There has been a lot of talk among wildlife shooters about the new III series teleconverters from Canon. Perhaps the most important stated advantages are improved auto-focus and image quality. My friends Doug Brown and Keith Bauer had a chance to do some test shots the other day to compare the image quality between the older series II converters and the new series III converters. Thanks to their images and an online collaboration, we’ve been able to produce this review for my blog.
My thanks to Doug and Keith for doing all of the work in taking the test images. Please visit their websites to see some of their great nature photography. In addition to being great nature photographers, Doug and Keith are excellent workshop instructors and super nice guys to boot. They are both based in New Mexico so if you are looking for a workshop when you visit Bosque del Apache, be sure to contact them.
If you liked this review and are in the market for new photo gear, please consider making your purchases at B and H Photo Video through the links below, the B and H logo at the bottom of this page, or through any of the links on my Rainforest Photography Gear Guide page. You pay the same, and I get a little something to buy food for the kids, the tanagers, and the hummingbirds 
Canon 1D Mark IV DSLR camera body
Canon 580 EX II Speedlite flash
Canon EF 1.4x II teleconverter, the old one
Canon EF 1.4x III teleconverter, the new one
Canon EF 2x II teleconverter, the old one
Canon Ef 2x III teleconverter, the new one
All images were shot with the Canon Mark IV camera body, the Canon 500 mm f4 L IS lens, Canon 580 EX II Speedlite flash, mirror lockup, and a Gitzo tripod with the Wimberley gimbal head. Images were shot in RAW, imported into Lightroom 3, and then output to PNG files via screen capture (the Mac’s screen capture utility apparently defaults to PNG for the output file format). Upon receiving the files, I renamed them for organizational purposes and output 100% quality jpegs to post here. No post-processing or sharpening has been applied, and all of the images represent 200% crops from the center of the image. Auto-focus was used and double-checked with Live View. The same focus point was used for all of the comparison images.
We don’t want to get into long arguments over the merits of different testing methodologies but simply wanted to share the results and our interpretation of them. Though I do have a sales commission affiliation with B and H through this blog, we really don’t have any stake in saying the new TCs are good or bad. Indeed, you’ll notice that we are very objective in our interpretations.
Clicking on the images below will open a new window displaying a larger version of the image so that you can make your own decisions.
At the widest available aperture with the 500 mm f4 L IS lens, we don’t find any major differences. If anything, while the new version appears a bit more contrasty, the previous version appears to be a bit sharper.
Again here, no major differences are apparent. When closing the aperture one stop from wide open, the new 1.4x converter doesn’t seem to offer much if any advantage over the Series II version. I think that the previous version of the 1.4x still looks slightly cripser here, while Doug thinks the new version offers a slight improvement in sharpness and contrast. Despite these opinions, these are really minor observations, and we’re all in agreement that there is no major difference here.
Comparing the new 1.4x at different apertures does show a difference. The new converter clearly shows an improvement in contrast and sharpness when stopping down from wide open, as would be expected.
Here things start to get interesting. The new 2x clearly shows improved contrast and sharpness over the older version, even wide open.
This is the most striking comparison image. The new 2x TC improves remarkably when stopping down one stop from wide open. The difference in sharpness and contrast between the two aperture settings is huge!
So, what to make of the test images presented here? To our eyes, it’s clear that the new 2x TC offers a substantial advantage over the older version in terms of image quality when used with the current generation of telephoto lenses (we’ll have to assume that the TC performance with the 500 mm f4 is representative of how the TC will behave with the other current super teles). The contrast and sharpness are notably improved. Stopping down a bit will really let the new 2x TC shine. Even if you do not plan to upgrade to one of the new super teles when they come out, the new series III 2x TC looks like it will be worth the extra money if you need critical sharpness in your images.
The new 1.4x TC, on the other hand, seems to offer image quality very similar to that of the current version when used with the current generation of Canon super telephoto lenses. Based on image quality alone then, we would question whether the new 1.4 TC is worth the extra $200 or so if intended to be used with one of the current super teles.
It remains to be seen, of course, how the new teleconverters will behave with the new generation of super telephoto lenses that are on the horizon. Since the new teleconverters were designed in conjunction with the new super teles, Canon claims that the new TCs will really come into their own with these new lenses. Indeed, Canon’s Chuck Westfall wrote that the "Extenders EF 1.4X III and EF 2X III have been newly developed in conjunction with the new Series II Image Stabilizer EF super-telephoto lenses. They can also be used with all previously announced extender-compatible EF lenses, but maximum performance is achieved when they are used with the new 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses." If Canon wants to send us new 300 mm, 400 mm, 500 mm, and 600 mm lenses, we will be happy to conduct a thorough test though it would be necessary for us to keep the lenses to ensure that the test results remain constant over time
This review also does not touch on the autofocus capabilities of the new teleconverters (again, reported to be maximized with the new super tele lenses), so that is an issue for another day.
Stay tuned for a real world evaluation of the new teleconverters. Doug and I will be testing them out in the field during our tropical bird photography workshop here in Costa Rica with the current versions of the Canon 500 mm f4 and 300 mm f2.8 super telephotos at the end of this month. We’ll report our impressions here at the end of February. We also will be adding some test shots and impressions of the corner sharpness of the Series III TCs on full-frame sensor bodies.
