Canon 2x Extender III

[CMT]

Cliffs: I have the Canon 2x Extender II and use it with decent success for outside sports shots and some interior work requiring more reach than afforded by my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I recently picked up the 2x Extender III and was disappointed by my early tests which showed little visible upgrade to image quality on my 5D II.

Thankfully I was impressed with the increased focusing speed of the III. It is faster than the II and does not slowly pull in the focus when asked to go quickly from the 140mm to 400mm range or vice versa. I have only used it on the 5D II so far, and since the problem manifested itself on all of my bodies with the II, I expect a similar focusing speed upgrade on the 1D II as well but have yet to test it.

My initial impressions:

A resounding "eh."

For me the III does not make an appreciable difference over the II to warrant the cost of the upgrade. I understand that this extender is specifically made for the 300mm and up Canon "super telephoto" lenses, so I wasn't expecting a gigantic difference between the two on my 70-200 II, but I have to say that I did expect something - anything - to justify the $200 price disparity between the two.

5D II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 2x Extender II

5D II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 2x Extender III

(.exif info available on the photo)

We'll see how it goes out in the field.

After two days of shooting:

UPDATE: After using the III for multiple events this weekend I have found its one clear strength over the II: Focusing speed. I have experienced times of hunting or slow focus on the II when subjects come into the field of view far outside the current focal plane, and the camera gets confused with the II when asked to quickly adjust over substantial focal difference.

For instance, this weekend while shooting tennis: When I was shooting a far off singles player at 300-400mm, I could quickly draw back and shoot closer players around the 140mm minimum without it pausing, hunting for focus, or slooooowly drawing in the focus automatically.

I experienced this problem with the II regularly, and the upgraded capability of the III was immediately apparent in this regard. It did not feel like the 70-200's focusing ability was impacted at all by the extender - At least not while attached to the 5D II. I have yet to try the extender III on the 1D II.

Is it worth the $200 upgrade? It is if retaining the seemingly instant focusing speed of the lens is important enough to justify the charge. In this regard I can happily say that the 2x Extender III is a definitive upgrade over the II.

Sample shots, all with the 5D II, 70-200 IS II, 2x III combo:

(.exif info available on the files)

Thanks for checking out the thread.

 

[Overread]

Really interesting to read this as canon specifically listed the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 as getting no benefit from the new focusing chip in the MIII teleconverters. However this suggests that in addition to the chip (or as part of its working) regular lenses might well get a boost to AF speed with the MIII over the MII teleconverters. I would be great to see if anyone can use the two on a lens other than the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L MII

 

[gsgary]

I will stick with my Kenko 2x only £69
600mm http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/Image00004/188042218_XuHN3-XL.jpg sparp enough for me and a saving of about £300+

 

[CMT]

Really interesting to read this as canon specifically listed the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 as getting no benefit from the new focusing chip in the MIII teleconverters. However this suggests that in addition to the chip (or as part of its working) regular lenses might well get a boost to AF speed with the MIII over the MII teleconverters. I would be great to see if anyone can use the two on a lens other than the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L MII

Same here. I was hoping for an image quality upgrade, expected nothing from the focusing side, and received the exact opposite. I kept telling myself that it was the placebo effect of desperately trying to justify the III's expense to myself, but in the end I cannot discount what I experienced over two days - The focus is faster for me most noticeably when switching from one end of the zoom range to the other. In two days of shooting I did not once have to recompose the zoom in order to "catch" the sweet spot to get it back in focus, and I did this a lot with the II.

 

[gsgary]

Really interesting to read this as canon specifically listed the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 as getting no benefit from the new focusing chip in the MIII teleconverters. However this suggests that in addition to the chip (or as part of its working) regular lenses might well get a boost to AF speed with the MIII over the MII teleconverters. I would be great to see if anyone can use the two on a lens other than the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L MII

Same here. I was hoping for an image quality upgrade, expected nothing from the focusing side, and received the exact opposite. I kept telling myself that it was the placebo effect of desperately trying to justify the III's expense to myself, but in the end I cannot discount what I experienced over two days - The focus is faster for me most noticeably when switching from one end of the zoom range to the other. In two days of shooting I did not once have to recompose the zoom in order to "catch" the sweet spot to get it back in focus, and I did this a lot with the II.

Have you tried the Kenko Pro ?

 

[Overread]

What I find really surprising is that you're not seeing any edge performance improvement on the 5DM2 or the 5D since its one of things I have read (and I'm sure that site that does all those test shots also showed edge performance improvements form the M2 to M3) was a difference with the 2*TCs.

 

[gsgary]

Stick a prime lens on it, i would never use a 2X on a zoom even if it was a 70-200mk2

 

[CMT]

Have you tried the Kenko Pro ?

I have not.

What I find really surprising is that you're not seeing any edge performance improvement on the 5DM2 or the 5D since its one of things I have read (and I'm sure that site that does all those test shots also showed edge performance improvements form the M2 to M3) was a difference with the 2*TCs.

If it's there it's not enough for me to remark upon it, or perhaps I am not demanding nor critical enough to appreciate the difference which is likely the case.

Stick a prime lens on it, i would never use a 2X on a zoom even if it was a 70-200mk2

No budget for primes, I have a watch/audio/car collection to feed as well and am quite happy foodstamping it as-is.

 

[Overread]

Stick a prime lens on it, i would never use a 2X on a zoom even if it was a 70-200mk2

Ever had the chance to try the M2? I've known some to be debating between it and a 1.4TC against the 300mm f4!

 

[gsgary]

Stick a prime lens on it, i would never use a 2X on a zoom even if it was a 70-200mk2

Ever had the chance to try the M2? I've known some to be debating between it and a 1.4TC against the 300mm f4!

No overpriced, and i would go with the 300F4 and 1.4x used to have one but the non IS which is sharper than the IS model

 

[Overread]

Aye I can't argue against it being very highly priced!
And yes for pure reach the primes are the best option - but when you want reach and a 70-200mm in the bag its a great choice to consider (even with it being all overpriced).

That said have you seen the price on the 300mm f2.8 IS L M2 - its more than a 500mm f4!

 

[gsgary]

Aye I can't argue against it being very highly priced!
And yes for pure reach the primes are the best option - but when you want reach and a 70-200mm in the bag its a great choice to consider (even with it being all overpriced).

That said have you seen the price on the 300mm f2.8 IS L M2 - its more than a 500mm f4!

Yes it's a joke twice the price of the mk1, i'll stick with mine because i cant see it being that much sharper and faster focusing because i don't miss much