Question about Canon 200mm-400mm f4L with internal 1.4x TC lens & external TC

[Barry Ekstrand]

I am interested in the Canon 200mm-400mm f4L II with internal 1.4x TC lens. I have seen the wonderfully sharp photos that Artie has posted, using this lens with the internal TC engaged AND an external 1.4x TC III. Here is my question, for anyone who has the lens and has tried this: Is the resulting image sharper when using the external 1.4x TC III and internal 1.4x TC together, or when just using the 2.0x TC III without the internal TC?

Either way you would have the same 2x magnification (I believe the 1.4x TCs are actually 1.414x, as in the square root of 2). I am guessing you would be passing the light through less glass if you used the 2.0x TC III without the internal TC, and as a result could potentially get a slightly better image. I also realize potential is not necessarily reality, and it all comes down to the precision of the magnification lens(es) in determining whether either approach is any better and if so, by how much. But I have not seen any photos with this lens and the 2.0x TC III posted, hence the question.

Has anyone compared the two approaches with this lens? Comments will be appreciated.

Barry

[Miguel Palaviccini]

This one might be a question for Artie. Send him an email!

[Arthur Morris]

Here is my e-mail conversation with Barry:

Hi Barry,
Just got back from Chile.

Please forgive this unsolicited request for assistance / advice!

Join the club :S3:.

I sent a note to you at your samandmayasgrandpa@att.net address, but also see on the BAA website that you direct equipment questions to this email address. As I've come up with another question I am re-sending with an updated set of questions below. Thanks in advance if you are able to help.

To begin with, I read your blog post about using the stacked 1.4x III TC & 2.0x III TCs with an extension tube on the 600 f4L II lens with your 1DX, and finding that you could focus to infinity if you put the 2.0x on the lens and 1.4x on the body. You indicated that you were going to test it out with the 300mm f2.8L II as well. First question: am I understanding correctly that it focused to infinity and AF worked?
No. You can focus manually to infinity or, if there is enough contrast, you can focus using contrast off the sensor using many of the newer cameras (as described in our 5D Mark II User’s Guide.
I have a 5D Mark III and am looking to get my first 'big' lens (currently I have the old 400mm f5.6). I am trying to find a compromise in some flexibility in range of lens focal lengths (possibly via TCs), lens speed, and AF capability (tough to do but necessary as I'm only going to be able to get one lens for the forseeable future). I rented a 600mm f4L II and got wonderful photos but found it too big to hand hold for me. As a result, I have been interested in the 200mm-400mm f4L II lens with internal 1.4x TC with a 1.4x series III TC (your blog pics with that lens and external TC are great).

Agree.

I know this lens is still heavy but shorter and I think that will help me; I may rent one just to be sure). I am also interested in the 300mm f2.8L II with series III TCs / extension tube.

Great lens with either TC. Super-sharp.

Second question: I want to ask, if you haven't already tested these combinations, could you possibly try the stacked series III TCs with extension tube on the 300mm f2.8L II lens on your 5D Mark III body to see how the focus to infinity / AF works?

First off, that is not a combination that we would recommend for everyday photography. If it does indeed focus--theoretically, it should--AF would be slow at best and would require lots of contrast.
Note however that I just sold my 300mm f/2.8L IS to a guy from Argentina to save him $5K on import fees. I will be getting another one before my Japan trip early next year and will check things out.

Although I am led to believe the 5D Mark III should autofocus (or not autofocus) the same as the 1DX, as you know nothing beats actual data on how it works.

AF is the same (to f/8) as long as you have a camera with the latest software. The 1D X offers a fast frame rate and more battery power to drive AF a bit faster (especially with TCs).
Third question (I posted this on BPN but the only response was to try emailing you): on the 200mm-400mm f4L II lens with internal 1.4x TC lens, is the resulting image sharper when using the external 1.4x TC III and internal 1.4x TC together, or when just using the 2.0x TC III without the internal TC?

Have never tried the 2-4 with the 2X other than once focusing manually with the internal TC in place. Sharpness was surprising. I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference between the two images.

The reason for my question is, either way you would have the same 2x magnification (that is, I believe the 1.4x TCs are actually 1.414x, as in the square root of 2).

Pretty darned close actually.

I am guessing you would be passing the light through less glass if you used the 2.0x TC III without the internal TC, and as a result could potentially get a slightly better image.

I seriously doubt that.

I also realize potential is not necessarily reality, and it all comes down to the precision of the magnification lens(es) in determining whether either approach is any better and if so, by how much. But I have not seen any photos with this lens and the 2.0x TC III posted, hence the question. Have you tried and compared by any chance?

Somewhere in this post is an image created with the internal TC in place and the 2X with AF focusing off contrast on the sensor.


