1.4x - DPChallenge Forums

05/26/2004 11:19:24 AM · #1

Has anyone used this with the 100-400mm lens with any success? Do you have any shots taken with this combo? I am considering buying the 1.4, (I had the 2x and it was awful).
thanks (please post shots if ya got any : ))

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/26/2004 11:28:26 AM · #2

I keep meaning to borrow a friend of mine's 1.4x to try with my 100-400, but have not had a chance yet. I have heard through the grapevine that I better hone my manual focus skills, because the AF is pretty unreliable even with the contacts taped over on a bright day. But I would like to see for myself.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

05/26/2004 11:28:34 AM · #3

I have used the 1.4x with my Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens and the results were fantastic. Adding an extender (2x will be worse than 1.4x) to the 100-400mm is not a good idea, it's too slow at f/5.6

You need lenses that are at least f/4 to get good results.

Canon 300mm f/4L IS with Canon 1.4x II extender

jimmyn4

Canon EOS-7D

05/26/2004 11:35:11 AM · #4

Well I don't have a 100-400mm lens but I have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
I've got the Sigma 1.4x converter and I am pleased with the results. I know this isn't a great picture but it was taken with the converter attached.

05/26/2004 11:43:43 AM · #5

Does it stand to reason if drnick got that shot with 300 that if i mounted it on 100-400 and zoomed out only til 300 range that I would get a bit more distance at least and still a decent shot?
hmm
i know i have to shoot manual, i often do anyway, thats ok with me

Message edited by author 2004-05-26 11:44:24.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/26/2004 11:52:06 AM · #6

My lens budget was limited so I bought Canon 200 mm f2.8 L II USM.Paid 650 $ and very happy with that !

When I want to reach further I have Sigma 2 X teleconverter $ 175 and lense becomes 400 mm at f5.6 .

This was the cheapest 400 mm combination !

05/26/2004 11:52:09 AM · #7

Originally posted by ellamay:

Not quite. Adding an extender to a Prime lens is very different to adding it to a slow zoom like the 100-400. At 300mm the 100-400 will not give the same quality image as the 300mm prime lens. So if you add an extender the image will degrade more than on the 300mm prime. Actually the only zoom that works very well with these extenders is the 70-200 f/2.8, even then the 2x extender on it cannot match the 100-400 at 400.

05/26/2004 12:18:48 PM · #8

I have had good luck with the EF 1.4x II TC on the 100-400. Unless you are using a pro body you will have to tape over some of the contacts to retain AF but you can trick the AF into working. The AF isnâ��t as fast or reliable with the TC in place and sometimes the IS does some strange things but overall it is usable. The optical quality is quite good, especially if you stop down one stop. For best results you really need to use the TC on a faster lens or better yet a prime.

Greg

Originally posted by ellamay:

05/26/2004 12:38:32 PM · #9

Another thing to consider is that these lenses pretty substantially out-resolve the sensors in current digital cameras. On a camera like a 10D the differences in lenses are still there but the extent of the difference is reduced quite a bit from what you see with high-resolution film on a full frame camera. The difference between the 300mm f/4L IS and the 100-400 IS with both at 300mm and f/5.6 on a 10D is small enough that you have to look for it, it doesn't really jump out at you even at moderately large prints. The main place where I have found primes like the 300mm f/4L IS to outperform zooms like the 100-400 IS with teleconverters is in AF speed and accuracy. The difference in sharpness is surprisingly small on cameras like the 10D even between top performing lenses (200mm f/1.8, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8) and the lowly zooms like the 100-400 IS.

Greg

Originally posted by doctornick:

05/26/2004 12:49:14 PM · #10

thx guys for your wisdom....
greg do you have a shot or two that you would post that you used the 100-400/1.4 combo?
p.s. would you say it is worth buying or not really?

Message edited by author 2004-05-26 12:50:48.

05/26/2004 01:31:47 PM · #11

Lynn why do you need to extend the range of the100-400? With the 1.6x crop factor of the Rebel you already have a pretty awesome reach.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

05/26/2004 01:50:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by dadas115:

Another thing to consider is that these lenses pretty substantially out-resolve the sensors in current digital cameras.

HUH? I think you have that backwards...

"The Canon 1Ds can actually out-resolve the best lenses that Canon makes â�� and some of these are among the best there are."

Luminous Landscape

05/26/2004 01:54:11 PM · #13

Unfortunately I donâ��t have any samples handy since I pretty much never use the 100-400 with TCâ��s any more. The only lens I use them on any more is the 400mm f/2.8L IS and it works very well with both the 2x and the 1.4x. I think you will find that a properly focused and exposed image with the 100-400 and the 1.4x TC looks very sharp as long as you can hold the camera steady enough. I think it might very well be worth buying in the case that you donâ��t want to or canâ��t afford to get a long prime lens as there isnâ��t really an inexpensive way to get image stabilized focal lengths beyond 400mm. Another thing that might be worth considering is the Tamron-F 1.4x TC. I bought one used for $60 and it works pretty well with the 100-400IS. You donâ��t need to tape over any pins and the optical quality is pretty close to that of the Canon on a 1.6x crop body, especially when stopped down one stop.

Greg

Originally posted by ellamay:

thx guys for your wisdom....
greg do you have a shot or two that you would post that you used the 100-400/1.4 combo?
p.s. would you say it is worth buying or not really?

