Canon 2.0TC Mk11 vs Mk111 (1 Viewer)

Roy C · Apr 13, 2013

johnf3f said:
Could be the case, though the camera registered the fact that it couldn't go more open than F11 so it knew something was there? Yes I noticed the rear element on the 2 x Mk3 is further back preventing stacking.

John, if you really wanted to stack converters with the 2x Mk3 then you can put a short extension tube between the tc's - it probably effects the maximum distance you could AF but with that combo you do not want to be shooting at big distances if you wanted any kind if decent IQ.

johnf3f · Apr 13, 2013

Roy C said:
John, if you really wanted to stack converters with the 2x Mk3 then you can put a short extension tube between the tc's - it probably effects the maximum distance you could AF but with that combo you do not want to be shooting at big distances if you wanted any kind if decent IQ.

I am not that concerned because as you say the results will be poor. though the 800 F5.6 takes reasonably decent images with the 2 x Mk3 at shorter distances. When I referred to Pros I was thinking more about Photojournalists where the shot/subject is ALL important and the quality is not too important, also a single image can sell for thousands (hundreds of thousands?).
When I buy a pro camera and L lenses I expect it to work to the full extent of it's capabilities and not to be limited unnecessarily. Certainly Canon should advise against the use of 2 x extenders on F5.6 lenses but why prevent it?
They are not going to change things for me, it just seem unnecessary.

Roy C · Apr 14, 2013

johnf3f said:
I am not that concerned because as you say the results will be poor. though the 800 F5.6 takes reasonably decent images with the 2 x Mk3 at shorter distances. When I referred to Pros I was thinking more about Photojournalists where the shot/subject is ALL important and the quality is not too important, also a single image can sell for thousands (hundreds of thousands?).
When I buy a pro camera and L lenses I expect it to work to the full extent of it's capabilities and not to be limited unnecessarily. Certainly Canon should advise against the use of 2 x extenders on F5.6 lenses but why prevent it?
They are not going to change things for me, it just seem unnecessary.

Have you tried stacked 1.4x tc's (say 1 canon and 1 Kenko pro) with the 800/5.6 ? I suspect that it will AF just as good as a 2x as the camera will only see one of the converters and the loss of light is 2 stops just the same - I know a lot of folks use this set-up with the the 300/4 on a non 1 series body and it AF's OK.
BTW I did several test with the 300/2.8 + 2x tc v stacked 1.4x tc's and there was very little in it as far as IQ goes, although I did not really test the speed many folks also say that stacked 1.4x AF's is faster that a single 2x !!!

Rightly or wrongly I suspect that Canon limit the AF at f5.6 and f8 (depending on the body) because that's where they think it should be for reasonably good/consistent auto focus. Sure they could just do away with the limit altogether but then people will be using all sorts of lens,tc combos and start complaining when AF becomes crap. Although the more knowledgeable will know the limitations a lot of folks will not understand it and before long Canon AF will get a bad name and they will be switching to another brand.

Like I have already mentioned you can always use live view AF (I have used it right up to f16). With live view AF you obviously need good contrast and and it can be slow compared to phase AF but results can be very accurate,some say even better than normal AF at times. AF time with live view can be speeded up significantly if you manual focus very roughly before letting the AF finish the job.

BTW I shoot my birding set-up with manual focussing all the time these days and it does not bother me a jot (and I am a OAP who eyesight has seen better days lol). In fact I sometimes think that I nail more shots with manual AF than I ever did with AF but of course it is not much good with flyers.

Dave Williams · Apr 14, 2013

Nikon just state that AF isn't possible so therefore you are delighted when you find out they will even if the performance is poor in comparison to other Nikon "approved" combinations .
I don't see why Canon don't do the same then there can be no comeback !

postcardcv · Apr 14, 2013

I have just been testing the mkIII 2x tc against the mkII and my initail impression is that shooting with a mkI 300 f2.8 and a 7D there really is very little to choose between them. I did some casual shooting of some garden birds but couldn't shoot the same subject with both so set up a really dull test shot. I taped a £5 note to my door and shot it and relatively close distance. I shot both 2x tcs and also with stacked 1.4x (a Canon mkII and a Kenko pro 300) at a series of apertures. All the options improved when stopped down a bit but the difference in quality wide open at f5.6 was interesting (similar difference where seen at various f stops). Attached is a 100% crop from each set up (I took a few shots with each planning to choose the sharpest but in each case all were of a very similar standard). Attached are the three samples, I haven't labled them so would be interested to see which people think is which (no peaking at the exif)!

Full size files are on flickr if anyone wants to see them - http://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157633240341249/ for each of the options there are shots at f5.6, f6.3 and f8.

robinsslee · Apr 14, 2013

Hi Peter,

Let me guess first,

1. 2xII
2. 1.4x stacked
3. 2xIII

R

postcardcv said:
I have just been testing the mkIII 2x tc against the mkII and my initail impression is that shooting with a mkI 300 f2.8 and a 7D there really is very little to choose between them. I did some casual shooting of some garden birds but couldn't shoot the same subject with both so set up a really dull test shot. I taped a £5 note to my door and shot it and relatively close distance. I shot both 2x tcs and also with stacked 1.4x (a Canon mkII and a Kenko pro 300) at a series of apertures. All the options improved when stopped down a bit but the difference in quality wide open at f5.6 was interesting (similar difference where seen at various f stops). Attached is a 100% crop from each set up (I took a few shots with each planning to choose the sharpest but in each case all were of a very similar standard). Attached are the three samples, I haven't labled them so would be interested to see which people think is which (no peaking at the exif)!

Malcolm Stewart · Apr 14, 2013

I'll bite!
#3, on the extreme right seems sharper to me, but I've no idea what combo you used. (I did mean "sharper" as I can't tell the difference between #1 & #2 for sharpness.)

I've tried a few of these tests myself, and they really are difficult to do in a repeatable and meaningful way. I now tend to rely on a more statistical approach, and have taken 000s of shots of runners approaching me and long lens on a 1D Mk III, or latterly a Mk IV. Birds are something else!

Brian Dunning · Apr 14, 2013

To my eyes the image at the right hand side reveals the most detail.

I use a 1.4 Mk II with my EF300 f4 and reviews of the Mk III compared to the Mk II lead me to believe that there is no material gain in the upgrade.

Dave Williams · Apr 14, 2013

No 3 is slightly better than No1 but not a lot in it, just a shade brighter. No2 is slightly softer but again, not a lot in it.
I would guess No1 is Mk11, No3 Mk111 ?

Dave Williams · Apr 14, 2013

One from today with the MK11 attached. I think I'll stick with the one I have rather than buy a Mk111

johnf3f · Apr 14, 2013

Dave Williams said:
Nikon just state that AF isn't possible so therefore you are delighted when you find out they will even if the performance is poor in comparison to other Nikon "approved" combinations .
I don't see why Canon don't do the same then there can be no comeback !

A much more sensible approach and nobody is disappointed!

Roy C · Apr 15, 2013

postcardcv said:
I have just been testing the mkIII 2x tc against the mkII and my initail impression is that shooting with a mkI 300 f2.8 and a 7D there really is very little to choose between them. I did some casual shooting of some garden birds but couldn't shoot the same subject with both so set up a really dull test shot. I taped a £5 note to my door and shot it and relatively close distance. I shot both 2x tcs and also with stacked 1.4x (a Canon mkII and a Kenko pro 300) at a series of apertures. All the options improved when stopped down a bit but the difference in quality wide open at f5.6 was interesting (similar difference where seen at various f stops). Attached is a 100% crop from each set up (I took a few shots with each planning to choose the sharpest but in each case all were of a very similar standard). Attached are the three samples, I haven't labled them so would be interested to see which people think is which (no peaking at the exif)!

Full size files are on flickr if anyone wants to see them - http://www.flickr.com/photos/37669825@N04/sets/72157633240341249/ for each of the options there are shots at f5.6, f6.3 and f8.

A nice test Peter - in order of IQ I would go for #3 then #1 then #2 although there is not a lot between #1 and #3 IMHO.

