Canon Extender EF 1.4X/2.0X III

[jpeskoff]

These are new teleconverters on the Canon website:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/extender_ef_1_4x_iii

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/extender_ef_2x_iii

Apart from press releases, I haven't seen them advertised for actual sale.  Anyone have more information?  How are they different from the II teleconverters?

[Bob Atkins]

I covered them in my recent article on new Canon lenses:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/Canon_EF_L_lenses_fall_2010.html

Expect to see them in late December at a price of $500 each

[klindup]

Does this mean that the existing extenders will no longer be available?
Ken Lindup

[Bob Atkins]

When the new ones are released, the old ones will be discontinued (though they'll be available from a few vendors while stock lasts).

The good news is that you might see a small price drop on the MkII versions, though if the new ones sell initially for $500 each (which is what I expect will happen) the current prices might hold since that are already about $200 cheaper.

I suspect the MkIII versions will not be all that much better, especially with older lenses. You might see a difference if you also buy one of the new 300/2.8 II, 400/2.8 II, 500/4 II or 600/4 II lenses since one of the Canon reps I spoke with said that the new TCs were optimized for the new "L" lenses (though of course I assume that they will still work very well with the older lenses, just as the MkI and MkII TCs do).

When I tested the MkII TCs against the original MkI versions I found the difference to be very small with the lenses I had. Small enough that I didn't bother to upgrade.

If I get a chance I'll certainly be testing the MkIII TCs, assuming I can also get a 300/2.8L IS II to test them on! I suspect that's very unlikely to happen this year, but maybe early next year.

 Canon 1.4x II ($300)
 Canon 2x II ($310)

[jpeskoff]

Thanks Bob. 

[Amadauss]

Hi, new to the site and very impressive.  Decided to go all out and take some great pics of my kids in sports (swimming, golf, baseball) so bought the 50D.  Was ok with the lens that I got for the camera but decided to splurge and get the 70-200 EF IS lens, (rated number one in the pole on the site) and got to tell you the swim pictures I took were fantastic.  Took them all at 15 mb's in raw with an extreme Scandisk card and although it was suggested I use some various settings with manual control, I am not that good just yet, so set the camera in sport mode, the lens in mode 2 with the stablizer on and the pics turned out great for the first meet.  This past week went again to do the pics and because I was at a further distance, I also bought the extender EF 1.4x mentioned in this thread and attached it to get a little closer.  For some reason, using the same settings as the first time, the pics were not as good.  It could have been the location (different pools) but the pics looked to lose some color or were not as sharp.  Of course I put them in photo shop and play with them to get the best results but should I be doing something different when using the extender?  Again they did just not seem to be as sharp in that the water drops could be all seen perfectly with out the extender but not the case with the extender or so it would seem.  Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated.     

[Bob Atkins]

Extenders always lower image quality, the 2x extenders more so than the 1.4x.

It's just a matter of how much they lower quality, and that depends on how good they are, how good the lens is, how well matched the two are and closely you look at the image. The closer you look, the more degradation you will see. However with a good lens and a good extender, you will get higher quality images with the extender than you would by just enlarging the image without the extender.

In general you will lose less quality if you stop the lens down. So if you have an f2.8 lens and add a 1.4x you will end up at f4. However if you stop down to f5.6 with the extender you may see the image quality improve a bit.

When people say (as people do) "I didn't notice any drop in image quality with the 1.4x TC", that's probably true. They didn't notice any, however if they'd looked closer they'd probably have seen it. If they are just making small prints or looking at the whole images on a monitor screen, the quality drop may be undetectable, however if they looked at 20x30" prints or 100% magnification on a monitor, they would probably notice the difference.

In some cases the quality drops from outstanding to just "very good", and in that case the extender is doing it's job well. However if you start off with an image that's just "acceptable" and add a TC you're likely to be disappointed in the results.

There are three other effects of extenders. First they will slow down lens focus. They do this to maintain focus accuracy. Second they make the lens aperture smaller, which may mean slower shutter speeds. Third they (obviously) increase focal length. All these three factors taken together may reduce the probability of getting a razor sharp shot, especially if you are handholding a long focal length lens and photographing a moving subject.

[Amadauss]

Thanks Bob for the response.  Will try your suggestions.  I guess I was just spoiled by the first try with the 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS by itself and how the pics came out even though the lighting situations were much different for both swim matches in that I had much more light for the second match when I used the extender versus the first match without.  When adding the extender to bring things closer, as you said, I saw the difference but a lot of factors weigh in to create this.  So when attaching the extender, what settings should I have on the 70-200mm?  It has a mode 1 and 2 as well as a 1.2 and 2.5 setting on it which I am a little confused with.  In the book for sports it said go with the mode 2. 

Also not wanting to change subjects but if you wanted to get closer to the action and were to buy a new lense to accomplish this, which one would be your choice?