100-400L + 1.4TC?

[Incomplete Pete]

Just curious about the quality of using the 100-400 L IS lens when combined with the 1.4TC? Is the quality truely terrible or not?

[xuxu1]

Just curious about the quality of using the 100-400 L IS lens when combined with the 1.4TC? Is the quality truely terrible or not?
Since you already have the TC you might want to borrow or rent a 100-400L and find out for yourself.

I´m sure your going to hate that combo! :p

ED

[condyk]

I've read of people using the lens with TCon's stacked!!! And reporting good results. What good means I dunno. Maybe someone will post a shot. I just wouldn't fancy the MF side of things.

[xuxu1]

I would´nt care to much about MF. I do it quite often even without a TC.

Oh no, not again.... now i have to add a 1.4x TC to my shopping list. :o :mrgreen:

ED

[robertwgross]

I use that lens with one or two x1.4 teleconverters, depending on the subject.

You get used to manual focus, but if the subject is relatively static, that's OK.

At the distances I shoot (typically some bird at 100 feet), the manual focus gets quite critical. If I am not careful, I get a blurry mess, so a hurry-up shot tends to be bad.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

The TC drops the quality noticably, but it's still better than many lenses out there, and it's a lot better than missing the shot. Like Bob says, it's not a quick combo - you need time to MF. I found the combo unusable with 10D because it was too dim to MF. With the 20D it's much better in my opinion.

[Rob612]

I can tell you that today I made a very dirty test. I stacked the 100-400 IS in front of a Kenko Pro300 3x (that gives a whopping 1200mm optical, thus about a 1.920 apparent focal lenght) on a very cheap and basically unstable Hama tripod.

Here the results, both 100% crop, the first one is unprocessed jpeg right out of the camera, the second one is the same crop with a little level compression and a (heavy) USM applied. 1/4 sec@ f/11 (real)

All in all, for those situations where a bad pic is better than no pic, I would say that I can accept it (thinking about some "special" shoots that sometimes I do for some cops friend of mine). Absolutely NOT to use for quality shots. But its a nice way to get a very cheap 1200mm... The Kenko burns 3 stops so it goes down to f/16 but what the heck... Plus, probably, working heavily on the RAW file something better can be done.

Tomorrow I'll try the same but with the Canon 2x II. And yes, I have to buy a 1.4x...

Edit to add: of course, it was MF... :D :D

http://www.digitalpics.it/forumlnk/IMG_2693.jpg

http://www.digitalpics.it/forumlnk/IMG_2693A.jpg

[condyk]

Thanks for a fun test. Boy, I wouldn't fancy that as a keeper myself but you had a good try on it :D

Now, the 2x is worth a good go too tho' I reckon I wouldn't fancy that either ... BUT when you get a 1.4x I think we will see something very interesting indeed. I wonder if say 350mm and the 1.4x would get better results than 400mm and 1.4x. Some say the lens is getting a little Mr Softy at 400m, so be interesting to try that!

[Rob612]

:D As I said, it something that makes sense ONLY in those situations where you NEED the pic, no matter the quality (see what I said about "special" shots). If thats the target well.. at least I know that it can be done :D

[xc611]

This is taken by 100-400 + 1.4x


http://137.187.220.108/moon.jpg

[condyk]

No moon shots please :lol: :lol: against the rules. Something we can assess as other than a grey mass with some stuff on it. A bird, or animal or such like would be nice.

[slacker]

Not sure if this helps since some sharpening with PSE was done, I'm currently at work and I don't have access to the raw file so I could do a 100% crop...This was taken with the 100-400L + 1.4 TC on a tripod...

http://slacker.smugmug.com/photos/23643585-L.jpg

[xuxu1]

The TC drops the quality noticably
Are your sure? Is it just your opinion or your experience?

I found the combo unusable with 10D because it was too dim to MF.
You must be kidding ??? I have a 10D and did some shooting with a borrowed 1.4x TC. You know what? One of my next purchases will be a 1.4x TC.

ED

[lomond]

The 100-400L is one of my favourite lenses.
I've tried it with the 1.4 TC on the 1D MKII and didn't manage one keeper @ 400mm. AF is retained on the 1D MKII but all the images were on the soft side so I gave up.
Mind you, they were of birds at a distance.

I tell a lie I did do a moon shot and with some USM and curves came out OK but as condyk says that's just a grey mass with some stuff on it. :)

I didn't even consider it on the 10D with manual focus.

[GyRob]

the TC even on a 300mmf4is makes the image softer ,but more to the point it slows down af 50% or so.
i dont think you can exspect to much in sharpness if it's put on a 100/400
Rob

[Scottes]

Are your sure? Is it just your opinion or your experience?
I'm quite sure, and that's from a lot of experience.


You must be kidding ??? I have a 10D and did some shooting with a borrowed 1.4x TC. You know what? One of my next purchases will be a 1.4x TC.
No, I'm not kidding. It's pretty insulting to say that I am. Perhaps your eyesight is better than mine. Perhaps you don't wear eyeglasses. I said that I found it unusable - you may find it quite usable. Good luck with it.

[lomond]

Ed you have two fine lenses in your bag and one nice walk about lens.
If you buy a 1.4 TC for the big zoom you WILL be disappointed.

In my opinion the 1.4 TC really needs a prime or an f2.8 zoom, some might say an f4 zoom but the fact remains the 100-400L is a load of sh*te with a TC.
Please excuse the use of the Scottish version of sh*t.

[condyk]

Cameron, I suspect you're right, which is a shame ... but sometimes we're better working within boundaries than trying to push too hard. Even if quality was Ok I think I'd find it unusable in practice.

I'm also happy to say the 100-300mm f4 Sigma is clean all the way through to 420mm with a TCon and with speedy HSM AF. If only it had IS :lol: