Canon 100-400 Version I and 1.4 Version II extender.

Guys i apologize if there is a thread about this already. I looked and looked and couldn't find it. Any of you have this setup? I don't know if i should spend the extra $230 on the Version III extender if the Version II is going to do the job with my old 100-400. Thanks in advance.

Version II is sharper in the center. Version III is a bit less in the center, but much better in the corners. I have tried the 100-400 & 1.4X II. Nothing to write home about. Slow focus, lowered contrast and resolution. To get the most out of a TC, you need really good glass to start with.

oximuis wrote in post #18196281
Guys i apologize if there is a thread about this already. I looked and looked and couldn't find it. Any of you have this setup? I don't know if i sold spend the extra $230 on the Version III extender if the Version II is going to do the job with my old 100-400. Thanks in advance.

Not likely going to make that much of a difference with the original; the newer circuitry in the mkIII is developed to improve communication/performa​nce with newer lenses.

I used the 100-400 Version I and 1.4 Version II extender for a while - but found it not meeting any specification I can describe - except maybe imagine taking the bottom out of an old beer bottle and trying to take a picture with that.
In spite of micro adjusting the combination many times on several cameras I never used a single picture from it.

However; at great expense, I am now using the 100-400L Mk II and 1.4 Mk III extender. WOW! No comparison between the two combinations. Like comparing chalk and cheese.

I tried the lll on my 100-400 mk l, but did not work for me. I was getting better results by cropping without using the converter. I tried it on a mark ll 100-400 and that works excellent!

Thank you all for your comments. I'll have to wait and see how will my 5D Mark IV reacts to this combination.

So you tried the Mark II extender with your 100-400 version I and it worked?

Sorry, I was not clear on that. I tried the 1.4 III extender on the 100-400 version II. This gave excellent results.

Oh ok thank you

So I've tried the extender for the past 3 days and I'm very happy with the results. Both my 7dii and my 5DIV work good with it. Thank you guys for the comments

Ray.Petri wrote in post #18196734
I used the 100-400 Version I and 1.4 Version II extender for a while - but found it not meeting any specification I can describe - except maybe imagine taking the bottom out of an old beer bottle and trying to take a picture with that.
In spite of micro adjusting the combination many times on several cameras I never used a single picture from it.

However; at great expense, I am now using the 100-400L Mk II and 1.4 Mk III extender. WOW! No comparison between the two combinations. Like comparing chalk and cheese.

The big difference is thanks to the v2 lens, not the v3 extender.
Yes, the new extender is better, but you need to decide if the extra price is worth for you.

Below is some tests i personally performed quite a few years back that you may find informative plus cost effective:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1004776

Regards, Ron

oximuis wrote in post #18197807
So you tried the Mark II extender with your 100-400 version I and it worked?

That would depend highly on the body. The 1DxII or 5D4 would probably AF usefully; a 10D with taped pins would fail to AF well, if at all.

I would disagree with a lot of the innuendo I have read so far in this thread, and TC discussions in general. It is quite rare, IMO, that cropping is ever better than using a TC, if focus is achieved. If a TC prevents focus, though, then it is totally worthless in that situation; a crop from a focused image is better than an unfocused one with a 1.4x. It is tragic, IMO, that people make so many comments on TC use and rarely ever specify what the problem is. When someone refers to a lens or lens&TC combo that fails AF as "not sharp", they are propagating confusion. Sharpness of a lens and sharpness of a *photo*, because of achieved AF, are two completely different things. Same distinction for IS, and I found that some of my older bodies did not power the IS in the 100-400 v1 very well, especially with TCs.

My 100-400 v1 is not a lens I use frequently these days, but it AFes much better in lower light or contrast on my 7D2 with a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x than it did bare, on my 10D. Of course, the sweet spot is still f/8 (f/11 with the TC); the body can't change that. People's impressions of lenses and TCs from the past are tainted by the bodies that they used them with in the past. My 7D2 has breathed new life into lenses that have marginal AF on older bodies, and I understand the 1DxII and 5D4 breathe even more life into lenses. I did take my 100-400 v1 into the field with me once a few weeks ago, to travel with space in my knapsack, and because I was shooting on private property and wasn't sure if a bigger lens would be welcome. I used the Kenko 1.4x whenever light was sufficient, and 400mm wasn't enough, and it nailed focus in the shade, albeit slower than I am used to with my 400/4DO II, which stays sharper at the pixel level when TCs are added (it is still fairly pixel-sharp on the 7D2 at 800/8 with the 2xIII).

To me, the purpose of a TC is not to create a great virtual lens combo, which would score great n resolution tests if it was glued together and sold as a unit; the purpose of a TC is to overcome the problem of having pixels on a sensor that are too large, and a full-image composition that will need heavy cropping. So, the only reason not to use an optically decent TC when you feel that way, is that it might prevent or slow the AF. If that is not an issue, then the TC is a no-brainer, because, if it is putting the subject over more pixels, that means that the radius of the AA filter is smaller, relative to subject size, and not just more pixels on subject, but more red and blue pixels on subject, which are scarce, and necessary for good resolution of fine color details without aliasing or moire. The fact that it might look softer at 100% pixel view is irrelevant; that is an illusion, and any crop that is upsampled to match the TC at its 100% pixel view will lose all of that apparent extra sharpness and detail, even though no actual detail has been lost by the upsampling; the illusory pixel "edge" is gone, which is not a subject detail, but a pixel detail.

I have done the test many times, and a crop never out-performs a focused shot with a TC, even if it subjectively "looks" like it is more than 1.4x or 2x "sharper" at 100% pixel view. That said, there are issues with the original 100-400. It needs a good-AF body to AF confidently and quickly, and while there seem to be a few copies floating around that are sharpest wide open, most are sharpest at f/8 to f/9 (and quite a few lemons, especially older copies, that aren't sharp at all at f/5.6), so that is f/13 or f/14 with the 1.4x. The IS isn't as good on the v1 zoom as it is in newer lenses, either. The real question is, however, is it worth it to use a TC on a lens like the v1 zoom, and my answer would be "Yes; unless it prevents focus in a timely manner, or doesn't allow accurate MFA". The gains from the TC, however, are going to be less wide-open on a lens that needs to be stopped down for maximum sharpness, and sometimes when using a TC, you might want to stop down to the sweet spot (the sweet spot is a physical aperture size, not an f-number, per se when TCs are involved).

With the same shutter speed and physical aperture size, a quality TC always gives optical gains if it allows precise focus. The subject-level noise does *not* increase because of a higher ISO; in fact, it gets finer, and gets you further away from any low-ISO banding noise if the camera is prone to it. The increased f-number does *not* increase the size of the diffraction blur, relative to the subject; that is determined by physical aperture size and distance from subject. The Bayer CFA and AA filter affect get smaller, relative to subject size, with a TC. Anyone whose impression of TC results is based on 100% pixel views (or upsizing with nearest neighbor routines, creating a false sense of detail) is operating in the realm of illusion, IMO. It is a given that the 100% pixel view will be softer and noisier with the TC, by anywhere from a tiny to a large amount; it is false, however, that this means worse subject capture.

So, is the 100-400 v1 lens the best choice to add to a body + 1.4x TC, waiting for a lens? Of course not; the v2 is a much better choice, IS-wise, AF-wise, and sharpness-wise, wide open. If you do already have the v1 lens, though, then I think that there are certainly times when you will get better results with a TC.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18205963
That would depend highly on the body. The 1DxII or 5D4 would probably AF usefully; a 10D with taped pins would fail to AF well, if at all.

I would disagree with a lot of the innuendo I have read so far in this thread, and TC discussions in general. It is quite rare, IMO, that cropping is ever better than using a TC, if focus is achieved. If a TC prevents focus, though, then it is totally worthless in that situation; a crop from a focused image is better than an unfocused one with a 1.4x. It is tragic, IMO, that people make so many comments on TC use and rarely ever specify what the problem is. When someone refers to a lens or lens&TC combo that fails AF as "not sharp", they are propagating confusion. Sharpness of a lens and sharpness of a *photo*, because of achieved AF, are two completely different things. Same distinction for IS, and I found that some of my older bodies did not power the IS in the 100-400 v1 very well, especially with TCs.

My 100-400 v1 is not a lens I use frequently these days, but it AFes much better in lower light or contrast on my 7D2 with a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x than it did bare, on my 10D. Of course, the sweet spot is still f/8 (f/11 with the TC); the body can't change that. People's impressions of lenses and TCs from the past are tainted by the bodies that they used them with in the past. My 7D2 has breathed new life into lenses that have marginal AF on older bodies, and I understand the 1DxII and 5D4 breathe even more life into lenses. I did take my 100-400 v1 into the field with me once a few weeks ago, to travel with space in my knapsack, and because I was shooting on private property and wasn't sure if a bigger lens would be welcome. I used the Kenko 1.4x whenever light was sufficient, and 400mm wasn't enough, and it nailed focus in the shade, albeit slower than I am used to with my 400/4DO II, which stays sharper at the pixel level when TCs are added (it is still fairly pixel-sharp on the 7D2 at 800/8 with the 2xIII).

To me, the purpose of a TC is not to create a great virtual lens combo, which would score great n resolution tests if it was glued together and sold as a unit; the purpose of a TC is to overcome the problem of having pixels on a sensor that are too large, and a full-image composition that will need heavy cropping. So, the only reason not to use an optically decent TC when you feel that way, is that it might prevent or slow the AF. If that is not an issue, then the TC is a no-brainer, because, if it is putting the subject over more pixels, that means that the radius of the AA filter is smaller, relative to subject size, and not just more pixels on subject, but more red and blue pixels on subject, which are scarce, and necessary for good resolution of fine color details without aliasing or moire. The fact that it might look softer at 100% pixel view is irrelevant; that is an illusion, and any crop that is upsampled to match the TC at its 100% pixel view will lose all of that apparent extra sharpness and detail, even though no actual detail has been lost by the upsampling; the illusory pixel "edge" is gone, which is not a subject detail, but a pixel detail.

I have done the test many times, and a crop never out-performs a focused shot with a TC, even if it subjectively "looks" like it is more than 1.4x or 2x "sharper" at 100% pixel view. That said, there are issues with the original 100-400. It needs a good-AF body to AF confidently and quickly, and while there seem to be a few copies floating around that are sharpest wide open, most are sharpest at f/8 to f/9 (and quite a few lemons, especially older copies, that aren't sharp at all at f/5.6), so that is f/13 or f/14 with the 1.4x. The IS isn't as good on the v1 zoom as it is in newer lenses, either. The real question is, however, is it worth it to use a TC on a lens like the v1 zoom, and my answer would be "Yes; unless it prevents focus in a timely manner, or doesn't allow accurate MFA". The gains from the TC, however, are going to be less wide-open on a lens that needs to be stopped down for maximum sharpness, and sometimes when using a TC, you might want to stop down to the sweet spot (the sweet spot is a physical aperture size, not an f-number, per se when TCs are involved).

With the same shutter speed and physical aperture size, a quality TC always gives optical gains if it allows precise focus. The subject-level noise does *not* increase because of a higher ISO; in fact, it gets finer, and gets you further away from any low-ISO banding noise if the camera is prone to it. The increased f-number does *not* increase the size of the diffraction blur, relative to the subject; that is determined by physical aperture size and distance from subject. The Bayer CFA and AA filter affect get smaller, relative to subject size, with a TC. Anyone whose impression of TC results is based on 100% pixel views (or upsizing with nearest neighbor routines, creating a false sense of detail) is operating in the realm of illusion, IMO. It is a given that the 100% pixel view will be softer and noisier with the TC, by anywhere from a tiny to a large amount; it is false, however, that this means worse subject capture.

So, is the 100-400 v1 lens the best choice to add to a body + 1.4x TC, waiting for a lens? Of course not; the v2 is a much better choice, IS-wise, AF-wise, and sharpness-wise, wide open. If you do already have the v1 lens, though, then I think that there are certainly times when you will get better results with a TC.

Wow!!! Nice!!! Good read!!!

So I ended up getting a 100-400 version II. It works perfectly fine with my 1.4 vII