# Canon Extender EF 2x III review - at the bronx zoo



## kubelik (Mar 21, 2011)

hi everyone,

finally got to take my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II and the Extender 2x III to do some shooting of live subjects at the bronx zoo:

http://teatrayinthesky.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-review-leaping-lemurs/

pretty happy with the combination, and I'm open to any comments/critiques/questions anyone has. thanks for looking!


----------



## kubelik (Mar 22, 2011)

added the second part of the review today, where I take a look at how useful this combination is for birding on a 5D Mark II:

http://teatrayinthesky.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-review-gone-birding/

the focus tracking on my 5DII with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II + 2x III is as good as, if not better than, I've seen with any of my other lenses. the conditions were not excellent (backlighting and busy background) but it managed to pick up focus on the inca terns and held focus while I managed to keep the bird relatively centered in frame. with small, darty animals that's not very easy to do.

I think, in the end, the limiting factor is the 5D II. hopefully I'll be able to try this combination out on a body better suited for this type of work, such as a 7D or a 1D Mark IV. the good thing to know is, as long as your AF is up the task, the image quality is definitely there.

let me know if you have this same combo and have tried it on a system with pro AF.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 22, 2011)

Nice shots. I have the 70-200 2.8 L II and love using it on both the 5D II and the 7D. I was considering getting an extender but was worried about a drop in IQ but your photos look pretty good . . .


----------



## branden (Mar 22, 2011)

Thank you! I was also curious about this combination, and your review is very straightforward and to the point.

Also, you mentioned in part I that you are planning a trip to the Galapagos. Oddly enough, that is also something I've been considering ... if you don't mind explaining, how are you planning your trip? 

Thanks


----------



## kubelik (Mar 23, 2011)

acoll, I understand your original hesitation. I've seen shots using the original 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with extenders and the lack of resolution is fairly obvious and distracting. if you're using a 7D, I'd consider just getting the EF 1.4x III as that will still get you up to a 448mm equivalent on full frame, and the sharpness at f/5.6 will be excellent. one stop down from max aperture seems to do the trick with the new extenders.

branden, glad the review was helpful. I'm basically planning the trip through a lot of research. normally when I travel abroad I just get a guide book, plane tickets, and book a hotel. since going to the galapagos is a bit more involving, my wife and I decided to stick to well-known tour operators. we're using Gap Adventures (http://www.gapadventures.com/) since they're reasonably priced, a large outfitter, and allowed for a number of options in terms of how you structure your trip in terms of destinations and also pricing level. I'm very excited about it, feel free to PM me if you have more questions.


----------



## bluesman64 (Mar 23, 2011)

I recognize that this is off point as it applies to the 2x extender, but I've done the Galapagos with GAP Adventures. We, overall, had a fabulous time. There were a couple of hiccups which were pretty significant - being told to get onto an earlier plane into the jungle and ending up 6 hours before our group in a pretty rural area of the Amazon - but that only happened to my wife and I, and we haven't heard of that happening to others. 

Once in Galapagos, the trips are all about the same (except for private groups), so we enjoyed the same experience as tours that paid 10x the price. Very worth it and we saw some incredible things. 

We did have to speak to the operator on one occasion to ask to slow down a little bit for photos, but otherwise they were extremely accommodating. We also grouped our trip with an excursion to Machu Piccu and Amazon jungle. Here are photos from our Gap Adventures trip.

Galapagos:
http://marknicholas.smugmug.com/Personal-Photographs/Travels/Galapagos-2005/916003_WWDT6

Machu Piccu:
http://marknicholas.smugmug.com/Personal-Photographs/Travels/Machu-Picchu-Peru-2005/943099_KH22i

Amazon Jungle:
http://marknicholas.smugmug.com/Personal-Photographs/Travels/Amazon-Peru-2005/943248_jEt6g


----------



## kubelik (Mar 23, 2011)

bluesman, thanks for the info, and the photos!

really enjoyed your photos of machu picchu, my wife and I are dying to go but we just don't have the time in our schedule to do it.


----------



## branden (Mar 23, 2011)

Wow, this is some good information, answers my questions. Thank you guys!


----------



## nounours18200 (Apr 2, 2011)

My main question is : is this version III better (much better ?) than the version II ?? same for the x1.4 TC version III.

I already own the II version, so given the price increase of the version III, I would like to learn more about the optic quality increase (if any) between the two versions !


----------



## kubelik (Apr 2, 2011)

nounours, the answer to that is, that main difference lies in the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. the extenders have also improved a little, but not double-the-price-of-your version II extender. so I'd say save the money to get the new 70-200, rather than shelling out for a new extender right away.


----------



## nounours18200 (Apr 3, 2011)

Thanks kubelink : I share you viewpoint....


----------



## K3nt (Apr 4, 2011)

I have a question. Since I have the 7D and soon the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, would buying a 2x Extender actually give me an effective focal length of 640mm? With the 1.6x crop factor and all? I think so, but I'm inclined to believe the crop effects are not totally linear but I may be wrong. 

Anyone?


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 4, 2011)

K3nt said:


> I have a question. Since I have the 7D and soon the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, would buying a 2x Extender actually give me an effective focal length of 640mm?



Yes, you are correct. 7D with a 2x teleconverter and 200mm lens gives a field of view equivalent to a 640mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. 5D). This combination would likely outresolve the lens, however, resulting in a somewhat softer image at the scale of pixels.


----------



## branden (Apr 4, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Yes, you are correct. 7D with a 2x teleconverter and 200mm lens gives a field of view equivalent to a 640mm lens on a full frame camera (e.g. 5D). This combination would likely outresolve the lens, however, resulting in a somewhat softer image at the scale of pixels.


I think you mean 640mm on a crop frame camera. On a full frame it would only be 400mm. 

