Canon TC 1.4x, is there a difference?

[Persian-Rice]

Just wanted to know, is there difference between the original and the MKII? What is it and how much is it if there is. I want to get one this week.........

Cheers

[defordphoto]

Some say the only difference is the weather-seal. Some say the glass has been improved. I'd get the II and be done with it.

[robekert]

As RFM stated Mk II is weather sealed Mk I is not. The Mk I 1.4 & 2X cannot be stacked, the Mk IIs can (I don't think that is a huge consideration to most). I have a 300 2.8 non IS lens so I picked up a 1.4 Mk I & 2X Mk I for the lens. My reasons were that these TCs were designed for this lens. Maybe you should consider the lens and purchase the appropriate series of TC for your lens.
Cheers,
Rob

[Persian-Rice]

What is the appropriate 1.4x for the 700-200 f/2.8? my next and probably final lens will be either the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 300 f/4L IS or the 400 f/5.6L.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Is your 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or non-IS

Only the IS version is weather sealed,. again,. this is the only difference in the T-cons. So if you want a T-con that will mainitain the weather seal on a weather sealed lens.. then the MkII would be the appropriate choice.

Otherwise it's not much of an issue.

[robekert]

I believe the Mk I series was produced when non IS lenses were around. The Mk II was manufactured concurrent with the "IS" lenses. Both will work on any lens. Views differ as to the sharpness of each series.......big surprise there.
Cheers,
Rob

[Persian-Rice]

CDS, no IS.

I think will just get the MKII and stay safe. That way I know it will work with any future lenses as well...
I also read AF won't work on the 100-400, is this true?

Thanks

[RJSorensen]

1.4 TC and the 100-400 = NO AF on a 20D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Actually PR has a 1D MkII and a 10D so;

100-400mm + 1.4X TC + 1D MkII = YES AF! :)

100-400mm + 1.4X TC + 10D = NO AF :(

Check the T-con thread in the EOS Sticky for all your AF Vs. No AF questions ;)

[glangston]

There is a compatibility chart for these TC's. Each is different and allows complete compatibility with some lenses and limits it with others. I checked it on the B&H Photo site.

[Persian-Rice]

Chances are I will buy a 300 prime, but was just wondering.
I like the 100-400, but hear the image of the prime is far superior, and is also cheaper. Mind you I don't plan on using the 10D with any of my long lenses because it for motorsports and why would I use the 10D if I have a 1D?

Thanks guys

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is a compatibility chart for these TC's. Each is different and allows complete compatibility with some lenses and limits it with others. I checked it on the B&H Photo site.

We've got a better chart right here ;)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922

[Persian-Rice]

Ya ours is better, I was a little confued with the one at B&H because it doesnt give you all the information.

[Persian-Rice]

I almost forgot to ask. Is there a significant difference between the Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or whoever else makes a 1.4 tc? Is there one that is as good or almost the same as the Canon? any sites that compare these?

I'm on a tight budget ATM, so I want to consider all my options.

[defordphoto]

Chances are I will buy a 300 prime, but was just wondering.
I like the 100-400, but hear the image of the prime is far superior, and is also cheaper. Mind you I don't plan on using the 10D with any of my long lenses because it for motorsports and why would I use the 10D if I have a 1D?

Thanks guys

Wrong. The image quality of the 400 primes can be better, but not always. And it is definitely not FAR superior. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison.

The main difference between the 100-400 and the primes is the the AF is faster. I have the less expensive 400 f5.6 in addition to the 100-400. The AF is faster and more sensitive than the 100-400, especially in low-light OR low-contrast situations. That is a weak point on the 100-400 and sometimes it'll AF-hunt, but in spite of it's weaknesses, you'd have to pry the 100-400 from my cold, dead hands to get it away from me.

[Huckaback Photo]

Chances are I will buy a 300 prime, but was just wondering.
I like the 100-400, but hear the image of the prime is far superior, and is also cheaper. Mind you I don't plan on using the 10D with any of my long lenses because it for motorsports and why would I use the 10D if I have a 1D?

Thanks guys

Hi Persian
I can think of one reason to consider using the 10D with long lenses, its called the crop factor (or whatever you like to call it)

10 D 1.6 factor times 400mm = 640

1 D 1.3 times 400mm = 520

I frequently swap bodies if i need more reach (1 D mk2 & D 60 )

also if i want the widest with my 14mm f2.8 I choose the 1 Dmk2

I use 100 to 400 L & 1.4 mk2 extender works fine on 1D2

Just to prove a point i have just put the 1.4 ex on my 100 to 400, set at the 400mm end hand held and photographed this screen believe it or not the shutter speed was 1/15th at f5.6 should not really be sharp but just look.
Cheers
Martin

[Persian-Rice]

That's IS for ya. I want to buy a lens with IS next, that is why it is the 300 or 100-400.
I also use the 10D when I need more zoom. I notice that with good USM like my 70-200 it focuses fast enough for motorsport or any other sport.

Is the AF of the 100-400 as good as the 70-200? better? worse? BTW how does the IS of the 100-400 compare to the 300?

I want it to AF on both bodies so I will either get the 300 or the 100-400 and tape the contacts. But right now a lens is far away(mid-late summer), I'm not really concerend about that ATM.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm afraid the AF of the 100-400mm is substantially slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS anyway,. and I suspect this will be true of the non IS 70-200mm as well. It's no slouch,. the 100-400mm is still and "L" after all,. but I beleive it has been established that the 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS) is Canon's fastest focusing zoom lens. So no,. your 100-400mm will not be able to keep up.

Also,. the 100-400mm larger AF weekness,. is focus tracking where small objects are concerend, it's not such a huge issue with a frame filling large subject,. but for birds in flight at a distance,. the lens shows this weakness.

And this is again where more compormise comes in,. as this focus tracking is a place where the 400mm prime absolutely excels!

[defordphoto]

I'm afraid the AF of the 100-400mm is substantially slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS anyway,. and I suspect this will be true of the non IS 70-200mm as well. It's no slouch,. the 100-400mm is still and "L" after all,. but I beleive it has been established that the 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS) is Canon's fastest focusing zoom lens. So no,. your 100-400mm will not be able to keep up.

Also,. the 100-400mm larger AF weekness,. is focus tracking where small objects are concerend, it's not such a huge issue with a frame filling large subject,. but for birds in flight at a distance,. the lens shows this weakness.

And this is again where more compormise comes in,. as this focus tracking is a place where the 400mm prime absolutely excels!

CDS: http://www.iespell.com/

It's free! ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not using ie ;)

[Persian-Rice]

CDS there is one for FF too..................lol
Unless you are using some complicated redhat/Linux thing.........

No one asnwered my other question. Is the Canon one better then the Sigma, Tamron or whatever else brand there is?

[defordphoto]

CDS there is one for FF too..................lol
Unless you are using some complicated redhat/Linux thing.........

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


No one asnwered my other question. Is the Canon one better then the Sigma, Tamron or whatever else brand there is?

Mmmmm....of course it is. Nothing is better than Canon glass. :)