ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5321 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, 1401 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 5216 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
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1