100-400mm + 1.4 extender.. anyone try it?

[DMcGrew]

Have any of you tried the 1.4 extender on the 100-400mm lens? Is it worth it? Or would I be better off just cropping since I'll be using the 5D2?

[GSH]

You'll lose AF on a non 1 series body.

Having tried it on a MK2N, i don't feel the need to ever try it again...then again i sold the lens so even if i wanted to inflict that sort of pain on myself i couldn't :D

[Cadwell]

:lol: the 100-400L is bad enough on its own...

[petris]

:lol: the 100-400L is bad enough on its own...

Why?

[Cadwell]

Probably because it is the worst of all of my telephotos in terms of focus speed, optical quality and particularly focus accuracy by some considerable margin. Apart from that it's fine.

[joeseph]

:lol: the 100-400L is bad enough on its own...
:lol: it's not that bad, on the other hand it's not that good a combination either!
struggled to find any examples but here's one:
337708
1D Mk III, AI Servo (will only let you use center focus point) 1/400, f/11, ISO 400

[Peacefield]

Though certainly not up to the performance of a prime, I don't think it's bad. Here are a few different shots using the 100-400 on a lowly XT:

http://photos.robertwaynephotography.com/img/v2/p474045344-4.jpg
http://photos.robertwaynephotography.com/img/v5/p400491597-4.jpg
http://photos.robertwaynephotography.com/img/v2/p416443123-4.jpg
http://photos.robertwaynephotography.com/img/v1/p103135069-4.jpg
http://photos.robertwaynephotography.com/img/v6/p520380247-4.jpg

[Cadwell]

Though certainly not up to the performance of a prime...

It's not up to the performance of a decent zoom either.

Though hard to tell as you have no EXIF on your shots I'll be willing to go out on a limb and suggest that you were shooting in good light with the lens stopped down a long way (that much is obvious by the almost infinite DoF you have). Under those circumstances, I'd expect a 75-300 to return good results.

[gh patriot]

Probably because it is the worst of all of my telephotos in terms of focus speed, optical quality and particularly focus accuracy by some considerable margin. Apart from that it's fine.


Dont hold back, tell us how you really feel.:p

[GSH]

Dont hold back, tell us how you really feel.:p

He won't and he did...and will probably continue to do so ;)

[Peacefield]

I'll be willing to go out on a limb and suggest that you were shooting in good light with the lens stopped down a long way (that much is obvious by the almost infinite DoF you have). Under those circumstances, I'd expect a 75-300 to return good results.

Not sure I'd consider f8 to be especially stopped down on a 4.5-5.6 lens. Exifs in order are:

1: Photo taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT, f/8 @ 100 mm, 1/200, ISO 100

2: Photo taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT, f/6.3 @ 320 mm, 1/500, ISO 100

3: Photo taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT, f/7.1 @ 300 mm, 1/200, ISO 100

4: Photo taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT, f/8 @ 400 mm, 1/400, ISO 100

5: Photo taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT, f/11 @ 200 mm, 1/160, ISO 100

Definitely not magazine quality images, but for being a hack with only general admission access shooting with an old 8mp XT, I think these are pretty good. There are definitely primes in my distant future, and to get back to the original question, I don't think I would ever add a T/E to this lens, but I do have to say that I'm very pleased with the over all performance of this lens, especially for the price.

[Cadwell]

I'm struggling to understand why you think "general admission access" or an 8MP XT should have any affect on the image quality? Many of us shoot from "general admission" areas and many of us are used to using less capable cameras (6MP EOS 10D for example).

I'd consider f/8 plenty stopped down from f/4.5. The f/6.3 shot looks about what I'd expect from a 100-400L at that aperture. At the price point this lens occupied and as "Canon's premier long telephoto zoom" I'd expect and be entitled to expect "magazine quality" regardless of the camera body it is fitted on and regardless of the aperture used.

[Peacefield]

Well, then I guess maybe your expectations are a little misguided. Even with just those 5 samples, I shot across the entire 100-400 range. Buying 4 primes across that range with comprable max aperatures would cost ~$5,000. For fast glass, 5 times that number. Based on the performance I feel I get out of it and it's $1,400 price tag, it sure seems like good value to me. I'll go back to my first statement; not as good as a prime, but for the convenience and cost savings that comes with a zoom, I can only be very happy with it.

[Cadwell]

Buying a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM and occasionally using a 1.4x teleconvertor on it will yield you one to two stops in aperture, a superior range at the long end (with the TC fitted) and will absolutely destroy the 100-400L for image quality, focus speed and only cost a little more.

Buying a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM (and occasional use of 1.4x TC) will likewise destroy the 100-400L for image quality and will yield a 1 stop advantage for most of the time (except when using the TC) for significantly less money.

