Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Feb 2015 (Monday) 19:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 1.4x Extender (II or III) paired with Canon 100-400 mk II - Thoughts?

 
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,700 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5215
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 13, 2016 04:21 as a reply to  @ post 18036872 |  #31

I have the 150-600 Sport and 100-400 II. I gave it quite a bit of thought before purchase and continue to evaluate. My comparo thread here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1449102

I put the Sigma ahead (just) in that thread but it's a pure image quality on a static subject comparison.
Bryan Carnathan concluded that 100-400II with 1.4TC is "at least as sharp as" Sigma 150-600C and "similar" to 150-600S.
I cannot comment on the C but agree with the S comparo regarding my lenses.
I can't say what the true focal length of the S is but estimate 580mm and the Canon is around 380mm. When shooting one of these lenses and still needing to crop, every bit of focal length helps so the S has a little advantage there. I suspect 535mm vs 580mm is close to the true focal length of these two combinations.

You mentioned the obvious weight difference, for BIF I would use the Canon due to lighter weight despite the restricted AF points. I have not updated the Sigma's firmware, I'm conservative regarding firmware "upgrades" having plenty of experience with them actually being downgrades (non photography equipment). I find the AF very good on the Sigma regarding accuracy and also speed. Canon is faster but so it should be not being reverse engineered. Accuracy is far more important if speed is acceptable to me and it is for the Sigma.

The IS is superior on the Canon IMHO, for absolute stop gain and to me it's a "it just works" situation. The Sigma can be a bit annoying, has a habit of continually adjusting in one direction in a slow continuous movement then returning to centre in a series of 4 jumps. This is when tripod mounted, on a Benro carbon 4570T with Arca Swiss Z1 Monoball. Not the most solid combo available but pretty good.

I had a problem with tripod ring / foot on my 100-400 II and elected to avoid Canon service and had a private repair shop disassemble and reassemble the lens to allow me to make my own repair. The Sigma foot uses the same bolt pattern and size bolts as the Canon 400 2.8. The foot also has three 1/4 threaded holes to mount a lens plate. It's like a brick house versus a rice paper house. No prizes for guessing which I prefer.

I have used the S in the rain and I trust the Sigma weather resistance more than the Canon. Nothing scientific to back that up, just my personal feeling.

For me the Sigma is worth it but I shoot a lot where an 800 5.6 would barely be long enough. If I had to give up one, it would be the Sigma, due to the size difference. The Sigma, at my estimated 812mm with 1.4TC will still AF, is noticeably inferior to the Canon with a 1.4TC, but noticeably superior to the Canon with 2XTC and that's before up sampling the Canon image that I estimate to be around 760mm which would have no (PD) AF.

The Sigma will be my long solution until I decide to outlay for and find a reasonably priced 500 F4 IS (MK1).

On topic, 100-400II with 1.4TCIII:
Full Image from 7D2:

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7319/27586392656_33c1861433_o.jpg

Discarded just over half the 5472 horizontal pixels for this 2697pixel wide crop:

IMAGE: https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7046/27010894213_851419ec0d_o.jpg

Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,700 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5215
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 13, 2016 04:33 |  #32

The following day with 150-600 S and EF 1.4TCII, cropped a little more, 2635 pixels wide:

IMAGE: https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7503/27032706373_5550cd6b6b_o.jpg

Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
I still have 8 digits left
Avatar
17,202 posts
Gallery: 125 photos
Likes: 12350
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Canada
     
Jun 13, 2016 08:06 |  #33

Thanks for the detailed explanation and link Dave. Very helpful.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,043 posts
Gallery: 547 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1639
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jun 14, 2016 00:35 |  #34

Choderboy wrote in post #18037689 (external link)
I have the 150-600 Sport and 100-400 II. I gave it quite a bit of thought before purchase and continue to evaluate. My comparo thread here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1449102

I put the Sigma ahead (just) in that thread but it's a pure image quality on a static subject comparison.
Bryan Carnathan concluded that 100-400II with 1.4TC is "at least as sharp as" Sigma 150-600C and "similar" to 150-600S.
I cannot comment on the C but agree with the S comparo regarding my lenses.
I can't say what the true focal length of the S is but estimate 580mm and the Canon is around 380mm. When shooting one of these lenses and still needing to crop, every bit of focal length helps so the S has a little advantage there. I suspect 535mm vs 580mm is close to the true focal length of these two combinations.

You mentioned the obvious weight difference, for BIF I would use the Canon due to lighter weight despite the restricted AF points. I have not updated the Sigma's firmware, I'm conservative regarding firmware "upgrades" having plenty of experience with them actually being downgrades (non photography equipment). I find the AF very good on the Sigma regarding accuracy and also speed. Canon is faster but so it should be not being reverse engineered. Accuracy is far more important if speed is acceptable to me and it is for the Sigma.

The IS is superior on the Canon IMHO, for absolute stop gain and to me it's a "it just works" situation. The Sigma can be a bit annoying, has a habit of continually adjusting in one direction in a slow continuous movement then returning to centre in a series of 4 jumps. This is when tripod mounted, on a Benro carbon 4570T with Arca Swiss Z1 Monoball. Not the most solid combo available but pretty good.

I had a problem with tripod ring / foot on my 100-400 II and elected to avoid Canon service and had a private repair shop disassemble and reassemble the lens to allow me to make my own repair. The Sigma foot uses the same bolt pattern and size bolts as the Canon 400 2.8. The foot also has three 1/4 threaded holes to mount a lens plate. It's like a brick house versus a rice paper house. No prizes for guessing which I prefer.

I have used the S in the rain and I trust the Sigma weather resistance more than the Canon. Nothing scientific to back that up, just my personal feeling.

For me the Sigma is worth it but I shoot a lot where an 800 5.6 would barely be long enough. If I had to give up one, it would be the Sigma, due to the size difference. The Sigma, at my estimated 812mm with 1.4TC will still AF, is noticeably inferior to the Canon with a 1.4TC, but noticeably superior to the Canon with 2XTC and that's before up sampling the Canon image that I estimate to be around 760mm which would have no (PD) AF.

The Sigma will be my long solution until I decide to outlay for and find a reasonably priced 500 F4 IS (MK1).

On topic, 100-400II with 1.4TCIII:
Full Image from 7D2:
QUOTED IMAGE

Discarded just over half the 5472 horizontal pixels for this 2697pixel wide crop:
QUOTED IMAGE


At what focus distance are you assesing the focal length? I know in many reviews on line that assesments of focal length for very long focal lengths are being done at very near MFD. The problem being that most of our lenses, especially zooms, are not parfocal, which means that the true FL is only going to be close to the specified value when focused at infinity. Comparing a sub £2000 400mm+ zoom with a £6000+ prime of the same nominal FL at any focus distance other than infinity is hardly a fair one.

I'm sure you probably get a similar 5% shift in measured FL between MFD and infinity with a 50mm lens, but nobody is likely to bother about a 2.5mm change in measured FL with focus distance between MFD and infinity.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,700 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5215
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 14, 2016 04:06 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #35

Image comparison tests done at subject distance of around 500 metres.

Regarding "Comparing a sub £2000 400mm+ zoom with a £6000+ prime of the same nominal FL at any focus distance other than infinity is hardly a fair one"

It's not about fair. The purpose of my comparo thread and thread and my post above is about comparing available products and the results possible with them. Fair enough?


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,229 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
Post edited over 4 years ago by mannetti21.
     
Jun 30, 2016 16:11 |  #36

I'm in such pickle right now. I (think) I'm ready to let go of my 70-200II for a longer lens. Essentially the 70-200 is my least used lens outside of wedding gigs, which I'm actually trying to get away from. It's either too long (or redundant with my 85mm) or not long enough to use outdoors...if that makes any sense. I just can't decide if its smarter to get 150-600, or a 100-400.

In the images above, the 150-600 + TC @840mm actually looks better than the 100-400 @560mm.


Also, is the 100-400II considered one of the telephotos that benefits from the 1.4xIII? I remember reading something about only certain lenses benefiting from the version 3 TC's.


---------------
5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
11,485 posts
Gallery: 524 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 30258
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited over 4 years ago by Archibald.
     
Jun 30, 2016 18:10 |  #37

mannetti21 wrote in post #18054474 (external link)
Also, is the 100-400II considered one of the telephotos that benefits from the 1.4xIII? I remember reading something about only certain lenses benefiting from the version 3 TC's.

Not sure what you mean by "benefits". Obviously it increases the focal length. The IQ declines a bit, the max aperture is smaller by a stop, and AF is slower. Those are not benefits, but are usually acceptable compromises for many of us.

This Savannah Sparrow was taken with the 1.4X III and looks OK to me, yet seems to lack a bit in IQ. It is probably better than what I would have gotten with the bare 100-400 II and cropping, though.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon R5, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses, Sony RX10 IV
I'm Ed. C&C always welcome. Picture editing OK. Donate to POTN here
.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,229 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 511
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Jun 30, 2016 18:17 |  #38

Archibald wrote in post #18054586 (external link)
Not sure what you mean by "benefits". Obviously it increases the focal length. The IQ declines a bit, the max aperture is smaller by a stop, and AF is slower. Those are not benefits, but are usually acceptable compromises for many of us.

This Savannah Sparrow was taken with the 1.4X III and looks OK to me, yet seems to lack a bit in IQ. It is probably better than what I would have gotten with the bare 100-400 II and cropping, though.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=180​54586&i=i220997657
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

I was referring to benefits of the version II vs III TC's. I thought I read that the v.III was only necessary for Canon's "super-zooms".


---------------
5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John_T
Goldmember
Avatar
3,098 posts
Gallery: 127 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 448
Joined Jun 2003
Location: Switzerland
     
Jul 01, 2016 00:26 |  #39

I believe the IIIs have improved optics and coatings, which I notice, and I tend to feel that the IIIs electronics work better with the 100-400 II than the IITCs did.


Canon : EOS R : 5DIV : 5DS R : 5DIII : 7DII : 40 2.8 : 50 1.4 : 35L : 85L : 100L IS Macro : 135L : 16-35L II : RF-24-105L IS : 70-200L II : 100-400L IS II : 1.4x & 2x TC III : 600EX-RT : 580EX : 430EX : G1XII : Markins Q10 & Q3T : Jobu Gimbal : Manfrotto Underware : etc...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
I still have 8 digits left
Avatar
17,202 posts
Gallery: 125 photos
Likes: 12350
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Canada
     
Jul 01, 2016 19:08 |  #40

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …r-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx (external link)


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcaysinger
Mostly Lurking
19 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2015
Location: Rochester, NY
     
Jul 03, 2016 15:37 |  #41

I've used both the mark II & III extender with the 100-400 mk II lens, & the mark III extender focuses faster most of the time, & better in low light. I'm glad I upgraded my extender.


Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Mark I & II, 1.4 Extender III, Canon T3i

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 270
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Jul 03, 2016 22:33 |  #42

I had 1.4x II, and it worked very well with the 70-200. Then I got the 100-400II, and I was not happy about the IQ when used with this TC. An experienced photographer specializing in birds told me to try v. III. I did, and it was quite an improvement over v. II, both in terms of the IQ and AF speed. I do not see a difference between the II and III on the 70-200.

This is taken at 560mm, cropped.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KainguLodge
Member
Avatar
139 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 340
Joined Apr 2015
Location: Zambia
     
Jul 04, 2016 00:19 |  #43

Just like Lbsimon I have the 1.4xII and I am not completely happy with the IQ and the AF certainly takes a hit (1dMKIV body). But to be honest I am not going to invest in the III for the few times I would use it. The extra reach would be great but the trade-off in light gathering for my uses is just not worth it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
Avatar
1,909 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 224
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
Jul 10, 2016 07:49 |  #44

I am extremely happy with my Canon 100-400 mk II paired with the Canon 1. 4 III extender. I find the combo much sharper than just my old 100 - 400 alone.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,545 posts
Gallery: 168 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5547
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Jul 10, 2016 10:40 |  #45

.

Archibald wrote in post #18054586 (external link)
This Savannah Sparrow was taken with the 1.4X III and looks OK to me, yet seems to lack a bit in IQ. It is probably better than what I would have gotten with the bare 100-400 II and cropping, though.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=180​54586&i=i220997657
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

That just looks like you missed focus, as the wing primaries look perfectly sharp, while the head and breast are soft. I don't think there's anything there to blame the lens for - if you had been able to lock focus on the bird's eye/head, then the IQ would be perfect!

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

30,707 views & 15 likes for this thread
Canon 1.4x Extender (II or III) paired with Canon 100-400 mk II - Thoughts?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is theweddingmoments
899 guests, 215 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.