resolution might be fairly high, but the punch just isn't there for me. For an equivalent, I would say that the 7D with the 70-200 mm II is just as good as the 5D3 with the 70-200mm II + 1.4X. That's not supposed to be a positive comparison. I used both combinations for thousands of photos just a few days ago.
> 
> It's better if possible to just get closer with the 200mm lens and forgo the 1.4X converter. The 1.4X III converter does amazing things with a lens that is far sharper to start with like the $5,000+ exotic lenses. But the 70-200 II lens with its huge number of elements doesn't exceed the camera's resolution by a sufficient margin to maintain its quality when combined with a teleconverter. Only the lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, etc., can do that.



Kind of off topic, but I was curious what you shoot that requires 9 camera bodies and 2 copies of so many lenses? It seems like you could buy some really wicked stuff if you got rid of the duplicate lenses and got rid of a couple of your 7D's, the 60D, and the Rebels.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 18, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > RuneL said:
> ...



Heh, well you might be right. It seems that there are people that like both.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (May 18, 2012)

Following up on my prior message, here are some images:

This was shot with a 7D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II + 1.4x TC III at f/4, 1/1000 sec, ISO 400 at 280mm:

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1240165276&k=GELoj&lb=1&s=A


Here is a shot with just the that 70-200mm at f/2.8, 1/1600 sec, ISO 250, with a circular polarizer:

http://www.imagicphotography.com/Photography/Preview-Gallery/12384118_G8pMWH#!i=1255559047&k=dWxFzLm&lb=1&s=A


----------

