500D Closeup Lens with 100-400mm II?

Does anyone have experience with the 500D closeup lens on the 100-400mm Mark II? I just got the Mark II and love the closer MFD compared to the original, but would like to focus even closer. The specs on the 500D suggest it is for lenses up to 300mm, but is there any reason it wouldn't work at 400mm? - Thanks

I tried it on a version 1 100-400 and it seemed to confuse the AF and was too much for the IS. I'm sure the 100-400 II would give better results as would a more current body then I used then which was a 7D. I would try it for you but I'm in the hospital for knee surgery. Why not just order it and return it if it doesn't work for you.

For less than price of 500D you can get a set of extension tubes. A 1.4 TC will also increase magnification. Loss of AF is irrelevant IMHO for macro, just set focus at minimum and move back and forth to achieve focus. I've posted these in the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW! thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17632372

With 1.4TC:

I agree with Dave. Get an extension tube instead. You'll still be able to AF but, quite frankly, AF isn't generally very useful when shooting macro.

If the reference to a 500D close up lens is actually referring to a supplemental magnification lens to fit on the front a of a kit lens, as are often seen in adverts on Amazon/Ebay, these are normally on a 58mm filter ring, to fit the Canon kit lenses. The 100-400 II has IIRC a 77mm filter size, so considerably larger than the 58mm of the usual cheap supplemental lenses.

To be honest one is likely to get far better macro results from using a set of extension tubes, preferably the ones with the electronic connections, so that you can still control the aperture, and maybe get working AF too. As extension tubes don't actually have any glass, they do not have a negative affect on the image quality either, so cheap ones, as long as the electronics work, as as good as expensive ones. As they fit between the lens and body, they are not affected by the size of the front element either.

Alan

They do make 77mm 500Ds :
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …m_500D_Close_up​_Lens.html

But at $149 for 500D, Kenko auto ext tubes (auto meaning with electrical contacts) for $109 are better value.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …o_Extension_Tub​e_Set.html

Look online (Amazon) for an "Achromatic Close-up lens" (these should be two element just like the 500D) in the filter size you need. Some are cheaper (Polaroid), and some are more (like the Marumi). Remember generally you get what you pay for. I have the Marumi and it is pretty good (I got it used at not the Amazon price).

That said, I agree that the suggestions for getting extension tubes (with electrical contacts to keep communications to the camera) over the the "filter" is a way better choice.

I also agree with bumpintheroad, and I tend toward MF with macro work (especially with tubes or close-up lenses).

Perhaps it is just me, but there seems to be some confusion about 'extension tubes' and teleconverters (1.4x TC). They are entirely different animals.

The extension tube has no glass in it and works best with with shorter focal length lenses. A 25mm extension tube on a 50mm lens does a really nice job. On a 400mm lens it will do next to nothing.

The TC does have glass in it, and it works better on longer focal length lenses. A 1.4x TC on a 50mm lens gives you a 70mm lens, which is not much improvement. The 1.4x TC is more effective on longer focal lengths.

Both the tube and the TC cut light hitting the sensor. The 250D and 500D closeup lenses do not. I use a 25mm extension tube with a 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. It works, if you don't do much macro. The biggest PITA about NOT using a dedicated macro lens is the VERY limited range of focus. Using the 25mm tube on the 50 1.4 give me about 4" from MFD to Infinity. That can be inconvenient.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17633330
Perhaps it is just me, but there seems to be some confusion about 'extension tubes' and teleconverters (1.4x TC). They are entirely different animals.

The extension tube has no glass in it and works best with with shorter focal length lenses. A 25mm extension tube on a 50mm lens does a really nice job. On a 400mm lens it will do next to nothing.

The TC does have glass in it, and it works better on longer focal length lenses. A 1.4x TC on a 50mm lens gives you a 70mm lens, which is not much improvement. The 1.4x TC is more effective on longer focal lengths.

Both the tube and the TC cut light hitting the sensor. The 250D and 500D closeup lenses do not. I use a 25mm extension tube with a 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. It works, if you don't do much macro. The biggest PITA about NOT using a dedicated macro lens is the VERY limited range of focus. Using the 25mm tube on the 50 1.4 give me about 4" from MFD to Infinity. That can be inconvenient.

Your comment regards 25mm tube "On a 400mm lens it will do next to nothing."

On the 100-400 II, which is the lens being discussed, a 25mm tube at 400mm increases maximum magnification from 0.31x to 0.46x.
That is around a 50% increase.
(Quoted from page 18 of the user manual.)

From page 16 of the user manual: Max mag with 1.4TC increases to 0.44X.

Call them "entirely different animals" if you like but 0.31x increasing to 0.46X and 0.44X is a very similar result.
To say the 25mm tube will do "next to nothing" is about as wrong a statement as is possible.

Some more facts: Page 18 of the user manual, word for word:

Attaching a 500D (77mm) Close-up lens enables close-up photography.
It provide max mag between 0.2X to 0.78X.
MF mode is recommended for accurate focusing.

MF mode is recommended for accurate focusing. is also stated under the table for Extension tube magnification increases on Page 18.

Choderboy wrote in post #17633351
Your comment regards 25mm tube "On a 400mm lens it will do next to nothing."

On the 100-400 II, which is the lens being discussed, a 25mm tube at 400mm increases maximum magnification from 0.31x to 0.46x.
That is around a 50% increase.
(Quoted from page 18 of the user manual.)

From page 16 of the user manual: Max mag with 1.4TC increases to 0.44X.

Call them "entirely different animals" if you like but 0.31x increasing to 0.46X and 0.44X is a very similar result.
To say the 25mm tube will do "next to nothing" is about as wrong a statement as is possible.

Thanks for posting. I have discovered the error of my ways. The 100-400II focuses a LOT closer than my 100-400c (I hate that) does. Even with a 25mm ET, the original 100-400 only goes to 0.35x. Shabby compared to the II version. Still, a 25mm ET is much more useful on shorter focal lengths. As I have already made the shots, I will post my results.

The following are shot with 50 1.4 (with and without 25mm ET) and a 100-400L (with and without 25mm ET). All shots at MFD. The ET cut the MFD on the 50mm lens by about 80%. On the 100-400 (granted, not the much closer focusing version II), the change was less than 10% in MFD.

And the 100-400L at MFD with and w/o 25mm ET. Apologies for my inability to hand-hold a 400mm lens at MFD and 1/250.

As choderboy has mentioned, the 100-400II will perform a lot better in this test due to its MFD being about 1/2 that of the 100-400c.

I have a 72mm 500D and it hasn't gotten much use, truth be told. I had the 77mm 500D in my cart on eBay...... and decided I didn't really need it. The 100-400ii is quite good for dragonflies, etc. naked. I haven't tried it with extension tubes, though I have a set of them. The MDF on the 100-400ii caused a little envy for a fellow photographer at St. Augustine bird rookery earlier this spring. It is such a nice feature.

Some time ago I investigated how the 100-400mm II works with extension tubes and the 500D. For anyone who might be interested, this is what I found.

Extension tubes certainly increase magnification. At 400mm I got an m of about 0.75x with all three Kenko tubes (68mm of extension), 0.55x with just the 36mm tube, and 0.32x bare. With these tubes, I observed working distances of 32, 40 and 61cm respectively. Working distances decline steeply with focal length with the tubes (but not bare).

I have the 58mm version of the 500D, which fits the 100-400mmII with a reducing adapter. There doesn't seem to be any vignetting. The 500D gives me an m of 0.71x at the long end, declining to 0.33x at the short end. This compares to Canon's claims of 0.78 and 0.2x. The working distance with the 500D is approx. 25cm across all focal lengths.

I did only limited shooting with the 100-400II/500D and got really crappy results. This might just be my fault, I don't know. It might be worth while trying it again.