SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3533 times:
Hi guys,
I think this might be of interest. Bryan posted an IQ comparison between the old/new Canon teleconverters. The test lens is the 200mm f2 L IS which is apparently very sharp:
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3497 times:
I was eager to view such a comparison. In the 1.4x comparison, the II actually looks better mid-frame than the III, although generally the III seems to have the edge.
The 2x comparison is much more clear cut. Looks like they really went to town with the III, as it's visibly far better.
Not enough in the 1.4x to justify the cost in my opinion, but the 2x III is impressive to say the least!
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3452 times:
Karl,
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): the II actually looks better mid-frame than the III,
This is what I was seeing too!
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): although generally the III seems to have the edge.
I agree.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): The 2x comparison is much more clear cut. Looks like they really went to town with the III, as it's visibly far better.
Yeah, the new 2x looks awesome. It actually opens up many new possibilities, like maybe getting decent results when mounting it on a f/2.8 zoom / prime.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3422 times:
That does appear to be a significant improvement. However, test conditions are quite different to real world - I wonder how much of this difference will be visible after the effects of atmospheric distortion, dust etc. are factored in?
Using the 2x mk2 with my 500 I suspect more shots are lost due to environmental conditions than lack of quality in the convertor itself. Still, if I could get a decent trade-in on my Mk 2, I think I'd be willing to give it a try. As for the 1.4 - well I don't think there was a lot of scope for improvement in the optical department anyway.
Interestingly, the 200 + 2xmk3 compared to the 100-400 appears to be much better in the corners, though the 100-400 still has the edge in the center. I would love to see the latest 70-200 f4 IS (which is very sharp) with the convertor compared to the 100-400. I could happily live with the f8 aperture if it came close in quality, and just give up on Canon replacing the 100-400.
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3317 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Great comparison, and that was what I was hoping for in the 2x III, it's far cheaper than buying a 100-400 in my case, and lighter in my bag for sure. At least it looks like it's getting closer to the 100-400 IQ. Now I would like see it in use on a 70-200 2.8 IS too
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1340 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
