I recently replaced my older EOS 1.4x TC with the new EOS 1.4x TC II (mostly for use with my 300/4L IS), and I recently used this newer TC for the first time in Fla., for bird photography. Upon louping 8 out of 11 rolls of these slides so far, I immediately noticed a *significant* improvement in sharpness and color saturation compared to the older TC. (And ironically, I had completely forgotten about the fact that I had used the newer TC for the first time, until I put "2+2" together after editing several rolls of these slides, and I wondered why my jaw kept dropping). I'm hypothesizing that the noticeable improvement in sharpness I'm seeing with this newer TC may be more apparent with a lens like the 300/4 IS (in contrast to big EOS lenses), perhaps because the optics of this less expensive "L" lens may be closer to the lower limits of a certain optical resolution THESHOLD than what's found with EOS big-glass lenses. (This may be another way of saying that EOS big-glass lenses are more precisely designed to be combined with TCs, with minimal "weakest link" penalty for coupling-in a TC; while perhaps the rear optics of lower cost "L" telephoto lenses may be much more sensitive to this "weakest link" factor with TCs). In other words, it may be that because EOS big-glass lenses are already so incredibly sharp, the further refinements in the new EOS TCs may be less striking and less obvious compared to how they perform with a lens such as the 300/4L IS. If so, Canon's improvements in these newer TCs may amount to a strengthening of this "weakest link", which we might expect to be more apparent with certain "L" telephotos that would benefit the most from this TC "help". Just a thought.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), April 14, 2002

Answers

That's odd since the optics in the 1.4x and 1.4x II are supposed to be identical. Is it possible you had a bad example of the older 1.4x TC? I've always been very impressed with the performance of the old 1.4x.

I never tried the 1.4x II, but the 2x II (which does have a new optical design) really didn't show any significant improvement over the original 2x with my 300/4L. I know my old 2x was "typical" because it tested the same as two other samples which passed through my hands at different times!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

This is odd because the optics of both 1.4x are identical, only difference is that of the new 1.4II having a seal at both ends for water resistence use. This was told to me by the tech at Canon Professional services several weeks ago at the NASDAQ 100 open in Miami.

-- Michael Bush (funphoto@bellsouth.net), April 14, 2002.

Again, I think this is down to sample variation. My father upgraded his 1.4X mk I to a mk II (he got the mk II free with his EOS 1V), and I now have the mk I, and we've never been able to tell much difference.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Canon did claim to make one other change in the 1.4x II, besides the O-rings: improved blackening to reduce internal reflection. Kurt, were the pictures taken in particularly flare-prone situations where this might have helped?

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), April 15, 2002.

Hey, if they look better to Kurt, they look better to Kurt. So, chances are that his new one is better than his old one...But, having sat through my share of statistics classes, I would not want to make any decisions or make any claims about all converters only based on a sample of 1. That is the problem with most lens tests: most are done with a sample of 1. There is no way to take variance or production error/differences into consideration!

So, if kurt had tested 10 mkI against 10 mkII converters and found a difference, well, then I would be convinced!! Well, maybe not convinced but more likely to believe?

-- Roger S (rashrader@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Actually, I recall reading that Canon also improved the multicoatings of these new TCs, which may account for the better performance. At any rate, almost all shots were taken with the sun behind me.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), April 15, 2002.

As I recall the improved flare performance claimed for the Mk II TCs was attributed to better reflection supression within the TC (blackening and flare cut diaphragms?). I don't recall any comments about better coatings on the lenses (which are probably about as good as they can get at this point).

Whetever the reason for improved performance it's a good example of not believing what you see in print and testing the performance of YOUR particular lenses. If it works for you, it really doesn't matter what others find!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.