05/26/2004 02:11:00 PM · #14

I am pretty certain that I do not have it backwards. This is based on first hand experiments. I had a 1Ds for a while and though it is a nice body I determined (for myself anyway) that most of the lens â��deficienciesâ�� that the 1Ds shows are actually issues with the sensor. The idea that the 1Ds can out-resolve the best lenses is a commonly believed myth. Try the lenses with the 1Ds and then try those same lenses on a film body loaded with a high resolution film (Kodak technical pan for instance) and you will see what I am taking about. I feel very confident that eventually the digital sensors will out-resolve the top films and lenses but as far as I can tell that time is not yet here.

One other thing, I am pretty sure that statement came from the same person who made this statement: â��I'm drawn to the unavoidable conclusion that the Canon D30, when shooting in RAW mode, is able to produce comparable images to Provia 100F scanned on a high-end scanner. Now, ain't that a surprise?â��

To be honest I think he gets a little carried away sometimes.

Greg

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by dadas115:
Another thing to consider is that these lenses pretty substantially out-resolve the sensors in current digital cameras.

HUH? I think you have that backwards...

"The Canon 1Ds can actually out-resolve the best lenses that Canon makes â�� and some of these are among the best there are."

Luminous Landscape

Message edited by author 2004-05-26 14:19:10.

05/26/2004 02:55:13 PM · #15

I want the reach, because sometimes a great shot is just out of reach. i.e. recently at a beach with low tide, but the sand was more like mud or clay so could not walk any closer to these 2 herons doing this phenomenal dance, both with wings out and moving closer and further apart. I take a lot of heron shots and I would of loved to get these. Same day one caught a huge fish and spent some time with it dangling from beak. Another missed shot : (
and the 500-600mm lens are just not practical too big heavy and expensive!
The 1.4 I thought may be a good way to get a bit more reach for my bang.
thanks great for all your help.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

05/26/2004 05:04:20 PM · #16

Originally posted by dadas115:

Well, "comparable" and "better than or equal to" are 2 different things. All I know in my experience, is that the 1Ds comes close to my pentax 67 with velvia, not better than or equal to, but close. And it definitely produces larger prints than I could get from any 35mm camera (except for using TP 25). I blew up a 30"x30" print the other day off the Epson 9600 and was pretty nice...

05/27/2004 01:27:51 AM · #17

Since you had asked for samples of the 1.4x converter on the 100-400 IS earlier and I didnâ��t have any I went ahead and took a couple of quick snaps with it and some with the 100-400 and 2x TC using my Rebel when I got home from work today. These are right out of the camera with no post processing at all. They are all hand held and manually focused but they hopefully can give you some sort of idea what to expect. The camera was set using all default settings (Parameter 1). Anyway, I hope these help some.

These are with the 1.4x II:

//www.pbase.com/image/29420980

//www.pbase.com/image/29420981

//www.pbase.com/image/29420984

These are with the 2x II:

//www.pbase.com/image/29420982

//www.pbase.com/image/29420983

Greg

05/27/2004 10:35:13 AM · #18

bump

05/27/2004 11:51:42 AM · #19

wow thanxs greg was not meaning for you to have to go and take pix for me, they came out significantly better than the ones I took with the old version 2x. I noticed tho the 1.4x were not full out and mine were. I need to give this some thought.

really appreciate it!!
ps thx for the bump, just woke up would of missed it.

mirdonamy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/27/2004 12:07:28 PM · #20

I have been reading tons of posts on lenses & teleconverters trying to learn more. I am still confused about quality of lenses. I thought any canon lens was a high quality lens, but it seems there are great variations.

I have:
canon 28mm to 80mm
canon 75mm to 300mm

Those are the only lenses I have, and I always wish my photos were clearer, more perfect photos. I took pix of dolphins with my telephoto and they were blurry and grainy. I had 100 ISO, and it was a very bright day, but when I zoomed into 100% on PS, the photos were not clear at all! Perhaps it was my focus, not the lens. I don't know.

Would a teleconverter of 1.4 help on the lenses that I have, for use in situations like birds and dolphins? I also want to take photos of animals at the wild animal park, and they are usually not close enough for a good shot. Any thoughts?

05/27/2004 12:15:33 PM · #21

Arielle, your photos of the dolphins are blurry probably because there is shake when you hand hold the lens at 300mm. In these situations use ISO 400 to get a shutter speed in the 1/500 or higher range. The teleconverters let you have a higher focal length for relatively cheap, but there is a compromise in terms of quality. If you have a good lens, a good teleconverter wil only reduce the quality a little bit. A so so lens with a good teleconverter will have even more so so quality.

mirdonamy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/27/2004 12:27:18 PM · #22

Great points doctornick. I don't know if my lenses are good or so so. I know they aren't too expensive, but does that make them so so or bad? They were a few hundred each. I will try upping the ISO next time, but with such a zoom, I'd want to blow up and crop the photo, which would mean grain, would it not? I know it's not like film grain being that it's a digital, but I am not sure what to do. Usually, the dolphin is a speck. If I blow the photo up to 100% in PS, crop as needed, I can come out with a web-ready photo, but not a print ready photo. I would like to get the dolphins big and clear enough to print. Do you know what I mean?

:)

05/27/2004 12:34:09 PM · #23

What do you mean by the 1.4x ones were not full out? I did not use the tape trick for these pictures so the camera body is registering the true aperture setting (the 100-400 @ 400mm wide open is f/8). I am not sure if that is what you meant or not but all of these pictures were shot wide open.

Sorry for any confusion,

Greg

Originally posted by ellamay: