I've been playing with EF EX 1.4x II and EF EX 2x III together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM and Canon 7D mk2. I've constantly managed to get better image quality (sharper + deeper colors) by just heavily cropping the 300 mm image without extenders. Does anyone agree? Because of this I'm now a bit puzzled as to how to get closer (to birds) while maintaining the image quality of my 300 mm lens without those huge and super expensive 500 mm or 600 mm Canon lenses. What would you suggest? The 100-400 mm ? I like to go out by bike with the camera in my back bag so this is one of the reasons I love the 300 mm.
Are extenders useless?
- Thread starter LSeries
- Start date
LSeries said:
The 300f4 is the wrong lens for birding (unless you're on Nikon, but then you have the wrong system for birding, because...), the 400f5.6 prime is the best budget birding lens in history.
The 300f2.8IS2 or new 400f4DOIS2 would be better (the 300f2.8IS2 with 1.4xTC actually looks better than the 400f5.6 which is a real feat for a lens with a teleconverter), but also six times more expensive.
The new 100-400ISMk2 is about the same, but twice as expensive, though it gets the best build quality, IS, and Maximim Magnification Canon has ever put into a telephoto zoom lens.
It should be pretty much ideal if you're willing to pay for it (seeing as you have both TC's I'm guessing that's not a problem? At least selling them would get you most of the way).
I get frustrated trying to shoot small birds with a crop sensor on the 400f5.6 prime, it can't get close enough. With a 1.4xTC it might be ok but I don't have AF at f8 either. You do, so maybe the 400f5.6 prime is the right answer, or maybe the 100-400ISMk2 is.
People get tired of checking test charts, so I'm going to say a rental of the 100-400ISMk2 is probably in order (you will probably fall in love the moment you touch it). Then you can play with the TC's and I would be very excited to see your results.
I think it's worth noting one last time that the 100-400ISMk2 and 7D2 were basically made for each other. That lens is specifically sharp in the middle, which most benefits crop sensors and they're both weather sealed, a setup you're not going to find with a cheaper lens. Given the body in question here I think that makes this combination especially worth consideration unless you know for sure you're never going to get stuck in the rain (don't forget to put a filter on the front).
Upvote
0
I get absolutely great results with the Canon Teleconverters with any Canon lens I've put them on. I did find that the 2X TC III worked better for me than the 2X TC II but others have found little difference between those two TCs. In testing with charts, none of the TCs significantly detracts from image quality for me. I use them constantly on three different camera bodies and two lenses.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
Within the Canon lens system, sounds like the only two options would be the 400 5.6 (with no IS) or the new 100-400 II.
The next step up would be the new 400 f/4 DO II but that's $7K(!)...
Otherwise, it's probably Sigma or Tamron's superzoom 1xx-600mm lenses (which are more affordable, but still quite hefty).
The next step up would be the new 400 f/4 DO II but that's $7K(!)...
Otherwise, it's probably Sigma or Tamron's superzoom 1xx-600mm lenses (which are more affordable, but still quite hefty).
Upvote
0
Adding a teleconverter into the optical path is to add several optical elements and to increase distortion. Adding 2 teleconverters is twice as bad. Yes, you are getting more magnification, but the distortion increases as well, usually more than the magnification and you end up with a net loss in resolving power
If you are going to use a teleconverter on a crop camera, you need a very sharp lens to be able to get any benefit. The sharpest of zooms will give you more resolving power with a 1.4X teleconverter, you actually drop resolving power with a 2X.....
If you want more reach, go get one of the 150-600 lenses or wait for a series II 400F5.6, you will need a series II prime to get decent performance with a teleconverter.
If you are going to use a teleconverter on a crop camera, you need a very sharp lens to be able to get any benefit. The sharpest of zooms will give you more resolving power with a 1.4X teleconverter, you actually drop resolving power with a 2X.....
If you want more reach, go get one of the 150-600 lenses or wait for a series II 400F5.6, you will need a series II prime to get decent performance with a teleconverter.