File: American Oystercatcher tight close-up of head of sleeping bird _09U3664 James Bay, Puerto Egas, Santiago, Galapagos.tif
File size: 51.3MB
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D X
Camera serial number: 082015001809
Firmware: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Date/Time: 2013:07:15 08:39:37
Shutter speed: 1/50 sec
Aperture: 11
Exposure compensation: -2/3
Flash: Off
ISO: 400
Lens: EF200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXT +2x III
Focal length: 1120mm
Image size: 5184 x 3456
Color space: AdobeRGB
Color profile: Adobe RGB (1998)

1/50 sec at f/11 at 1120mm reminds me that the skill of the operator is more important than the gear....

On the 200mm-400mm f4L II with internal 1.4x TC plus external 1.4x series III TC: have you had any AF issues at all with this combination on the 5D Mark III body? I just want to check in case I missed a post about it.

None.

If AF works well with these lenses with the TCs, I would have working ranges of either 300mm (at f2.8) - 840mm (at f8), or 200mm (at f4) - 784mm (at f8). Both of these ranges, if with sharp photos, would be a big gain in flexibility for me as compared to where I am today.

Your reasoning is off as you have neglected 1120 with the 2-4 with manual focus and you do not know if AF will work with 300 II and stacked TCs.
Finally, the last question, if you have tested these combos: how would you compare the image sharpness of these 2 different combos at each longest focal length (i.e., 840mm vs. 784mm).

Have not used the 300 2.8 II with stacked TCs.... And again, I would not recommend it for everyday shooting.

Artie, I truly don't mean to impose on you, but I'm hoping you have the same desire to understand how the 5D Mark III will fare in this testing with these lenses and TCs / extension tube, and since you have the hardware......and of course, this information would be very helpful to me as I consider my options for the big purchase.

Again, the skill and sharpness techniques of the operator are much more important than the sharpness of the various rigs either practically or theoretically.

I thank you in advance for considering it.

Here is the simple analysis:

The 300 f/2.8 offers lower price, lighter weight, greater ease of travel, super sharpness with either the 1.4X or 2X III TC, and hand hold-ability that the 2-4 does not.
The 200-400 with internal TC offers much greater weight and size but with much greater versatility and longer effective focal lengths across the board (contrary to your reasoning above).
Again, without considering the unwieldy stacked TC combos the math is simple 300 X 2 = 600, 400 X 1.4 X 1.4 = 784mm. 784 is greater than 600. By the square of the focal length no less….
I am very much hoping that you have not made your purchase and that when you do, that you use one of our B&H affiliate links. We ask folks who enjoy the blog and send long e-mails with many questions to do so as a way of thanking us and a way of earning free contest entries.

Here they are:

300 f/2/8 L IS II (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/BI/6633/KBID/7226/kw/CA30028LIS2/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xCA30028LIS2)

200-400 with Internal TC (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/Canon_5176B002_EF_200_400mm_f_4L_IS.html/BI/6633/KBID/7226/kw/CA2004004IS/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xCA2004004IS)

Web orders only. Please send me your B&H receipts to me via e-mail.

And let me know if you need links for the Series III TCs.

later and love and sorry that I took so long to get back from Torres del Paine.

artie

[Barry Ekstrand]

Artie,

Great info, very helpful to me, and greatly appreciated! Thank you very much for taking the time to help out with your knowledge and experience. It all convinces me to go as I was leaning, it will be the 200mm-400mm w/ 1.4x internal TC when I finally make the big purchase.

....and what a great photo to show how sharp this lens is with both TCs (2.8x total) added!


Barry

[David Stephens]

The 500-II is significantly lighter than the 600-II and has incredible IS (I've hand held 1000mm as low as 1/40-sec.). Combined with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III, it's an incredibly versatile combination. Before buying the 200-400mm, you might want to rent both the 200-400mm and the 500-II.

[Arthur Morris]

The 500-II is significantly lighter than the 600-II and has incredible IS (I've hand held 1000mm as low as 1/40-sec.). Combined with the 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III, it's an incredibly versatile combination. Before buying the 200-400mm, you might want to rent both the 200-400mm and the 500-II.

Agree :). I use the 200-400 on specialty trips like ones to the Southern Oceans and the Galapagos.

[Charles Glatzer]

I have used the new Canon 200-400 almost exclusively over the past 7 weeks. The lens is OUTSTANDING, SHARP, SHARP, SHARP with and without the built-in 1.4x, even when shot wide open.
I have tested the lens a number of times in combination with the built in 1.4x and external 1.4x, and found the images loose a bit of resolution and AF acquisition slows, as to be expected.
Stopping down helps considerably to improve the overall sharpness. Certainly, the two 1.4x combination is worthy of publication. And, still sharper than many stand alone lenses.
I was not happy with the results of using the lens with a 2x III converter. My results may vary once I get all the combinations micro AF calibrated.

See http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/115379-Arctic-fox-portrait-Churchill?p=951799#post951799

Chas

[Marina Scarr]

Thank you everyone for your comments regarding this new lens. I was wondering whether anyone had experience with flight images using this lens. I understand this would obviously not be the go to lens for BIF but wondered if anyone had tried it. Thank you