Canon 1.4.X Extender Test. Why I Was So Disappointed. Side-by-Side Comparison.

[@TravelingPhotographer]

How is the sound quality at the beginning of this video?

[@firesword9150]

Sound is fantastic!

[@TravelingPhotographer]

@@firesword9150 Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I appreciate it.

[@ErrolHeywood]

Your voice is clear and crisp but there is a noticeable background hiss that sounds like steam. Listening on my iPhone 11 with plug-in EarPods.

[@TravelingPhotographer]

@@ErrolHeywood Thanks so much for the specific comment on the sound. I appreciate it.

[@ErrolHeywood]

@@TravelingPhotographer Your welcome! I have subscribed to see how you go with your basement studio, and look forward to seeing more.

[@rjcason98]

I have the same set up without the extender. 5dmk3 and 70-200 2.8. I will take your advice and skip the extender. Cropping with the Canon software yields great results. Thanks.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Great, thanks for your comment!

[@skakdosmer]

Tip (from the extender’s manual): “First attach the Extender to the lens, then attach it to the camera. To detach it, follow the same procedure in reverse”. I’ve heard there could be issues if you attach the extender to the camera first.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Interesting

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

Canon's explanation is that you want the camera body to see the combined extender + lens to make sure it gets its signals right, which may not happen with the isolated extender.

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

Your testing confirms my anecdotal impression, but I am wondering whether the situation is changing with the advent of eye tracking. I have the sense that the camera finds it easier to "lock on" to the eye when the subject is larger with the extender, especially with small birds. Have you noticed?

[@sklay78]

I had done similar kinds of tests with the same lenses when I got them. I got similar kinds of results. The sharpness problem isn't with the extended, however. It's with your camera body. After tuning the AF the extender buys me much more resolution that merely cropping in. My extender needed a tuning offset of +10 to focus accurately with the extender. The 70-200 f/2.8 L II needed an offset of +4 as well. At this point I'm of the opinion the vast majority of people disappointed with the 1.4x II extender are people who've never bothered to fine tune their body's focusing. If you're not going to take 15 minutes to do that, then you probably shouldn't even use an extended. It also calls test results into serious doubt, and so far I haven't seen one criticism of a Canon extender that evaluates it on a body which has been tuned for it.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for your input, Shawn. What do you mean by tuning? Do you mean micro-focusing adjustment? Thanks, Bruce

[@sklay78]

@@BruceLovelace-Canon Yes. That's what I mean. It made an enormous difference. I used the "dot-tune" method to adjust my AF and with the +10 offset I needed, I gained much more resolution than just cropping in. Not that my testing has been exhaustive, but I'm not seeing noticable CA either. Then again, the pixel size on a Canon 6D is almost twice the size of the measured CA with a 70-200 f/2.8L, so magnifying it by 1.4X shouldn't be visible either.

[@rjcason98]

Thanks, I’ll try that.

[@patrickroe5926]

I have a ver. III 1.4 Canon extender. I use it when necessary with a 300mm F4 and a 70-200. It is surprisingly good. Contrast is reduced slightly. It is sharp with the 300mm. Having it saves me a heavier camera bag when space and weight are or concern.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for your comment. Glad it's working for you. I would imagine that the version III would be the sharpest.

[@joemish1]

Sound is fine no echo's

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

thank you

[@chris0628]

Could it be the issues are limited to this particular copy you got ???

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Yes, it's possible. I've heard the same results from other photographers as well as from photographers who are happy with the resulting sharpness and avoiding the need to crop post-capture.

[@gunlokman]

A very informative and highly useful video. I got rid of my extenders a while back as I didn't like the visual degradation they caused. This scientifically validates what I thought - that even cropping in is better than using an extender. By the way, the audio sounds great to me, nice and clear with no echoing or distracting base noise etc.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Glad it was helpful!

[@burkholdst.rudderberg3574]

I have found the Canon 1.4 extender slows down the auto focus to a small degree. In shooting fast flying birds ( ducks and falcons ) that small degree is enough to be an issue on the 7D mark ii. If I am shooting something big and slow ( pelican or osprey ) the extender is not an issue on a bright sunny day.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for that information.

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

I got the canon 70/300MM EF 4/5.6L lens since 2016 and all my photos are SHARP and I recently brought a canon 400MM EF 5.6 L And I am thinking of getting a canon 1.4 Converter and I am sure I will not be disappointed and all you need to remember is how to use your camera and That way you will get sharp photos

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Great!

[@jacuswoczega9180]

Sound very OK. Small suggestion, manually focus on hands and desk - now the wall is the sharpest

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thank you, Jacus'

[@KaReEdCa]

thanks for the review. in terms of the sound ...its noisy. You need to run a noise reduction through it, and maybe boost it up a little.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Okay, thank you!

[@DavidRoachJS]

That version of the extender has well known problems. You should be using the version III for very improved performance with any version II or higher lens.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for sharing that info David. I appreciate it. I had not heard that before.

[@DavidRoachJS]

@@BruceLovelace-Canon My pleasure Bruce. I still own my version 2 extenders and they were real stinkers. The version 3 extenders with just about any lens version 2 or higher is a whole different experience. Hopefully, you can return or sell.

[@timeslikethese6379]

Hi David Roach. So if you ran the test with your version iii, how would you expect it to perform, compared to cropped image? -thanks, Michael

[@DavidRoachJS]

@@timeslikethese6379 The version II TCs from Canon were made to work with version I glass and don't even work well in that situation. Have to be stopped down one full stop for sharp images. The version III extenders were designed to work much more seamlessly with version II or higher glass. For example my old 100-400 vers I worked poorly with vers II TCs (this was 16 years ago). The vers II 100-400 worked excellent with vers III TC. No need to stop down for tack sharp images. Version II TC dont work well with any higher version glass. So, in general, version II TC just suck. Version III were designed to mate much better for glass version II or higher. I would check with Canon for your particular glass, Stay away from version II TC in general and if you have very old glass (vers I) the version III TC wont help either. This was well known years ago but time has passed.

[@timeslikethese6379]

@@DavidRoachJS Thanks much, David. I have a 70-200 F2.8, ver ii, so I should be good. Thanks for the help.

[@andersonboy620]

There is no point on using an extender with a lens that already shows chromatic aberration. Absolutely every extender will increase it very badly in this scenario. But if you have a prime lens with a very low aberration or you stop down the aperture to the least aberration possible point, it makes sense to use it.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Good Point!

[@speed4213]

Can this be used with an adapter for a RF mount lens ?

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

yes

[@doghouseriley4732]

This is a review on an extender mk2? This was launched 20 years ago. I am sure you have a good reason for doing this video but the shortcomings of this extender are pretty well-known. It also appears that quality control was not at it's best and that there are quite a number of very good versions around.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for your comment @Doghouse Riley. There are a lot of Version IIs still on the market, probably because there so much more affordable than the version 3.

[@1killerminpin]

Always install the extender on the lens first, not the camera body. You’ll find the extended performs better when attached to the lens first.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

That's very interesting. I've never heard that before.

[@rjcason98]

Sounds ok to me

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thank you!

[@julianlo2635]

Sound is ok, acceptable.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks, Julian

[@leoloera3501]

Did you try microadjusting your extender and lens to your camera?

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Yes, the focusing was right on with my camera. I was hoping that is all it was. I also did the comparison with smaller apertures and the resulting deep depth of field, so the focusing could not have been an issue.

[@gerardferry3958]

best crop is in format ie eos M50 instead of a full frame

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Yes

[@TravelingPhotographer]

Here is the article that goes along with this video: www.canoncamerageek.com/Canon-1-4x-extender-test.html

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Great article!

[@hckyrules]

Great video, but there is static noise apparent.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Got it! Thanks!

[@sylduro6733]

Well nearly a year have pass...Im still at the same point. In the forest when a wood duck is nearby the 70-200 2.8 is the one. But then after, those coots on the lake are too far. An extender will not be the savior here. After all ,with birds, if you cannot count the strands on the feathers, it's not sharp. A 100-400 maybe...nope. Good on the lake not so in the forest shadows. Dammit! I need two lens.

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Many feel the same dilemma

[@highspeedboom]

Sound has static noise

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks for the feedback @Highspeedboom. Pun intended. I appreciate it.

[@daniellavanwanrooij3573]

sound is loud and clear

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thank you!

[@saadahmad5282]

Sound it is OK

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thank you.

[@RostandThimote]

Theres a Hiss yo

[@BruceLovelace-Canon]

Thanks so much