I just can't get close enough to this Hawk that has a nest about 50 feet in a tree with my Canon 40D and Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM so I think I should get an extender but I don't know witch one to get.
Printable View
I just can't get close enough to this Hawk that has a nest about 50 feet in a tree with my Canon 40D and Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM so I think I should get an extender but I don't know witch one to get.
IMO, get the 1.4X....the 2X is only acceptable on best of lenses(ie, 300 f/2.8, 500 f4 etc).
A 2x on 100-400 will be very marginal
A 1.4X will not autofocus on your 40D unless you get the least expensive non reporting Tamron, which
is a very good TC
I would get a 1.4x TC and if it is reporting then you will lose autofocus with your camera body. As David said, the Tamron TC is cheaper and the body will still attempt to autofocus. The results may be so-so.
Caleb,
Depending on your intended output and personal tolerance of IQ, the 2xTC can occasionally give you acceptable results. See the specs on the image for one I got with the same combo you're asking about. This is the only one that I thought came out ok of about 15 shots. The 1.4x is a better option. If you find you can't resist the temptation, Wolf's Camera had a Quantaray 2xTC for about $80 that isn't too bad (requires a little more PP than the Canon and is probably closer to 1.7x than 2x).
Caleb
I own the 100-400, 300 2.8 and the 2x extender. I would not use the 2x on the 100-400, it is way to slow. I would go for the 1.4 TC, by Canon only. I am a firm believer in using the makers products. Now I know others use Tamron, Kenko etc and with good results. James and Art both do so. but the 100-400 is slow all on its own and the 2x sucks up light! Makes it even slower on acquiring focus, and it hunts the range too!
Your choice however. An extender is a lot of bucks just for one image. Save your money and get a better lens, like the 500 4.0. Sell the 100-400 and put it toward the purchase. Just my 2 cents. Won't buy you much.
I did say I was going to get a TC for the Hawk but I could use it for a lot of other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grady Weed
Thanks for your input:)
I have long suspected and stated same in previous BPN posts that the effect on IQ of either of the Canon tcs was minimal and further that any degradation in IQ seen is likely a result of long lens technique. Steve's super image of a Great Horned Owl proves this point, as do the many pin-sharp images that Artie Morris has produced with the 2x tc on the 500/4. The main problem with the use of either of Canon's superb extenders on the 100-400 is loss of autofocus on xxD and xxxD bodies.
Fully agree with John I had been staying away from teleconverters with the 100-400 but the its is capable making sharp images. Technique is at a premium. btw for focusing just fire at the beep !!
... sweet image Steve and thanks for taking the time to post .. seeing is believing !!!
I have the 100-400 and also both TCs. I used to use the 1.4 with the 100-400, but as was said technique is very important and you should stop down about 1/2 to 1 stop to get the best IQ. AF is slow on my 1DMK2, but for some subjects this is not that important. On a 40D the combo will not AF unless you tape the contacts to fool the camera into not seeing the TC.
Of course, as was also mentioned a 500 f4 or 400 DO is an option to get you f 5.6 with a 1.4 TC. However, this is a large investment that must be (by most) planned for well in advance. If you can eventually swing a 500 F4 you will think you died and went to photography heaven as the IQ, AF and over all quality is just outstanding. As expensive as it is it really is worth every penny.
Thanks for all of the input on TCs.:)
To jump in since so many of your are on line - at least at this moment! :D
I have the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DG AF 1.4x; there have been some comments that Arties and James are using the Kenkos.
I am getting ready to spend a lot of bucks to upgrade an already good rig; do I sell the Kenko at a substantial loss and buy the Canon 1.4?
Will the Kenko interface with the Canon 2X; do I buy the Kenko Pro 2X?
I will be using the extenders with the 70 -200 f/4 IS, and the 400 DO IS.
Experts out there, can YOU see a real difference between the Kenkos and the Canons?
Thanks,
Jay,
I have both Kenko pro 300 (older than your model) 1.4 and 3x TCs. I also have the Canon 1.4 and 2X TCs (newer, 3 years old). All work well. My impression is that the Kenkos are close to the same sharpness on-axis, but have a little more chromatic aberration in the corners. This only an impression as I have not done a side by side test to prove a difference. I have sold 16x20 inch prints from 6 and 8-megapixel cameras where I used the 1.4 and 2x kenkos.
I am keeping my kenkos, as sometimes I want 1.4x TCs on more than one body+lens. For example, you might find a use for a 1.4x TC on your 40D plus 70-200 and a 1.4x TC on your 1D3 + 400 mm DO. Then maybe you want to stack the 2 2x TCs. Actually I've been meaning to try that but haven't yet.
This image was with a 300 f/4 and kenko pro 300 1.4x done in your neck of the woods:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html
All the TC on my lens testing page are the kenkos:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness
Roger, thanks for that! I will keep the Kenko as an extra. Not enough bucks "down under" to bother selling it.
Another advantage with third-party TCs (maybe not the Kenkos) is that they can be used on more lenses in the line-up than with the Canon version. I think this applies to the Tamrons at least.
Jay like you I have Kenkos and two Canon 1.4x's, the Kenkos are 2X and in my opinion way out perform the Canon 2X (I sold mine and bought the 2Kenkos)
On the MKIII's they will autofocus to f/8 and do a far better job than the Canon, why I don't know.
