Probably a stupid question, but...TC's & non-primes

I am under the assumption that a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter can only be used on prime lenses...is this true? Also, are only the Canon TC's compatible? I currently have a Bower 2x, and while I know it doesn't work with any of my zooms, I am getting a 100-400L this week, so will my Bower, or a Canon TC, work with this lens?

Thanks,

~Ace

Check the TC FAQs. Most of your answers can be found there. Short answer: No, they aren't limited to primes. They will work with a 100-400 but not with AF.

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15572229
I am under the assumption that a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter can only be used on prime lenses...is this true?

Nope. Canon TCs are also compatible with the 70-200Ls and the 100-400L. There may be a few other zooms that escape my recollection.

The 100-400L is compatible with both Canon and 3rd party TCs. It will not autofocus with a (reporting) 2X TC on any body, and it will only AF on a 1D body using the center point with a 1.4X TC.

Awesome, thank you, gentlemen!!

If you do decide to go for a 1.4x TC, i'm going to suggest a non-Canon....so you can use it on your 100 macro!

I use my 2x Bower on my 100 macro all the time...is there a difference with the 1.4?

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15572302
I use my 2x Bower on my 100 macro all the time...is there a difference with the 1.4?

Just one less stop of light-loss, and less hit on IQ. Both my TC's are Sigma's, but the 2x won't AF on my 100 macro ( which doesn't matter much...for macro) and theoretically it should ( f/5.6). I find the 1.4 still makes the 100 a nice lens to walk around with, for shooting plants, etc., while still maintaining AF and decent IQ.

If you only use your 100 macro for macro, then i wouldn't consider it. Just that, if you were to get a 1.4x for the 100-400, IMO.. you might as well get one that does double-duty.

OK, I'm a bit confused now. If I have a 2x that works with my 100mm macro, which I do use for some walk around stuff (I never use AF with this lens, anyhow), and it will work with my 100-400 when I get it, what would the benefit of having a 1.4x be?

After grabbing my 100-400, I'm going to have around $600 to play with. I was considering these options:

70-200L non-IS ($558) - Do I really need it with a 100-400, even if I sell my 55-250 & 75-300?
18-135 IS ($449) - I could sell my 18-55, 55-250, and 75-300
manfrotto tripod w/ball grip ($330) - my current one sucks
another 430 EXII ($219) - Just bought some umbrellas/stands/mount​s
another bag to house lenses & camera ($100) - can't even keep my camera in the bag anymore
Do I need to consider a 1.4x?

1.4 only drops a stop of light and generaly impacts optical and autofocus less.

Canon TC's wil work with every prime 135L and up, the tilt shifts and 70-200/100-400 zooms

i would expect the 2X to work on your 75-300mm...and by work i mean fit

DreDaze wrote in post #15572740
i would expect the 2X to work on your 75-300mm...and by work i mean fit

Wow, it does fit!! Autofocus worked as well, but my aperture wouldn't go too high. Can't wait to play around with it tomorrow in some light.

1Tanker wrote in post #15572338
Just one less stop of light-loss, and less hit on IQ. Both my TC's are Sigma's, but the 2x won't AF on my 100 macro ( which doesn't matter much...for macro) and theoretically it should ( f/5.6). I find the 1.4 still makes the 100 a nice lens to walk around with, for shooting plants, etc., while still maintaining AF and decent IQ.

If you only use your 100 macro for macro, then i wouldn't consider it. Just that, if you were to get a 1.4x for the 100-400, IMO.. you might as well get one that does double-duty.

That is weird, the 2X on a 100mm f/2.8 macro (or f/2.8) any lens should AF. It would AF slower and sometimes less accurately, but it should still AF.

AF should work on any lens f/2.8 or faster. As long as the combined aperture is f/5.6 or wider on an Canon AF lens, it should work on any Canon camera body.

Do you have any idea of why it does not on yours?

For the OP. The other difference between the 1.4X and the 2X, is the 2X usually affects the IQ of the image much more negatively than a 1.4X. That is not to say you can't get good and usable pictures, but if compared there is usually more IQ loss. To me a 2X is a last resort (just in case) item, for when you have no other way to get the shot. A 1.4X is (to me) much more useful.

I have no idea, Jim! It kind of defies all logic. It can't be a fault with the TC, as using it on my 300/4L IS on my 1D II AF's.
It just keeps hunting, racking back and forth(on the 100); get's soooo close, then keeps going again. I don't now.. maybe it's an issue with the lens itself, as it hunts a bit too much for my liking with the 1.4x also, at closer(<5') distances; and yes.. that's with focus limiter set properly.

1Tanker wrote in post #15572921
I have no idea, Jim! It kind of defies all logic. It can't be a fault with the TC, as using it on my 300/4L IS on my 1D II AF's.
It just keeps hunting, racking back and forth(on the 100); get's soooo close, then keeps going again. I don't now.. maybe it's an issue with the lens itself, as it hunts a bit too much for my liking with the 1.4x also, at closer(<5') distances; and yes.. that's with focus limiter set properly.

That is a bit peculiar.

I don't remember a problem with my 100mm f/2.8 (non-L non-USM) with a 1.4X, I will give it a try with my Kenko 1.4X and 2X (I don't think I ever used this and AF on my macro - but I will) on Wednesday night and report back. I'm not feeling well tonight and am going to bed, and I will not be home until late tomorrow.

Anybody else have problems with a TC and their 100mm macro lens?

I just checked my Bower 2x on my 100mm USM non-L macro. Works perfectly, auto-focuses @ 5.6