Canon EF 2X III Extender | Review & Overview

A concise review and overview of the Canon EF 2X III Extender.
My website: www.david-sant...
Limited Edition Prints: www.david-sant....
Main IG: / santdavid65
Nature IG: / davidsantia. .
Taking great photos, like many professions and hobbies is influenced primarily by the operator's skill and experience. However, I believe gear matters. Your gear should never hold your creativity or performance back and in order to achieve a certain "look" you need quality gear. My goal with videos like this is to simplify the decision making process for anyone in the market for these products.
Let me know if this video was helpful, if you have any suggestions for future videos, or disagree with my conclusions.
Chapters:
0:00 General Overview
3:22 Review Starts
4:15 Image Quality
5:29 Color & Contrast
6:02 Focus
7:26 General Thoughts & Use
9:57 Conclusions

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi David , I’ve seen others rubbish these converters but I really like the way you point out the issues and work-arounds and also say they are not a substitute for the same focal length in a single lens. I got one to extend my 70-200 4L back a couple of years ago to shoot some yacht racing here in Auckland. It performed exactly as you describe but got the job done at a fraction of the price of a long lens. Really like your reviewing style. Cheers from NZ .

[@davidsantiago2451]

Thanks!

[@patricksmith2553]

Most people have issues because they are trying to extend zoom lenses or lenses that are not the sharpest to begin with. However throw one of these on a 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 and you'll be happy, if you don't a big prime you should either stick with the 1.4x TC or just upgrade your lens whenever possible. Nowadays there are so many good old lenses for great prices. You can get a 400mm f/2.8L IS for about $3,000 and I remember paying $6800 for the same lens back in 2011. I now shoot Nikon and I do own both of the most recent teleconverter's. The Nikon TC-14E III and Canon 1.4x TC III are both excellent, especially on the big white primes and zooms. The Nikon and Canon 2x are decent, but nowhere near as good as the newer mirrorless teleconverter's. Nikon and Canon were able to drastically improve IQ on the new 2x TC's for RF or Z-mount. Plus it's also amazing and commendable of Nikon to not only totally redesign their super-tele primes, but they even included a built in teleconverter and it's done right. I hated the lever for the 1.4x TC on the 200-400mm and I also thought the 200-400mm was a bit slower AF wise compared to the 300mm f/2.8L IS/II and 400mm f/2.8L IS II lenses. I switched back to Nikon and although I love the 180-400mm, I wasn't able to afford a new one and couldn't find a fair deal on a used copy as it's relatively new lens.../it's been hard to get even new in box, so I bought the latest Nikon 500mm f/4E VR FL and the TC-14E III, and I'm in love. If you look at the MTF chart of my 500mm FL, you'll see it's as close to perfect as they get, two straight lines, one red one blue across the top! Even with the 1.4x TC, AF remains fast and accurate and IQ remains extremely good. I believe PhotogrpahyLife.com measured about 5% loss in sharpness with the latest TC-14E III. So I have a 700mm f/5.6 that is very useable. Anyways, thanks for the video!

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Thank you for the video. Canon and Nikon manufactured 2x converters for us mainly in order to use it with 2.8 tele lenses. It’s a great alternative to solid long lenses. I use it regularly on my EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM. I know the combo is not as good as a solid 600mm f4L prime however; it’s not terrible either. I mount the combo on Canon 5D Mark III or 1D Mark IV. I can confidently declare; the AF is great, so is the image quality. I have already admitted it’s not at par with the solid 600mm f/4L super tele lens. But it sure is a fantastic alternative to that. I’m a hobbyist wildlife photographer and I don’t need anything more than this. I’m planning to capture a sprinting cheetah after its prey somewhere in Africa with this combo sometime in future. At home, I’ve already captured fast actions at very high shutter speeds and manageable ISOs of birds that I photograph regularly in daylight. I shoot owls at night with the bare lens lighting up the subject with a flashlight. Sometimes add 1.4x III with it. Yes, I use the Camera + 300mm + 2x rig on a sturdy tripod or monopod however, hand-carry it as well for short periods. Thanks again.

[@skakdosmer]

It seems you've neglected to read the manual. You're supposed to first attach the extender to the lens, and then mount the combo to the camera. Don't ask me why, but since they bother to write it, there's probably a reason.

[@katies295]

That’s a good tip about making sure to not lose the proprietary cap lol.

[@DougInPA1]

will this work with an R6 body using an EOS converter?

[@Terrilltf]

Think of it as cropping but keeping all your megapixels.

[@andreiter]

I wonder if a better alternative is to just crop the image in post?

[@andreiter]

I have this exact extender, but I can't join it with my EF Sigma 50-500mm lens. Could I get around it with an extension in between the two? If so, do I have to get the official Canon extender, or can I get away with a 3rd party one?

[@alansach8437]

Teleconverters work best on fast primes that they are matched with...the same brand. They were never meant to be used on zooms. They were also never designed to drag in something a half mile away. They were designed to fill the frame with something relatively close. Oddly, in my experience, a 2x works better if you are even closer than when using a 1.4. Probably due to atmospheric interference. Overall, I have pretty much given up on 2xs, even on my big primes. Image quality nearly always suffers. 1.4s on the other hand are valuable tools, and I always have one in the bag. They work very well on primes and reasonably well on quality zooms.

[@blayral]

You can stack thrid party converters behind this one.

[@stelley08]

our extender only works sometimes.. usually makes the camera say f00 which is very weird

[@jirirot]

Thanks for the video, David! ;) I own the 6D2, 70-200 f/2.8 and Canon ext 2xIII. I have troubles with the ext, my (racing) pictures are mostly blurry. They look like bad, 50% transparent stacking, object is in focus, but moved. - How do you use the IS/monopod?

[@Chareece24]

Is it compatible with canon 2000D EF 75-300mm

[@andrewrathbun2775]

I want to get a Canon 2x EF Extender II for my canon t5 camera with a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens. Do you think that this will work since they both use a ef mount?

[@hamshanksproductions7161]

Hello. It's surely much better than the large zoom. I had one and it was poor. Regards

[@StefanZivkovicMedia]

Great review thanks

[@daleirish6682]

great review! do you think the average novice photographer would notice the drawbacks you describe with haze and such. I am considering this extender for my 70-200 mostly for landscape pictures. It sounds like your trained eye is probably picking up on something the average guy like myself might not notice? I could probably live with a little haze and not even realize its there

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi are you talking about the Canon EF 70-200 4L ? If yes I might be able to give you an opinion on the IIl version which I described in a previous comment. Cheers.

[@daleirish6682]

@@Chris-NZ mine is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM

[@Chris-NZ]

@@daleirish6682 Hi Dale, mine is the 4L ii, so I suspect your 2.8 iii is a much superior lens. I got the 2x mk3 extender for videos I was making of the America’s cup (yacht racing) when it was here in NZ and I didn’t want to invest in a really long lens, that was a couple of years back. Since then I’ve moved to Canons RF system so my comments are based on putting the old EF 70-200 4L with the adaptor on my R5 rather than the 5D4 I was using two years ago . I just never found the sharpness matched the 4L without the 2x , I think my expectations were too high, it did however do the job I needed. As for the comments on haze my thoughts on that are that it might be more related to the atmospherics than anything as when I tried the setup on the R5 yesterday looking at things just a few hundred metres away I didn’t notice any haze, whereas using it across a large stretch of water (two years ago) there definitely was haze but I’m pretty sure that was just natural haze caused by humidity. There are a lot of really good reviews of the 2x and the 1.4 x on KZbin and I’m pretty sure they conclude the 1.4 is a better choice . I suggest you have a look at the reviews from trusted sites and if possible get one to try out before you purchase. If you are in Auckland NZ I’m happy to meet up and let you give mine a test drive.

[@daleirish6682]

@@Chris-NZ I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I think i am going to order the 2x extender. I am quite a novice, but living where i do in New Mexico opens up some beautiful photography opportunities. I think the extender is inexpensive enough to give it a try for that extra reach. thank you!

[@Chris-NZ]

@@daleirish6682 Hi Dale , I think they are less than $450 at B and H , have a look at DPReview which is my long term trusted review site, there is a review there with the headline “Canon EF 2x III Extender - Sharp, Practical & Useful.” , good luck . 😀, and happy Christmas 🎄

[@randy25rhoads]

Dude it’s fucked that you can only use certain lenses. I had no idea before I bought mine. I was planning on using it in conjunction with my 70-300 DO lens, buuuuut I can’t. My 70-200 works, but damn I’m disappointed.

[@pixieunleashed]

I was planning to do that too, with my 75-300. How come it didn't work (as it's the same EF mount)? Could you please describe the issue?

[@NathanH83]

Does this work with the Tamron 18-400mm?

[@davidsantiago2451]

I would guess no with that kind of wide lower end, but I really don't know.

[@jirirot]

No.