Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting, sounds like your 1.4X is defective.
I use the 2X MIII with my 100-400 MII and there is no discernable difference in IQ.
The 100-400 MII is absolutely matched to the MIII converters.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I don’t think you're going to get enough added reach for what you’re trying to do. I bought a 1.4 extender for my Nikon, used it a couple of times, wasn’t satisfied, and wound up getting a much longer lens.

jwest Loc: South Dakota

The 100-400 is a better option. You won’t get much result with the 1.4. Consider a crop sensor body. That will give give the effect of 112-320 without magnifying the lens distortions. Much better than a 1.4 extender and cheaper than a 100-400 lens. Plus you have a back up body.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

It all depends on how close you can get or how much you want to crop. I have a 100-400 LL with the 1.4 and It just about meets my needs but I have a full frame and get 640mm. If you on a crop sensor the 200 with the extender may do the job. Rent one and see how it fares. The III is $400+ new.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

What body are you using and what is the AF limit? If you get AF to F/8 you should be able to use a 2x with little problem. A 1.4 with no problem at all.



The version II extenders work fine with the 70-200 USM (the older heavier model) and there is little advantage to the III with that lens. However, all of the newer ones get better results with the newer extenders.

I switched from a 150-600 to a 70-200 with a 2x extender. I was finding a nearly never went past 400mm anyway and my 80D has AF to f/8.

JeffinMass Loc: MA

Yes. I use the 1.4xIII 99% of the time with my 100-400 lens. Any of the negatives that may or may not exist are not important now the LR and PS exist.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I agree. I use the Canon 1.4x with my Canon 100-400L, and the results are excellent. I would also mention that Canon’s own MTF charts show only about a 5% degradation in sharpness on the 100-400 MKII L when used with their 1.4x MKIII extender. BTW, the MKII and MKIII versions of the extender are noticably better than the MKI in my experience.

cmaxi

Definitely worth it. My experience is with a 70-200L f/4 and 7D Mark II. It is a relatively portable and very versatile combination. Don't get hung up on IQ issues - it is plenty sharp. You will get great photos with the proper technique. Bought my 1.4 Mark II used from Adorama for $99.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hey OllieFCR, although not exactly the 560mm config you've requested, here a few recent posts that work with the 2x extender and L-series prime lenses

w/ 500 for 1000mm - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-558743-1.html
w/ 300 for 600mm - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-559412-1.html

I've drafted a post with the 1.4x III and both versions of the 100-400L, and the collected images specifically at the max 560mm, but I don't want to dump all these posts at once and get lost in the photo gallery. In the mean time, I'll reference to two airshow posts from the summer with extender examples.

various focal lengths all 100-400L II and 1.4x - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-554685-1.html
various focal lengths with 1.4x, either 100-400L or 300L - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-547578-1.html

Looking at hundreds of my own images with different lenses, with and without either of the two extenders, I have my own generalizations based on Series III extenders, Series II lenses and a 2012-vintage EOS 5DIII and a 2000 vintage EOS 1v:

Usage:

a) Single shot AF responsiveness is slowed, particularly for a combination that results in f/8. Use AI servo so the camera is always focusing rather than kicking-in from a dead stop.

b) As recommended by Canon, mount the extender first to the lens and then mount the lens / extender to the camera body.

c) If your camera supports focus tuning, perform this step for the extended configuration. Don't shoot wide open otherwise, add at least 1-stop.

d) Shoot in the brightest light to assist your camera's AF, particularly when using a 'slow' f/8 configuration.

Image quality:

e) Where good technique is used and you don't need to crop into the details, images with the same lens with or without the 1.4x are immaterial in the differences. For example, an image filling the frame at 300mm compared to an image filling the frame at an extended 420mm with an 1.4x will / should not differ in a material way.

f) Comparing images at the same focal length from an extended lens against a lens with no extender, the images will vary more due the aperture and overall lens quality than issues related to the extender, but the lens without the extender will tend to win head to head. Images extended via the 1.4x will tend to be immaterial in the differences, but they are different, if you know which is which and you're looking for differences, more so in chart testing than actual use.

g) The differences between a doubled lens (using 2x) compared to an image from a lens at the same focal length are real and obvious, but it isn't just the 2x use when you're comparing images produced by lenses like Canon's 300 f/2.8L, 400 f/2.8L, 500 f/4L and 600 f/4L. If a 2x could create images as compared to these $,$$$ and $$,$$$ priced prime lenses, extenders would cost thousands of dollars rather than hundreds. When a super telephoto lens is not available / not an option, the photographer's technique will determine the quality and usefulness of images captured using a 2x III.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Yes and the Canon 1.4 does work, fit, with the 70-200mm F/2.8 and I'm using it from the car a lot with very good results. I shoot off a bean bag too!

RRS Loc: Not sure

I use both the 1.4 and 2X with that lens and even with the 2X it's still faster then the 100-400mm at 400mm. The 100-400mm lens is very sharp from what I have seen but I only had to spend almost $500.00 and not $1,900.00 for 400mm. I have the 300mm f/2.8 and other long lenses but for in the car with the ability to zoom 400mm can be too close at times.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

And if you’re one of those blanket non-believers in extenders, take a look at the shots in this concurrent thread by Paul: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=9502484&t=559412

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

All the Canon EF 1.4X Extenders fit and work with all the Canon EF 70-200L lenses.

With a 1.4X you'll lose a stop of light (an f/2.8 lens will become an f/4... or an f/4 lens will become an f/5.6).

Depending upon the version of lens and teleconverter, image quality may be effected. For example, I find the original 70-200 f/2.8L "IS" marginally usable with the 1.4X "II". There's some loss of IQ, though it's still reasonably good. I just don't use the combo because I don't need it... I have several 300mm, 100-400mm and 500mm lenses. I've used the 1.4X II frequently on the primes, where it has virtually no impact on image quality.

And I don't know from personal experience, but from all I've heard, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS "II" works great with the 1.4X "III".

In all honesty, a 1.4X on 70-200mm only gets you to 280mm. That's pretty short focal length when trying to photograph birds!

If using a crop sensor camera, you might want to consider a 300mm or 400mm lens instead, and possibly a 1.4X with those. (If using a full frame camera, start looking at lenses up to 600mm.0

Canon's 100-400 "II" is superb, too. It's said to work well with 1.4X too. (I should test it, but have just never had need to use the teleconverter on my 100-400.)

Or, if you are looking at a brand new Canon EF 1.4X III, those cost around $425. That's about halfway to the purchase price of a Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm (personally I'd prefer the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring... the Sigma can't).

There are also Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm... a couple versions of each.

Canon 1.4X II & Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens (full frame 5D Mark II)...



Same lens & TC combo on a crop sensor 7D...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It depends are what your needs are. If you need to shoot indoors, no one with a 70-200 f/2.8 should consider giving up this lens and replacing with a 100-400. Doubling the lens to 400mm is a viable option that leverages the tools available. But, when you take indoors / low-light off the table and start talking about wildlife and general photography, the 100-400 is a more useful lens, with of course, a cost. There are a wide spectrum of options that range from the newest high resolution bodies to super telephoto primes that can be mixed and matched to address individual's needs.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I ABSOLUTELY agree with all of the above quote from CHG_Canon !! - EVERYONE should read all of this very carefully and apply !

"Comparing images at the same focal length from an extended lens against a lens with no extender, the images will vary more due the aperture and overall lens quality than issues related to the extender, but the lens without the extender will tend to win head to head." .....- and this will happen ONLY when your technique is maximized !


FWIW, I did a test of several lenses with and without the ver. I and II extenders and the 80D body - I will try to post this by tonight.

..