D60, 100-400IS & a 2x Converter

[GenEOS]

Has anyone used their D60 with a 100-400IS and a 1.4x or 2x converter?

If so, how does the lens operate? Is it manual focus only? Does the stabilizer still function?

I was toying with the idea of getting a set of converters for bird photography....

Any input is greatly appreciated.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Pretty much manual focus, although there is a "tip" about taping some of the lens contacts, but reports have been mixed. In any case, if you're talking birds in flight the AF wouldn't be fast enough.

IS works.

I've got the 1.4x. It works OK with the 100-400, but it's not easy nailing the focus.

Regards,

[dbarthel]

I have the 100-400 and the 1.4x converter. It is very hard to use unless in bright light. Viewfinder apature is F8, very dark. Not recommended.

[Rayz]

Don't waste your time. The 100-400 is not good enough for use with a converter with the D60. You'll get equal or better results cropping the image from 400mm and enlarging with pixel interpolation. I've tried it. The D60 has 1.4x the resolving power of the D30. It's already capable of extracting practically all the resolution the 100-400 has to offer at the long end.

[philw]

Well I used a 2xII with my D30, and now with my 1Ds.


Rayz wrote:
Don't waste your time. The 100-400 is not good enough for use with a converter with the D60. You'll get equal or better results cropping the image from 400mm and enlarging with pixel interpolation. I've tried it.

On my D30 I'd pretty much agree with you, but for different reasons. You get a small dark viewfinder image. You're sitting at one end of a long lens and it's f11.
On a good day you can just about hold it all steady on a BIG tripod (not the sort you can carry around by hand).
On a bright day you still can't see enough in the viewfinder to focus, and neither can the D30 AF if you tape the contacts.
You have bog-all DOF, so the one thing you need most of all is accurate focus, and you don't have it.

I gave up on it and went for the 100-400 with PS cropping.

On the 1Ds it looks like it might be more useful. I managed to focus the thing and take a reasonably sharp picture of a tree (the bird had gone by the time I screwed it all together). You get a lot more light in the viewfiner, so perhaps you can see enough to focus it. I may carry it around a bit more now.

Overall I'd say that this is probably targetted more at the 70-200L (or was it 80?) f2.8 crowd. If you mate that with a 2xII you have a 400m lens and you can still autofocus I think.

My view: 800mm isn't a sensible lens size.

Phil

[Rayz]

philw wrote:


My view: 800mm isn't a sensible lens size.

Phil


Phil,
What are you saying!!?? Anyone who wants to photograph small birds on twigs needs every extension of focal length they can get. But I'm sure there have been lots and lots of of people who have been conned or duped into assuming that a teleconverter will do the trick. Unless you have a very expensive prime, it won't. Although I have to admit that when using film, the converter will always give a less grainy result, even if there's no more detail to be found - and that's something.

When using a D60, there's no 'grain' advantage to a converter. In chosing whether or not to use a converter with a particular lens, you need to know whether or not your lens has resolution capabilities beyond that of the sensor, and not just marginal resolution beyond the sensor because any converter introduces its own 'MTF curve' which will negate such marginal effects.

[Tom Batinich]

According to Canon if you use the extender on a lens with F2.8 the auto focus will still work.

"With the EF 2x II, AF is possible with any EOS body if the lens has an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture, and compatible Image Stabilization lenses maintain the IS feature when used with any current EOS camera."

I have a 70-200m f/2.8 IS but I haven,t purchased the extender yet.

EXTENDER DATA

Lens Attachment Focal Length
(mm) f-stop
(f) Max. Magnification
(x) AF
EF 135mm f/2L USM 270 4 ~ 64 0.38 O
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM 360 6.7*1 ~ 64 2.0 X
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM 400 3.5 ~ 45 0.18 O
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM 400 5.6 ~ 64 0.32 O
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM 600 5.6 ~ 64 0.28 O
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM 600 8 ~ 64 0.47 O*4*5
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM 800 5.6 ~ 64 0.31 O
EF 400mm f/4L DO IS USM 800 8 ~ 64 0.24 X
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM 800 11 ~ 64 0.18 X
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM 1,000 8 ~ 90 0.25 O*4*5
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM 1,200 8 ~ 90 0.24 O*4*5

[Phil Hall]

Check out this site
http://www.canonians.com

choose Lenses and then go to bottom of the page for a
comparison of the100-400 vs the 70-200 with a 2x extender.

I have been using a 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 2x extender on a D30 for over a year. It has been gret for wildlife nd I have not had many focussing problems.
I just bought a 100-400 lense and a 1.4x converter and a 1D. This system is clumsier than the 70-200 system but will just take getting used to it. I will post more observations later.


Phil Hall Santa Ynez CA

[Rayz]

Sure a telephoto lens that has a maximum aperture of, say, F2.8 will allow autofussing when used with a converter. A 2x converter makes it F5.6. But, have you considered that lenses at F2.8 do not perform well - as a general rule? Add a converter which introduces its own distortions and loss of contrast to the 'underperforming' lens at F2.8, and you don't get a particularly impressive result, necessarily. As a general rule, I would say a really expensive F2.8 prime with 2x converter equals a moderatley cheap prime of 2x the focal length. If you already have the really expensive F2.8 prime, then its a cheaper option and a more convenient option (weight wise) to attach a 2x converter, than it is to buy and carry a mediun priced, consumer grade prime 2x the focal length.

[Rayz]

Brett,
I think you've missed the point. The stabiliser always works with the 1.4x or 2x extenders. The question is, is the final result with 2x extender better in any way than a cropped and enlarged image taken at 400mm?

In my experience with the D60, the answer is no - not even with a 1.4x converter. At the risk of your hating me for pointing this out, I think you might be wasting your time.

[philw]

What are you saying!!?? Anyone who wants to photograph small birds on twigs needs every extension of focal length they can get.

(apologies for the delay in responding)
What I was saying, was that 800mm sounds big and macho and you might think that you need all the length you can get, but as with other things, it's not that simple.

I do shoot small birds on twigs. The problem with very long lenses is that it's hard to get them stable enough to shoot. In the hides I normally inhabit you can't actually get a Canon 600mm lens through the shutters. You end up with an extremely large amount of heavy gear, and you're probably in the wrong place with it.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree here; I like the idea of having a very long lens, but in practice you're probably better off with something you can carry around. Then you need to think more about getting your shot, and less about sitting in the car park hoping the birdies will come to you ;-) Of course the huge glass would work well two ways in the car park... it would get admiring glances I guess ;-)

phil