The "1.6x crop factor" is linear through all focal lengths.


----------



## kubelik (Apr 4, 2011)

no, epsiloneri is correct. 400mm on an APS-C camera is commonly described as "640mm equivalent", meaning the equivalent of 640mm on a full frame camera. grammatically, it assumes that you are equalizing the sensor sizes and just looking at reach.


----------



## Ulfius (Apr 4, 2011)

Did you try taking identical shots with and without the extender, then cropping down the non-extended shot to the same FOV and comparing? Also compare the cropped shot after scaling up to the same image size?


----------



## K3nt (Apr 5, 2011)

Thanks for the info. I got what I needed..


----------



## branden (Apr 6, 2011)

Whoops, thanks kubelik, I agree with you, I misread epsiloneri's post.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 15, 2011)

Here is some information about the extender that I viewed today. It discusses the changes, and explains that you need to mount the extender to the lens before placing it on the camera to get advantage of the improved communications. We've always been told to do this, and I do, but its interesting to get more info as to why.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/latest_ef_lens.do (go to page 4)

I've pasted it in below.

As a development of Canon's EF Extender Mark II models, the EF1.4x III and EF2x III take the performance of the previous generation of extenders and improve on it in key areas, while tailoring them to suit the requirements of shooting with digital SLR cameras. A new optical design helps to eliminate chromatic aberration, resulting in sharper images that show less colour bleed along high contrast edges. 

Digital cameras have slightly different lens requirements to those of film cameras, so the Mark III Extenders employ different lens coatings to help to reduce the flare and ghosting that can be caused by stray light passing through the lens and either refracting off internal elements, or reflecting back off the sensor in the camera. 

Both extenders also employ Fluorine coating to help to keep the front and rear elements clean, thereby avoiding dust and dirt on the lens that may degrade image quality with flare. 

The handling of the extenders has been modified too â€“ the lens release button is now better placed and easier to use, while being out of the way and less likely to be knocked. 

However, the biggest change is within the electronics of the extenders. Both models feature integrated processors to collate and transfer all the information from the lens back to the camera. This includes data about focal length, focus distance and Image Stabilization. The advantage of this is that the camera can adjust settings like AF Microadjustment (if you are using it) to suit the combination of lens and Extender. It also means the AF performance when using extenders is improved compared to the previous generation of extenders when used with earlier generations of Canon telephoto lenses. 

To achieve the maximum benefits of this new processor, you need to ensure that you attach the lens to the Extender first, and then attach the whole lens and extender combination to the camera. This way the camera will see a combined "Lens + Extender". If you add the extender to the camera first the camera will recognise it, but will then not be able to deduce that a lens has been added to the front of it. 

As with the previous Canon extender models, the lens mounts are dust and drip proof, but in the Mark III Extenders, the lens mount features more screws to provide a stronger and more durable attachment to the camera and lens.


----------



## canonwhore (Jun 15, 2011)

Figured I'd post a few shots - note photos were scaled down.

http://www.panoramio.com/user/54435/tags/Canon%20Extender%20%20EF%202%20III


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jun 15, 2011)

I had the oportunity to test the externders 1.4II and 2.0III together with a 50d and 300 2.8 IS. I tried various test shots and used them in the field fÃ¼r birds, almost always on tripod with a normal head, both middle class.

I worried wether the crop camera with the extenders outresolve the lens. i was mostly interested in the center of the frame where my subject usually is.

my conclusion is the following:

- the camera + extende doesnt outresolve the lens, i get more information with the 2.0III than with the 1.4II and more than with the bare lens, if i watch the same framing in the same size with different relative pixel size. 

- with the 2.0 i have an equivalent FOV of a 960mm f5.6 lens. Even in daylight i needed best conditions like tripod, no wind, mirror pre actuation, 10s timer or cable release to avoid shaked pictures. with stopping down to f8.0 i got no benefit, maybe because of the quality of the lens/extender combination maybe because of the difficulities mentioned above. 

- the 1.4II gives better sharpness when stopped down to f5.6. 

- in critical light situations it is better to use the bare lens and crop the image, as with the bare lens i need 8 times less light to take a picture with the same blur relative to pixel size (4 times because of f5.6 instead of 2.8 and 2 times because of the magnified motion). This happens more frequent than i could imagine.

- on pixel level (all pics reviewed at 100%) the 2.0III seams to be as good as the 1.4II but both little worse than the bare lens. 

- Focus is slower and hunts somtimes, it needs some practis to track mooving subjects

Fazit: i bought the 2.0III and returned the 1.4II and like a lot to have a good 600mm f5.6 combination which is possible to carry, but it needs short shutter times to get better resolution than the bare lens, at given distance to the subject.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jun 17, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> To achieve the maximum benefits of this new processor, you need to ensure that you attach the lens to the Extender first, and then attach the whole lens and extender combination to the camera. This way the camera will see a combined "Lens + Extender". If you add the extender to the camera first the camera will recognise it, but will then not be able to deduce that a lens has been added to the front of it.



Strange, I usually attach the TCs to the camera body first, and then to the lens (with power switched off). I've never noticed any problem with the camera not recognising the TC+lens combination. But then I have the mark II TCs, maybe this is a "feature" of the new mark III's.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 18, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > To achieve the maximum benefits of this new processor, you need to ensure that you attach the lens to the Extender first, and then attach the whole lens and extender combination to the camera. This way the camera will see a combined "Lens + Extender". If you add the extender to the camera first the camera will recognise it, but will then not be able to deduce that a lens has been added to the front of it.
> ...



As long as you have both of them mounted when you power up the camera, it should not matter. Many people never turn off their cameras, so the camera would recognize the adapter when it is mounted, but not the lens when it is mounted later.

I think this is the same for all the adapters.


----------

