Canon 1.4 converter

[Bob Sherwood]

Does anyone have any experience with this. How is the quality. I currently have a 70-200 F4 L glass. Was thinking about the 100-400 F4 - 5.6 zoom at about $1400. However the 1.4 converter will make my 70-200 extend out to 380 which is close enough for me to 400 and the aperture will still be 5.6 (same as the 100-400). Any thoughts as to quality comparison on these 2 options.

[Ikinaa]

200x1.4 = 280 not 380

[Scottes]

So not only much shorter, but much less of a lens. The 100-400 is a great lens.

If you only want length and don't care so much about versatility the Canon 400m L f/5.6 might be an option for you, and it's about $300 less than the 100-400. This comparison of both may help:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436

[Ikinaa]

I have done some thinking in the same direction :

I also hesitate between the 100-400L and the 70-200LF4.
actually I have a 75-300 and I noticed that in 95% the 300mm is enough.
the 70-200 is half the price of the 100-400, adding a 1.4TC, I get the combo for 75% of the price of the 100-400.
Ok the 100-400 has IS.
On the other hand, the 70-200 is half the weight of the 100-400, so it isn't bad as a walk-around lens...

I haven't got the cash to buy both

One question though. If I put some extension rings between the cam and the 70-200, how near can I get to the capabilities of the 100f2.8 macro?
is the 70-200LF4 good at macro-shots with extension rings?

[Scottes]

I would think that the 70-200 f/4 would be very good for close to 1:1. Tubes don't have optics and the f/4 is more than sufficient to handle light-loss from tubes. Granted, at 70mm with a 36mm tube you should at or close to 1:1, but the working distance is very very small. I use the 100-400 L with a 20mm tube when shooting butterflies at 1:2 or 1:3 and I've noticed that I usually zoom to about 180mm plus or minus. But the 70-200 does focus closer than the 100-400 so I'd think even a 12mm might be enough for small stuff, but not the smallest stuff.

If the 70-200 + 1.4TC gives you enough length then I'd certainly invest in a set of Kenko tubes and tuck the extra cash away for the Canon 400m L f/5.6. Or get both if you can - the tubes and the 400mm prime combined will still be $200 cheaper than the 100-400.

[Bob Sherwood]

Thanks! You'd think a college grad could multiply 200 x 1.4 and get 280. O well. it's still early in the day.

[RJSorensen]

The 100-400 is a very nice lens . . . my new walkaround, lol.

[Ikinaa]

Thanks Scottes...

until recently I thought I'd buy a 100mmf2.8 macro and a 100-400L as my next lenses, but the more I think about it, I guess I'll go with the 70-200L4 + 1.4TC + extension tubes.
It will be cheaper and cover all my needs (except for the very few cases when I'll need something longer thatn 280mm)
Is the loss of a 2.0TC with a 70-200 (gives a 140-400f8)bad in quality? I know I won't have AF in this combo (isn't there a trick by taping the pins? so to have AF anyway?).

[Scottes]

Most people around here don't think too much of the 2xTC, people whose judgement I trust, and people whose judgement I know to be at least a bit finicky about quality. :-) But it will get you the shot. From what I've heard and seen I couldn't recommend it unless you have one of the super-sharp lenses to begin with.

I'm sure tha tape trick would work, but I heard of one case that suspiciously sounded like it burned out the motor on the lens. I'll never try it personally.

The 70-200 f/4 + 1.4TC + tubes sounds like a good idea. And tuck the extra cash away for the 400 prime which would be a natural next lens if you find you want the length. The 1.4TC is a nice addition for the 400 prime, too. No AF, but the 10D will MF adequately and the 20D will MF with ease.

[Persian-Rice]

I had something of a similar decision to make. 100-400 or the 70-200 2.8. I chose 2.8 because I will have the low -light performance, and if you slap on a 1.4x TC, you get another 100mm out of it and still have a fairly wide aperture.

BTW, tubes on the 70-200 are very very nice.

[RJSorensen]

I just got my Canon 1.4 TC from the UPS man . . . and this is the first shot taken with it attached to my 100-400, & 20D. I suppose for first shots . . . it will be just fine.

Edit: Sorry 'bout that . . .

The first shot, noted above was a handheld, I put this combo on a tripod and here is a link to my second batch of shots.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58413

[yellow_belly]

No AF, but the 10D will MF adequately and the 20D will MF with ease.I find manual focus with the 300D and the 20D a very hit and miss affair (more miss than hit), at these times I wish for a split screen focus aid like you used to get on a film slr.

Terry

[Scottes]

Hmmm. I could barely MF with the 1.4 + 100-400 on the 10D, but don't have many problems with the 20D.