Cheers,
Greg
great blog templates for photographers
the best software to drive your portfolio
All content © 2013 by Deep Green Photography
site hosted by DOTEASY, a great service!
Thanks Greg! I have the 2X II TC and have always been frustrated with image quality. It works well when there is a lot of light available, but images are often too soft for me. Now looks like I will have a reason to upgrade!
I also need a camera with more pixels. I have Canon’s 5D which is great, but only 12 MP which limits my ability to make large size photos when I need to crop to a small bird. I read in DP Review that the 5D Mark II isn’t a good wildlife camera because of slow auto focus and fps. Any opinion/thoughts on this, and what you would recommend, would be greatly appreciated.
T
Hi, Terry. Thanks very much for stopping by. I do think the new 2x is worth it for the sharpness advantage. I’ll have my hands on one in a couple of weeks, so I’m excited to try it out with my 300 2.8 to see how things go.
Regarding a new camera, well, you know my preference is not for cropping but if that’s what you need, the 5DII is definitely fantastic. That said, it, like your 5D, is not a wildlife camera.
If you are shooting in pretty good light most of the time, then I would recommend the 7D. With its smaller sensor, your long lens effectively becomes longer, meaning you won’t have to crop as much. And with 18+ MP, it also gives you plenty of resolution. I don’t have a 7D because I shoot in low light almost all the time here in the rainforest, and the 7D’s high ISO performance is not its strength. But up to 400, it’s great and really has some fantastic features for wildlife shooting.
If you get a 7D and can hang on to your 5D for shooting landscapes and studio and when you need higher ISOs, that would be a great combo.
Cheers,
Greg
Thanks Greg for your always valued advice. I’m considering jumping ship to Nikon unless Canon improves their ISO performance.
T
Hi Greg,
just a hint: try to get a (good) copy of the Kenko 1,4x DGX MC7 TC! It’s slightly better than the Canons, tested out on several cameras and also good lenses like the 300 2.8 IS. There’s not so much difference, but more than between the old and new Canons. Also on a 5D2 this one is better.
It’s a pitty, Canon wants to see such a increased price, but on the other hand the same with the new lenses.
7D: You’re not right, the 7D is really good on high.iso-caps, but you have to use Adobe’s ACR or Lightroom. Time after time I realised this important workaround and failed in love with my 7D. Before, with xxDs, DPP wasn’t a problem, but now I have to use ACR.
Greetings from Germany
Maik
Just forgotten (you may include into my post).
Thanks for your review and posting the comparison!
Hi, Maik. Thanks very much for dropping by. I would be interested to check out the Kenko TCs. I can’t promise a review but if I ever get my hands on one, I will be sure to do some test shots.
Regarding the 7D and high ISOs, I agree that they’ve done pretty well in terms of controlling noise while increasing the megapixel count on a 1/6x sensor. But I’m talking about being able to use ISO 3200 and 6400 with confidence for magazine publication quality results. In that regard, the full-frame sensors are in another class altogether with the Nikon D3s leading the pack at the moment. Everyone’s photographic needs are different so if you need seriously high ISOs on a regular basis, the 7D would not be your camera body of choice. That said, it’s a great body and does lots of things very well. It’s all about prioritizing your specific needs and choosing the equipment that best addresses those needs.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg,
First of all thanks for the new TC test. I hope to see soon more field test with Doug in Costa Rica
I’ve a 7D with 300 2.8 IS as main wildlife equipment. I’m really satisfied about the Combo even with the old TC II 1.4x
I’m not plenty satisfied about the above combo with the TC II 2x, that ofter result in poorly contrast and sharpness image, even if stopped down.
Do you think, in your direct experience, that the new TCIII 2x could perform better stacked on a 300 2.8 IS, even on a high density camera like the 7D? Will worth the price difference?
I’ve planned a wildlife tour on the Scottish Island of May, Bass Rock, Farne, probably in a lot of situation there will be enough a 300mm but here in Italy and in other circumstances an useful 600 5.6 (300×2) will be really useful, do you think I’ve to go for the new TCIII before my trip in Scotland? Do you think that the 300+2x will be useful even at TA (5.6).
P.s. Sorry for my awful english
(I’m from Italy)
Hi, Daniele. Thanks very much for your note, and your English is great — much better than my Italian! I shoot with the 300 and 2x but on a full-frame body (5D), so I can’t speak directly to the 7D. But, after the controlled test above and after using the new 2x for a few days last month, I do feel that it is a definite improvement over the older version in terms of sharpness, both wide open and stopped down. If you are thinking about upgrading your TC anyway, I would indeed recommend doing so before your Scotland trip.
By the way, I felt that autofocus with the new 2x seemed to be slightly faster with the 300 on the 5D, but that is more of an anecdotal impression.
Cheers,
Greg
PS — Do you know Bruno di Faveri from Italy? He’s a friend of mine — great photographer too!
[...] [...]
[...] post comparing the image quality of the Canon 2x Series II TC and the new Canon 2x Series III TC (if not, check here), and I promised some impressions of the new 2x TC from actual use out in the field. During the [...]
Hi Greg
I recently conducted some tests on a Paterson test chart with the x2 MkIII on my 300mm f2.8 IS on a 5D MkII and was quite impressed with it’s performance. I also found that by stopping down just one stop to f8 improved the performance considerable although it wasn’t bad wide open. I also found that it was almost as good at the edges as in the centre especially at f8. Stopping down to f11 gave little improvement. I sold my old x2 MkII a while back so could not make a direct comparison but the MkIII is definately better.
I also tested it on my 70-200mm f4 IS and was surprised to find it was even sharper than on the 300mm.
On the test chart it was resolving between 42 & 48 lines per mm and when used in the real world easily resolved fine feather detail on a bird.
Would love to test it on the latest 300mm f2.8 from Canon.
Regards
David
I know Bruno Di Faveri by name,
You are right … is a great bird photographer
I hope someday to reach his level.
Hi, Daniele. Actually, Bruno is a great nature photographer all around. He’s a really nice guy too. I don’t get any commission or anything but if you’re ever looking to do a workshop in Italy, I totally recommend him.
Bruno actually is doing a couple of Costa Rica trips through my company Foto Verde Tours this year. If you’re interested, be sure to let me know, and I can send you info.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the very helpful reviews. Re the new TC’s, I was thinking of the x 2 MkIII particularly, as I have the x 1.4 MkII which I am happy with, but can you clarify a point please? Will my lenses AF with the x 2 MkIII – I have the 300 f4, the 400 f5.6 and the 500 f4. I don’t expect it to work with the 400 but there seems to be different statements floating about as to whether they will or won’t AF on the f4.0 lenses?
Thanks in advance, John
Hi, John. Yes, I think going for the new 2x but sticking with the old 1.4x TC makes sense. I believe that lenses will autofocus with a minimum aperture of f8 only on the top of the line bodies, e.g., Mark IV, 1Ds III. So, if you put a 2x TC on any of the lenses you mentioned and use it with any bodies other than the ones mentioned above, I think you will not be able to use autofocus. There is a trick out there where you can tape over one of the contact pins on either the lens or the TC to circumvent this on certain bodies. I’ve never tried it but with a minute of online searching, I’m sure you’ll find info related to this.
Of course, if you have one of the top of the line bodies, then you would be good for autofocus with all but the 400 mm f5.6; I don’t think any of the Canon bodies will allow autofocus with a minimum aperture of f11.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi, David. Thanks very much for sharing your experience with the new 2x. That’s really interesting about the quality with the 70-200 mm f4 — definitely good to hear. And I agree that it will be cool to test it out someday on the new 300 mm f2.8, though it now looks like we may all be waiting for quite a while.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your response. I went ahead and bought the new x 2 III converter and can confirm it does not AF with either the 300 or 500 f4′s. That’s with my 5D MkII anyway. I’ll have to get used to MF again, something that takes me back to my film days! The results are very good from what I’ve shot so far. I would say quality is as good as with the x 1.4 II so I’m very pleased with it. To jump from a max length of 700mm with the x 1.4 up to 1000mm with the x 2 is a big increase and is going to make a big difference for all those almost out of reach wildlife subjects and as long as you choose your subjects carefully, the ones that aren’t moving too much, it’s going to be of great help.
Regards and thanks again. John
Hi, John. Thanks very much for reporting back. You’re right — it won’t AF unless you’re using a 1 series body but what can you do? Glad you’re enjoying it!
Cheers,
Greg
Hi, Your results parallel mine completely. I borrowed a 2X TC III from CPS last month for a trip to the Rio Grande Valley and the NANPA Summit.
It dazzled me on my 5-year-old 500L f/4. So much so that when I had to send it back during the trip, I rushed into the NANPA trade show and bought another to avoid being without.
In banknote testing back here at home, the 2X TC III again dazzled me. My old 1.4X TC II held up very well as it always has in the past. CPS is loaning me a new 1.4X TC III along with the MK II version of the 70-200L IS f/2.8 for a workshop I’m teaching in June. I’ve heard good things about that particular combination. I’ll be interested to find out if the new 1.4X TC works any better with the newer model lens.
It may be a few months before we see any of the new generation telephoto lenses due to the tragic events in Japan. So far, the new 2X TC is a winner.
Best to all,
Fred J. Lord
Hi, Fred. Thanks very much for stopping and sharing your own results here.
Cheers,
Greg
Greg
I have read your forum with interest and you may have answered my question – sorry if you have.
I have a Canon XSi and a EF Canon Zoom lens 70 mm – 200 mm – F/2.8 this lens is compatible with Extender EF 1.4x II and 2x II. I want to use this on a safari trip to South Africa in 2 weeks time. I don’t have one but I was wanting to get a Canon TC 2x III…..2 questions I would love you to answer for me
Would AF work? Is this a good combination?
Rob Rose
[...] how the new Canon TCs perform compared to their Series II counterparts. You can find the review here. In this age of increasingly expensive camera gear in a sinking economy, it’s more [...]