Just purchased the Canon 2x Extender III (Page 2): :sm24: :sm24:...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

catchlight.. wrote:

I tried one for a few days and compared results with cropping with the same combination...

The crop images were sharper after comparing at least 100 shots.

I saw little value after considering the light loss...

Don't want to rain on the parade.... I hoped for better results but that's what I found.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Tracy B. wrote:

I also did tests comparing crop shots with extender shots. I didn't see much of any difference. Maybe it's just my skill. Lol!

Maybe not as picky!

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Tracy B. wrote:

Here is the combination : 5D Mark IV, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II, Canon 2X Extender III. I am really impressed with the results. I tested it yesterday with great results. I really only need the extra reach for my Grandson's Sports, and wildlife while on vacation. I didn't want to spend the money on a100-400mm lens when I wouldn't be using it that often. On the 5D Mark IV, all 61 focus points can be used. My largest aperture is f/5.6. I'm a happy camper.

I went for the 1.4X !!! on my 100-400MM II - yousa! :)

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

catchlight.. wrote:

Maybe not as picky!

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

I have exactly the same set-up. Have not used it too much, but it seems to do the job.

Bill

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Denise Ippolito uses that lens/converter combination with excellent results. She is a damed good photographer. If she can use it successfully, you know the optics are there. Its a matter of practice. Look forward to seeing some of the results.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Tracy B. wrote:

Tracy, having seen some of your work I must say you do not seem to be picky. You have talent and know quality when you see it. I would not call that being "picky", I would call that as having "taste". To quote Jack Nickolson, "That ain't all bad". Keep up your good shooting, we enjoy it when you share. Thanx. BTB, Canon claims the version III has better electronics than does v. II. They also claim there optics are the same. V. III offers better lens control.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Billbobboy42 wrote:

I have the previous model of the 2X extender (II?) but have never got around to using it. Is the III version significantly improved?

I did not have the II but I was told it was and the new II version lenses are actually designed to match it to eliminate image degradation. I use it with the 100-400MII vs with the 100-400 MI and I definitely see the difference in quality. If I focus well you can't tell.

agambrell

For those interested in using teleconverters Arthur Morris provides some insights. Here's a presentation he did at B&H. It takes him a few minutes to get into his presentation, but I've found sitting through it to be worth my time. I have gotten some very good shots with a 70-200mm and a 2x converter following Artie's suggestions.

Using Teleconverters with Telephoto Lenses with Arthur Morris - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNM3nx-LQOA

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

davidrb wrote:

Tracy, having seen some of your work I must say yo... (show quote)

Thank you so much davidrb.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

agambrell wrote:

For those interested in using teleconverters Arthur Morris provides some insights. Here's a presentation he did at B&H. It takes him a few minutes to get into his presentation, but I've found sitting through it to be worth my time. I have gotten some very good shots with a 70-200mm and a 2x converter following Artie's suggestions.

Using Teleconverters with Telephoto Lenses with Arthur Morris - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNM3nx-LQOA

Thank you for posting the link. I will definitely watch it!

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Nalu wrote:

Denise Ippolito uses that lens/converter combination with excellent results. She is a damed good photographer. If she can use it successfully, you know the optics are there. Its a matter of practice. Look forward to seeing some of the results.

I am sure that is very true but...

The bulk of information says there is a loss of IQ, and in many cases a crop image can be better depending on the lens. Ultimately you have to make a decision if that is acceptable for you. Your F stop, sharpness or focus speed will not be the same no mater what is said.

Candy coloring a compromise in light and sharpness as insignificant could be a feel good thing to substantiate an expensive purchase...

I think that money going towards a used longer lens would be a better choice unless you have reasons to reduce travel bulk or other economic concerns.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

catchlight.. wrote:

I am sure that is very true but... br br The bulk... (show quote)

Tony Northrup did a video once compairing the 100-400 and the 70-200 with the teleconverter. He said he thoughr the 70-200 w/tc was sharper. He even said he was going to sell his 100-400 lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tracy B. wrote:

Tony Northrup did a video once compairing the 100-400 and the 70-200 with the teleconverter. He said he thoughr the 70-200 w/tc was sharper. He even said he was going to sell his 100-400 lens.

The MTF charts play out how good these combinations are.
They beat many other brands without TC's as well.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Architect1776 wrote:

The MTF charts play out how good these combinations are.
They beat many other brands without TC's as well.

Stir the pot here; Would you expect anything else from Canon? Happy Saturday!!!!!!!!!!