400 5.6L and extenders - 1.4X or 2.0x ?

[Panza]

I am considering which extender I will buy along with the Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens. Either the Canon 1.4X II or the 2.0X II.

From what I have read the 1.4X extender is quite a bit better than the 2.0X. It degrades the picture quality very little. If picture quality was the only consideration I would have the 1.4X, but I would like to have as much length as possible too.

So, my question is: Does anyone have a comparison with the two extenders on the 400 f5.6 L ?
Or pictures taken with one or the other ? 100% crops or full size would be good.

[Panza]

I just came to think of this: Lets's say I want to take a picture of a bird at a distance of 50 meters.
If I want to print the picture of the bird and want the bird to fill A4 size (11.5 x 8.3 inches approx).
I would have to crop the picture taken with the 1.4X more and thus get lower DPI on the print than with the 2.0X.
Wouldn't the picture taken with the 2.0X come out better ?

[IanD]

I have most of the combo you are looking at eg: 400 prime and 1.4 Canon TC. A couple of things to keep in mind. If you are using a Drebel or 10D there is the 1.6 crop factor. The 400 becomes a 640mm. Add the 1.4TC and you now have a 896 35mm equivalant telephoto. But, and there is always a but, the max F stop will also increase by the same factor (almost) to F6.7. Using the 2x TC will give you a wicked 1280 equiv telephoto but with a max F stop of F8, really only goos under ideal light conditions and it must be tripod mounted. The 400/1.4 is hard to hold unless there is plenty of light and you can keep the shutter speed up there. I use this combo only on a tripod. It is a killer combo, light, fairly fast and very sharp.

[scottbergerphoto]

I have all the above(400 f/5.6, 1.4X, 2X). In my limited experience, the 2X is good only if you must have the shot and quality is secondary. It makes the viewfinder very dim, focusing is much more difficult, and the quality of the image suffers. The 1.4X on the other hand in my experience and as reported by many others, works seamlessly with most Canon lenses with minimual if any image degradation.
Regards,
Scott

[Panza]

Thanks for the help so far. :D
In my example with the bird and the print of the cropped picture. Which print will be the clearest with most detail ?

The reason for extenders are normally that one can not get close enough to the action, or bird in this case, so I feel that this is of some importance.

But I must also say that the resulting dim viewfinder and focusing difficulties with the 2.0X are pulling me towards the 1.4X. For I must admit that if i can't even get good focus then it must be better with a clear picture that must be cropped more.

[robertwgross]

I have all the above(400 f/5.6, 1.4X, 2X). ...

Scott, in a recent article, George Lepp made the comment that a good 1.4X TC degrades the sharpness of the image by about 10%, and the 2X TC degrades it by about 20%.

Does that fit in with your experience with them?

---Bob Gross---

[Rayz]

In my experience the effectiveness of teleconverters varies with the nature of the subject. They are much more useful with high contrast subjects. You can verify this by shooting a test chart from a distance of 20 or 30 metres, with and without TC. The 400/5.6 with 2x extender should definitely show more lines, but shoot something slightly hazy in the distance and the improved detail might be very marginal or completely offset by the disadvantage of needing to use a slow shutter speed.

I think it would probably be true to say that the finest lens that Canon makes, the 200/1.8, coupled with a 2x extender would not be as sharp as the much cheaper 400/5.6, although it would still be faster.

[defordphoto]

I have the lens and both TCs. Get the 1.4 and be happy. Even with my MKII the 400 f5.6 turns manual focus with the 2x and it's still way better than digital "zoom", but the 1.4 is pretty much invisible in the post-processing world with L glass in front.

[wtlloyd]

I think it would probably be true to say that the finest lens that Canon makes, the 200/1.8, coupled with a 2x extender would not be as sharp as the much cheaper 400/5.6, although it would still be faster.

Ya, darn it. I was hoping my recent purchase of a 200 1.8 would

a) finally give me a use for the 2X MKII extender
b) give me a 400mm f3.5 lens

Well, I'm going to do some more real world testing this weekend, but the first couple uses are not good. The 2X used on a monopod has unacceptable softness, just like always. I'll try a tripod and remote release next - but it looks like I'm going to be keeping the 400 5.6. Not crazy about the 400 5.6 and 1.4 extender - probably similar to the 200 1.8 with 2X in softness.

[Panza]

Thanks for all your help!

I ordered the 400mm 5.6L an the 1.4X extender from B&H Photo this morning. Along with a Lowepro backpack: Nature trekker AW II.

Including carriage to Norway with UPS Express I saved:
- $640 on the lens compared to buying here in Norway.
- $197 on the backpack.
- $174 on the extender.

:D

[robertwgross]

Maybe the rest of us should move to Norway so we can save more money on camera gear.

---Bob Gross---

[kufel]

if the money is no subject - Canon releases 400 mm f2.8 IS, no more dim viewfinder and focusing problems and unsteady hand with 2x ext....

[Panza]

If money was no object I'd have the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM..
But the problem is that my pockets are not as deep as the ones of a certain duck with no pants... :wink:

By the way; I only posted the savings because I was happy about not having to spend as much as I had thought.

[MrKickalot]

I have most of the combo you are looking at eg: 400 prime and 1.4 Canon TC. A couple of things to keep in mind. If you are using a Drebel or 10D there is the 1.6 crop factor. The 400 becomes a 640mm. Add the 1.4TC and you now have a 896 35mm equivalant telephoto. But, and there is always a but, the max F stop will also increase by the same factor (almost) to F6.7. Using the 2x TC will give you a wicked 1280 equiv telephoto but with a max F stop of F8, really only goos under ideal light conditions and it must be tripod mounted. The 400/1.4 is hard to hold unless there is plenty of light and you can keep the shutter speed up there. I use this combo only on a tripod. It is a killer combo, light, fairly fast and very sharp.

Does this combo autofocus? Canon doesn't make it completely clear?

Thanks