Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on October 19, 2011, 09:00:44 pm
-
Does anyone have experience with the Canon EF 1.4III vs II?
is there a better optical performer out there ie Sigma?
Thanks
Marc
-
I found the III to be worth the price difference - lower distortion and chromatic aberration, as well as sharper at the edges.
It seems to be more or less obvious depending on what lens it's combined with. There's a website that has tests that show different combinations, don't remember the name offhand though.
-
I found the III to be worth the price difference - lower distortion and chromatic aberration, as well as sharper at the edges.
It seems to be more or less obvious depending on what lens it's combined with. There's a website that has tests that show different combinations, don't remember the name offhand though.
I'm guessing you mean the digital picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4).
The link shows the (resolution/CA) comparison between the II and III extenders on a 70-200, but ofcourse you can select other lenses too.
-
I'm using the 70-200 F4.0 is
so perhaps the III would be better?
Marc
-
Don't want to hijack this thread but I'd also be interested to know if anyone has any hands on experience of the new EF2X 111. I know that the older version wasn't highly regarded but I've heard that the new one is better.
( Also to be used with a 70 - 200f4 using live view manual focusing ).
Graeme
-
i recently tested a pair of 70-200 f4s - found little difference between them and flipped a coin on which one to keep. tested the 1.4iii vs my 1.4ii and bought the 1.4iii too.
not much resolution difference in the center but the 1.4iii is substantially better on the edges. also requires minimal micro-adjustment (2 samples tested), whereas my 1.4ii required substantial correction even after a trip back to Canon
if you're really planning to use the converter much i think it's worth the money to realize the capability of the 70-200. haven't had time to test it on other lenses yet
-
Diglloyd.com has a comparison. The III is clearly better across the field.
My recomendation is, if you use the II version regularly especially with an expensive super tele then it would be a no brainer.
If you already own the II version and were an occasional user with non L lenses then it may not be worth trading up.
-
Thanks I'll order a III
Marc