Hard to tell which combo's but I would guess #3 is the MkIII although if that is so I am surprised at the difference between the MkII and the stacked 1.4's as I found the stacked combo to be just as good when I did the test.
If I still had the 300/2.8 MkI I am not sure that I would bother upgrading to a MKIII 2x BUT if I got the 300/2.8 MkII then I would most certainly get the 2x tc MkIII for it.

Dave Williams · Apr 19, 2013

What happened to the results and were we all right !?

postcardcv · Apr 19, 2013

Dave Williams said:
What happened to the results and were we all right !?

opps, getting forgetful in my old age...

first one was the mkII, second the mkIII and finally the stacked 1.4x's - I was surprised by the results especially how good the results were with two 1.4x tcs. I have been using the mkIII 2x a bit since and suspect the AF might be a bit faster than with the mkII but can't say for sure. The results with it on a couple of lenses have been better than this test suggested they would be (I probably stuff something up when testing). I reckon in real world shooting there is very little between the 2x on mkI lenses, if I had mkII lenses I think it would be a different matter. As is I am tempted to sell the mkIII and stick with the mkII.

Malcolm Stewart · Apr 19, 2013

Thanks for the answers!
Do they suggest that a 2x extender would give better results if made a little longer in the body? - as I'm sure a pair of stacked 1.4x must be.

Dave Williams · Apr 19, 2013

That result is a surprise. Seems we have been wrong about the more glass the less sharp the image.
Interesting one for sure.

Roy C · Apr 19, 2013

postcardcv said:
first one was the mkII, second the mkIII and finally the stacked 1.4x's - I was surprised by the results especially how good the results were with two 1.4x tcs.

I was not surprised at the performance of stacked 1.4x as I pointed out before hand in post #23. I done several test a few years ago with stacked 1.4x v MkII 2x and the stacked combo was every bit as good. For a lot of folk stacked 1.4x is a big bonus to retain AF where you could not get it with a 2x (e.g. on a f4 lens and a 1.6 cropper OR f5.6 lens on a ID3/4, 5D or one series).
Did you notice any difference in the AF speed with stacked 1.4x v MkII 2x Peter ? many folks report that the stacked combo is faster.

Roy C · Apr 19, 2013

Dave Williams said:
That result is a surprise. Seems we have been wrong about the more glass the less sharp the image.
Interesting one for sure.

Not everyone Dave - see my post #23 before Peter's test images. (although I suspect no one believed me LOL)

postcardcv · Apr 19, 2013

Roy C said:
I was not surprised at the performance of stacked 1.4x as I pointed out before hand in post #23. I done several test a few years ago with stacked 1.4x v MkII 2x and the stacked combo was every bit as good. For a lot of folk stacked 1.4x is a big bonus to retain AF where you could not get it with a 2x (e.g. on a f4 lens and a 1.6 cropper OR f5.6 lens on a ID3/4, 5D or one series).
Did you notice any difference in the AF speed with stacked 1.4x v MkII 2x Peter ? many folks report that the stacked combo is faster.

To be honest Roy it was such a staged test that AF speed didn't really notice at all, though I can confirm that stacked 1.4x didn't hunt for focus but locked on first time. I will have to actually get out and do some real world testing.

Dave Williams · Jun 28, 2013

I had a little play with my 2.0xTC Mk11 on the 5D111 last night having not got around to testing it despite the long awaited firmware fix being available for some time. In poor light conditions I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome,I think more a benefit of the 5D and it's low light capability than the performance of the 2.0 TC.
The uncropped images were acceptable but they are not suitable for much cropping and I wonder if the image would have been just as satisfactory using a 1.4TC and then cropping.
I met up with BF member Johnf3f a while back who kindly let me try the Mk111 version he has but despite having a tour of Anglesey we couldn't find anything to photograph !

A more complete description of the test and the photo's are here to view

http://www.bringnaturetolife.co.uk/land_now/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=746&p=4795#p4795

Canon 2.0TC Mk11 vs Mk111 (1 Viewer)

Occasional bird snapper

johnf3f

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

johnf3f

Occasional bird snapper

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Occasional bird snapper

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread