cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

will a1.4-2 auto focus as well as a 1.4-3 on a 7d mark2 /100-400-2

wln
Contributor
 
2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

thanks for the info.

I'll try the old one first.

View solution in original post

"how easy it is to learn to see the differences that better equipment can make."

Bob from Boston,

What a novel concept. And an emphatic, yes. I always tell new photographers to buy the best they can afford.  However, the best lens or camera in the world is of little value, if it costs so much you can't afford to buy it.  So there is a balance to be considered.

Buy the best and cry once.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

View solution in original post

7 REPLIES 7

ScottyP
Authority
Teleconverters?
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

Yes.  What?

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

i have a 7d mark 2 with a new 100-400 mark 2 telephoto and 1.4 mark 2 teleconverter(older model)

do i need to get the new 1.4 mark 3 teleconverter or is the older model teleconverter going to work as well?

The mark III teleconverters are supposed to have slightly better optics and improved electronics for faster/better AF on certain lenses.  I'd guess that the 100-400 II has the new electronics, being new and all, but can't say for sure. 

 

All that said, I don't know that you're going to see a huge leap in AF performance.  It certainly wouldn't be worth ditching the II without first giving it a shot.  If possible, trying renting a III and see if you really can notice the difference.  My guess is no, but who knows.  Placebo is a powerful thing.

thanks for the info.

I'll try the old one first.


@Skirball wrote:

The mark III teleconverters are supposed to have slightly better optics and improved electronics for faster/better AF on certain lenses.  I'd guess that the 100-400 II has the new electronics, being new and all, but can't say for sure. 

 

All that said, I don't know that you're going to see a huge leap in AF performance.  It certainly wouldn't be worth ditching the II without first giving it a shot.  If possible, trying renting a III and see if you really can notice the difference.  My guess is no, but who knows.  Placebo is a powerful thing.


I'm a total newbie in this context, having never used a teleconverter, so definitely consider the source. But I've been surprised, over the years, at how easy it is to learn to see the differences that better equipment can make. (And not just in photography either.) Once someone tells you, or you start to figure out, what to look for, differences that were once invisible can become obvious. I've had occasion to look back at, say, a lens that I once thought perfectly fine and wonder, "How on earth did I ever tolerate this piece of junk?"  Smiley Frustrated

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"how easy it is to learn to see the differences that better equipment can make."

Bob from Boston,

What a novel concept. And an emphatic, yes. I always tell new photographers to buy the best they can afford.  However, the best lens or camera in the world is of little value, if it costs so much you can't afford to buy it.  So there is a balance to be considered.

Buy the best and cry once.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Avatar
click here to view the gallery
Announcements