Nope... I have quite realistic expectations, the 100-400L is a "legendary Canon L Series" lens after all, unfortunately it's just not a very good one.

[condyk]

Buying a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM (and occasional use of 1.4x TC) will likewise destroy the 100-400L for image quality and will yield a 1 stop advantage for most of the time (except when using the TC) for significantly less money.

Nope... I have quite realistic expectations, the 100-400L is a "legendary Canon L Series" lens after all, unfortunately it's just not a very good one.

Oh man, that is so true in my personal experience: a decent enough, convenient lens that many people feel nice and cuddly about owning but really it only survives in the Canon range still through the misguided pack mentality of those who have often not experienced much else.

[Peacefield]

I've never tried that lens so clearly don't know what I'm missing. I'm pretty certain though, that a jump from $1400 to $3000 probably isn't correctly characterized as "only costing a little more". For that kind of price difference, shame on the Sigma lens if it doesn't kill the 100-400 by large measure. Essentially, you're comparing two lenses that are worlds apart. So what's the point?

[Cadwell]

Conveniently ignoring the reference to the Sigma 100-300mm f/4EX HSM (which is $400 cheaper than the 100-400L) I see :lol:

The point of mentioning the 120-300mm was to highlight how ludicrous your "~$5,000. For fast glass, 5 times that number" statement was. You can get much better for less than that.

[Peacefield]

Hmmm, clearly, I'm not understanding your passion for this lens. I did, in error, quote the f2 price in my prior post. Nonetheless, my point stands, that you are comparing two lenses that are not really very comparable.

- On a crop camera, which is what I shoot, the 100-400 is equivalent to 640mm on the long end while the Sigma is only 480. I use this lens not just for motorsports but all sports and even some birding. I would need a T/E all the time to get the same reach.

- The Sigma lens doesn't have IS. It is my preference to shoot hand-held much of the time, especially for birding. IS gets me many more keepers, especially in panning mode when at the track.

- Thoughts on IQ can be subjective. I visited Amazon's site to learn more about a lens which I was previously unaware. There were only 3 user reviews. Two of them made no comparative statements, the third one did indicating that he felt the Canon was sharper but he went with the Sigma due to price. On Fredmiranda.com, there were many comments about poor build quality, and a few more who felt the Sigma was not as sharp as the Canon at the long end. For what it's worth, 2 of the 4 reviews on B&H slammed the Sigma for quality issues. Indeed, the one positive I found to be fairly commonly cited about the Sigma was it's quickness to focus.

Two different lenses that kinda speak to the same need in different ways. At the end of the day, I'm happy with my 100-400, you like the Sigma because it KILLS and DESTROYS the Canon, so it's all good. I think I'm done with this string, but carry on. And, please, more hyperbole.

[Lowner]

While I would agree that the 100-400 is not as good as it's L rating would lead one to expect, I've been very happy with the results I've got from it.

I've attached a shot of The Doctor exiting the Foggy Esses during last years very VERY wet qualifying session on the Saturday. When this lens has a reputation for needing good light, and this was about the worst light I've ever shot in, I hope you agree it's not bad.

1/320s at f/8, ISO400, AI Servo, monopod and a very large camping towel.

I've noticed Valentino doing this a lot, at a number of tracks. He seems to spend his whole time looking about 6 feet in front of the bike. Everyone else looks miles ahead!

[Simon Harrison]

When this lens has a reputation for needing good light, and this was about the worst light I've ever shot in, I hope you agree it's not bad.

1/320s at f/8, ISO400, AI Servo, monopod and a very large camping towel.



The light might not be ideal, but from the settings you've posted that is by no means bad light.

Simon.

[darren h]

I was looking forward to Glenn's remarks on this subject knowing his great love for this lens, never mind with a 1.4 converter on as well :-)

[Lowner]

Simon,

The light must have been coming down in giant lumps just like the rain. It was certainly the worst rain I've ever had to shoot in. But then it was important to me to keep going.

Not particularly relevent to the 100-400 discussion, but maybe of some point to the wider debate: I used to have a Sigma 170-500, and was looking through my MotoGP images taken with that lens. Heaven knows a lot are hopeless because I messed up, but even the good ones still look far too soft to me these days, and thats even with loosing the 100mm.

[GSH]

For what it's worth, this was with the 100-400L, Sigma 1.4x and on the 1DMK2N.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Images%202009/Various/PM3H1198.jpg

However, that was one of the better shots i got with that combination and remember you're restricted to the Centre AF point, which for me is not an option as i rarely use it.

It CAN work, but then again you can also bang nails into wood with your head if you try hard enough ;)

As for the comaprative cost of the 100-400 v 120-300, in my case it £950 v £1200 (both new) so not a massive difference to me. As people round here seem fond of saying "you get what you pay for" ;)