1.4x with Canon 100-400

[Hein]

Hi Guys,

Anybody experienced a 1.4x(Tamron/Kenko/Canon) with a Canon 100-400 lens??? Any pics to share? I did try my Kenko Pro 2x with that lens, but the results were not that appealing.. I would love to have that extra reach with my lens

 

[broccoli]

Picture will definitely degrade with 1.4X unless you have a super copy, you will need to tap pin to get auto focus. I am using 400mmF5.6 with 1.4X, result so far is good, but remember mine is a prime lens.

Refer to this site, i am using 400D with 400mmF5.6 + 1.4x TC
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=265550

 

[spartacus.ret]

the 1-4L can be as sharp as the 400/5.6L if you can get a sharp copy.

 

[Hein]

Picture will definitely degrade with 1.4X unless you have a super copy, you will need to tap pin to get auto focus. I am using 400mmF5.6 with 1.4X, result so far is good, but remember mine is a prime lens.

Refer to this site, i am using 400D with 400mmF5.6 + 1.4x TC
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=265550

the 1-4L can be as sharp as the 400/5.6L if you can get a sharp copy.

Thanks guys... So, u are saying that I should still be able to get decently sharp pics with my 1-4L and a 1.4xTC...

Is the Kenko Pro a worth buy???

 

[thw]

I seriously doubt the 1-4L zoom lens can handle a 1.4x TC.

 

[cherkel]

the lens itself is already very difficult to use...

by the way how to cover the pin to make it autofocus..?

 

[luddock]

I have both the 100-400L and the EF 1.4x TC, I've mated the TC to this lens once and will never do it again. Pics just go out soft and the focus is slow and inaccurate most of the time. The 100-400L works great on its own and is a relatively easy lens to use with practice, contrary to the popular notion that it's a hard lens to use.

I only use the TC with my primes, don't seem to work well optically with most zooms.

 

[calebk]

It's one super telezoom, just that the weight kinda gets to you after awhile.

 

[dEthANGeL]

It's one super telezoom, just that the weight kinda gets to you after awhile.

The weight is pretty alright if comparing it to the 70-200 IS F2.8.

Main thing is the setup needs to be tripod mounted for best usage. Not exactly hand-holdable due to its long focal length. Been using the lens for close to 2 years now.

I've tried what luddock had mentioned just for kicks, to photograph the moon :bsmilie: ... yes results are far less than desireable and not for pixel peepers.

Cherkel:

I was struggling with the lens for a couple of months. You've got to learn long lens techniques, get used to the push-pull mechanism and this lens can only be used when there's available light or be prepared for alot of hair-pulling-why-the-damn-AF crawls.

Check out fredmiranda's site for tips on what/which pins to tape up.

 

[DeSwitch]

i used my 100-400L with my Canon 1.4x TC and had some good results. This lens needs good lighting to give good photos. If lighting condition is not good, image will be soft. weight is not much of an issue once you get used to it. Use MLU, tripod and cable release and you will get good result. remember, at 560mm (400 x 1.4) long lens technique are needed. a slight vibration will result in softness. For those who use IS when mounted on tripod, this lens' IS do not work on tripod. its an older version IS.

 

[Hein]

i used my 100-400L with my Canon 1.4x TC and had some good results. This lens needs good lighting to give good photos. If lighting condition is not good, image will be soft. weight is not much of an issue once you get used to it. Use MLU, tripod and cable release and you will get good result. remember, at 560mm (400 x 1.4) long lens technique are needed. a slight vibration will result in softness. For those who use IS when mounted on tripod, this lens' IS do not work on tripod. its an older version IS.

Thanks guys....

Well, I still like my 1-4L(been having it for over 3 years).. I agree with the focus issues in dim light, and almost always manually focus in such situation.. it's not too bad looking at the birds eyes and focussing there.. however, I was looking for longer reach, and thinking of putting a 1.4x there.....

You guys are mentionning that this lens will be quite soft with a 1.4x... Is it worth considering getting the 400 f/5.6 and get a 1.4x with that???

 

[Ally]

Actually I just got myself a Kenko x1.4TC, but didn't have time to shoot with my 100-400L..
Previously I used a borrowed x2TC and found it just too soft so trying a x1.4TC instead..

Will try to get back to you if I get any shots out..

Cheers!

 

[Hein]

Actually I just got myself a Kenko x1.4TC, but didn't have time to shoot with my 100-400L..
Previously I used a borrowed x2TC and found it just too soft so trying a x1.4TC instead..

Will try to get back to you if I get any shots out..

Cheers!

Sure.. Appreciate a detailed 20pages review ;p

Or, juz giving me some feedback regarding with and without the TC

 

[cibs]

Here is a simple empirical formula for TCs.

Any lens that is soft wide open WILL be even softer with a TC.
Any lens that is tack-sharp wide open WILL be slightly softer with a 1.4 and even softer with a 2X.

I have both the Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x and 2x and am glad to report that both ARE tack sharp at the relevant aperture/shutter speeds appropriate for the equivalent focal length.

With 1.4 and 2X on 70-200IS

With 2X only on 70-200IS

My guess is that the performance of the TC will be about the same with the 100-400IS if using the correct settings.

I'm glad I didnt listen to all the hype about the Canon TC being the best (and of course overpriced). On top of that, the Kenkos can fit also any lens whilst the Canon version is limited to Canon's select Ls.

 

[thw]

Any lens that is soft wide open WILL be even softer with a TC.
Any lens that is tack-sharp wide open WILL be slightly softer with a 1.4 and even softer with a 2X.

Absolutely.

My guess is that the performance of the TC will be about the same with the 100-400IS if using the correct settings.

The 70-200 lenses are VERY sharp wide-open so additional TC should still be OK. I am less certain of the 100-400 lens though.

 

[dEthANGeL]

The 70-200 lenses are VERY sharp wide-open so additional TC should still be OK. I am less certain of the 100-400 lens though.

Sadly for the 100-400 there are copy variations as reported on other forums as well .. they can range from very sharp - to really soft @ the 400mm end. At 300mm, some have reported its the sweet spot .. but as it progresses towards the 350mm-400mm mark, its where it starts to suffer.

 

[An drew]

Thanks guys....

Well, I still like my 1-4L(been having it for over 3 years).. I agree with the focus issues in dim light, and almost always manually focus in such situation.. it's not too bad looking at the birds eyes and focussing there.. however, I was looking for longer reach, and thinking of putting a 1.4x there.....

You guys are mentionning that this lens will be quite soft with a 1.4x... Is it worth considering getting the 400 f/5.6 and get a 1.4x with that???

Since you already have the 1-4L it will be extravagant to also get the 400/5.6. Technically it is still possible to get sharp shots with 400+1.4 but your technique would have to be very good and the percentage of keepers would be low. The 400, like the 1-4L, are slow lenses not really meant for use with TCs. The 400/5.6 auto-focus terribly with the 1.4TC (with tapped pins) unlike its usual ultra-fast USM without TC.

There is no simple, good and cheap solution for going beyond 400mm.

If the 400 prime already has so much difficulty handling a 1.4 TC ask no more from the 1-4L. Needless to say, stay far from a 2X TC as even fewer lenses can handle them well.

It might be better to just stick with a 1-4L and improve image quality with good support and long-lens technique and enlarge the image digitally. Otherwise you will need to look at 500f4 etc for good results. To go beyond 1000mm try digiscoping.

 

[cherkel]

can i jus go to canon and ask them to remove the IS system and refund me ...ehehe...
the IS system is nt that useful at all...