x 2 or 1.4 converter


mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
6 Jun 2015 4:28PM
On another forum a very experienced bird photographer said that the 1.4x MkIII only really shows its mettle with the MkII super zooms (500/600) so I decided to save some money and bought a second hand MkII tc. I'm happy so far.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
9 Jun 2015 9:19AM
You will get better results, thought necessarily significant better results with an appropriate Canon converter.
On my Nikon my Nikon converters are a little better than Kenko, and the price difference might be significant in the 70-300 f4-5.6 arena.
When you are in the 5000 (or 10,000 with 2 lenses) price range the around 150 price difference for the highest quality converter can be less than 2% of the package price of a lens plus converter.
If you have 5,000-10,000 optics I see little point in diluting image quality to save less than 2% of the lens price.
MGJ 11 372 6
9 Jun 2015 12:37PM
There are a lot of people who would argue that you are better off leaving the converter at home and cropping - depends by how much?). I did some side by side tests using the new 100-400 mk11 L and the latest mk111 1.4 converter, and I think I'd agree with that view, certainly at higher ISOs on full frame. Certainly my plan going to Africa is to leave the extender off unless I really have to fit it.


(Autofocus can always be restored on a canon extender by taping the last 3 pins. AF is slower but works perfectly well with the extender on. Cant remember the link but its easy to find on Google. Wouldn't be necessary on these lenses, but on slower ones restoration can be useful)
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
13 Jun 2015 7:10AM

Quote:There are a lot of people who would argue that you are better off leaving the converter at home and cropping

There are a lot of people who would disagree. Advanced tests on Nikon suggest about 6% loss of resolution on high MP bodies with the Nikon 1.4, though it varies a bit with the lens. Canon results should be similar.
Cropping by the equivalent amount reduces MP by half which is equivalent on average to about 25% resolution reduction.
With modern 24 MP at low ISO's a good starting point is until you get beyond a 24 inch print the lens/body produce enough information to out resolve human vision. To some extent you can crop without loosing obvious resolution.
Where one versus the other gets complicated is when using interpolation (normal with PhotoShop).
The interpolation makes a generally good job at guessing and making good the lost resolution.
It also does this when "over enlarging" in the film sense and when making the converter image bigger than the camera MP limit.
This image I find interesting. The African jackal was a group of 4 "up to something" a quarter of a mile from the vehicle outside their fear circle. I instinctively took a shot. The camera did not focus good but by cropping to about 10% of the image area I got an acceptable picture though not critically sharp using the Nikon 200-400 at 400 and 12 MP.
This illustrates sometimes picture content can be more important than is it critically sharp.
76803_1434174636.jpg

13 Jun 2015 10:25AM
That's an interesting piece of info Len. I sometimes think we get carried away with sharpness. Does it need to be pin sharp when zoomed in on a monitor and you sitting 2 feet away? I know with my eyesight being less than perfect then a print of A3 size viewed from 2 or 3 yards away on a wall could definitely be far less sharp than I think I needed while working on the computer. I think I will go to a local camera shop with my own camera and lens, try the 1.4x extender and the sigma/tamron 150-600 lenses if the shop has them. Take exactly the same shot and see how they compare when printed. If the prints look the same in terms of sharpness then I will probably go for the extender and save some cash as I know autofocus will still work with my 7Dmkii. Your image looks fine to me. I'd be happy getting that sharpness at that range.
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
13 Jun 2015 12:07PM

Quote:That's an interesting piece of info Len. I sometimes think we get carried away with sharpness. Does it need to be pin sharp when zoomed in on a monitor and you sitting 2 feet away? (snipped) I think I will go to a local camera shop with my own camera and lens, try the 1.4x extender and the sigma/tamron 150-600 lenses if the shop has them. Take exactly the same shot (snipped) Your image looks fine to me. I'd be happy getting that sharpness at that range.

I would have liked to have got closer with more MP but for 2010 the quality is OK from a 1.5 MB file. It is fine for projection using a 1024x768 projector but not for a 16x12 print.
I do not know of another image with this action. Lack of critical detail becomes less important with something that seems unique.
The lens you mention is f6.3 at 600mm so AF might not be good or work at all with a 1.4x and effective f9.5.
These 2 images from the same trip are much better though I have sharpened the vultures head in later versions.
Some you win, some you delete and some like the jackal I consider worth keeping despite some quality shortcomings.
76803_1434193451.jpg

76803_1434193482.jpg

13 Jun 2015 2:54PM
Sorry I meant either the 1.4x with the 100-400 mkii canon lens or the sigma/ tamron without the converter. I would get f6.5 with the canon lens and the centre point would still work well.
KevSB 15 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
13 Jun 2015 5:49PM
I have just purchased a Canon 1.4 converter mk3, it wont AF on the 100-400(Original) although canon website says it does, it will AF on 28-300 but I've yet to try the results as the primary role was to extend 100-400 and very little use to extend that when I have the larger lens.
the MK2 100-400 is on my shopping list.
13 Jun 2015 9:19PM
I'm very pleased with the mike so far. I have read that the 7Dmkii will work (af centre point only) with f6.3 but yet to test it out. Will try to get hold of one and report on how it went.
mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2015 8:35PM

Quote:I have just purchased a Canon 1.4 converter mk3, it wont AF on the 100-400(Original)


Which camera body?
It AFs fine on my 7D2 but if it were on my 7D original the tc would tell it not to even try (the Tamron tc works OK if erratically with 100-400 and 7D, both MkI)
14 Jun 2015 8:43PM
Think others have put a bit of tape over the pins and it works. Check earlier posts for which pins.
mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2015 10:14PM

Quote:Think others have put a bit of tape over the pins and it works. Check earlier posts for which pins.



Canon tc you need to tape the pins.
Third party tc these pins do not exist so there is nothign to tape.
fcast 6 10
14 Aug 2015 8:49PM

Quote:Canon tc you need to tape the pins.
Third party tc these pins do not exist so there is nothign to tape.



The Kenko 1.4 pro 300 has the pins, but when i upgraded my camera to a 70d
it would lock up with the Kenko fitted so i have had to buy the canon extender
cheddar-caveman 16 1.1k England
17 Aug 2015 10:10PM
I have just upgraded to the Canon 7D2 and the AF (centre point) works fine with the 100-400 + 1.4X extender at f8.
Quite agree Len that once you're up in the 500mm f4 class, why skimp on a couple of hundred more! Oh how I'd love to be in that position Wink
26 Sep 2015 2:26PM

Quote:
Quote:Canon tc you need to tape the pins.
Third party tc these pins do not exist so there is nothign to tape.



The Kenko 1.4 pro 300 has the pins, but when i upgraded my camera to a 70d
it would lock up with the Kenko fitted so i have had to buy the canon extender



That sounds ominous - I was thinking of getting the Kenco 1.4 pro for my 70D with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Anyone else have experience of this ?


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.