Upvote
0
NO! They are not useless. Their usefulness depends on the lens you use. It's well known that the 300mm f/4 IS doesn't take extenders well, and is not as good with the 1.4xTC as the bare 400mm f/5.6 or the old 100-400 zoom. The 100-400mm II works very well with the 1.4xTC III, as does the 300mm f/2.8 II with the 1.4 and 2xTC III.
Upvote
0
LSeries said:9VIII said:
The reason I haven't (yet) gotten the 400 f/5.6L is the lack of IS. And I HATE Canon for thatMaybe I'll test it.
Are you shooting BIF or landed birds more?
For BIF (if your shutter speed is usually at or faster than 1/1000sec), IS makes practically no difference because the shutter speed required to freeze the motion of the bird will also compensate for your wobblyness. The only time you need it is on cloudy days or when the sun is setting (which is prime time for most wildlife though maybe not specifically for birds), but that won't stop the bird from moving too fast for your shutter speed while using IS anyway.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
I'd agree with that, start with a good lens. I use a 1.4xIII on my 300/2.8L a lot and unless I really pixel peep I can't tell the difference at any size I usually view / print. That said I know a few people who use the 300/4 + 1.4x to great effect on the likes of 7D's, in most cases however they have had to do some MFA on them to get the best results
Upvote
0
I had to try a second 1.4x III before seeing that it works GREAT on my 100-400mm II.
First copy was horrible.
First copy was horrible.
Upvote
0
LSeries said:
Putting two extenders together and expecting a sharp image is going to result in a big disappointment. (Did I read this wrong?)
Most recommend sticking with a 1.4X, or on a very good lens, a 2X.
This is the quandary we all face, trying to get a shot of a small bird or a larger one a long distance away. While I have long ago sold my 300mm f/4 in favor of the 100-400, and even bought a 600mm L, there is never enough focal length for birds. The other issue is that the very air between you and the subject can add enough distortion that it over-rides the sharpness of the lens.
If cropping works best for you, then that's the way to go. I may do it either way.
BTW, I would not buy a high MP camera expecting to crop more. Those tiny pixels are not the same quality as the large ones, and may disappoint you at even moderately high ISO levels like 800.
Upvote
0
The Series II Canon teleconverters could be stacked. The Series III TCs can only be stacked with a short extension tube between them and that combination will sometimes allow infinity focus depending on the lens. I haven't tried stacking TCs in a very long time though so I can't say what might happen with the image. Here's an image shot with the 600 + 2X TC III. This is a full frame image with no cropping and very little sharpening.
Attachments
Upvote
0
For an extender to work, the lens must be sharper than the camera. That is the lens must be producing detail the camera attached cannot record. Lenses are analog, and cameras digital, so there is no 100% effective way of measuring either. So a lens that is not sharp and a camera with high pixel density is not going to benefit from an extender.
A very sharp lens on the other hand can do very well with an extender. Here is a photo shot with a 400mm f2.8 IS, 2X Extender III, and a 7D Mark 2. An effective 1280mm combination. Sharp enough to read the watch of the surfer who was maybe 100 yards away.
Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr
A very sharp lens on the other hand can do very well with an extender. Here is a photo shot with a 400mm f2.8 IS, 2X Extender III, and a 7D Mark 2. An effective 1280mm combination. Sharp enough to read the watch of the surfer who was maybe 100 yards away.
Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr
Upvote
0
While I wouldn't call Extenders useless I'm also not convinced by them.
Autofocus is slower and tends to hunt more.
I also think in my experiences that cropping alone is better than shooting with an extender.
They seem to work better with the big whites.
The 100-400 II is a great lens.
Probably made for the 7D II.
I find it works better on the 5D III (which it's a pity doesn't have 10FPS).
Autofocus is slower and tends to hunt more.
I also think in my experiences that cropping alone is better than shooting with an extender.
They seem to work better with the big whites.
The 100-400 II is a great lens.
Probably made for the 7D II.
I find it works better on the 5D III (which it's a pity doesn't have 10FPS).
Upvote
0
LSeries said:Mt Spokane Photography said:
You read it wrong
Funny, I do it all the time with my Canon TC 1.4 III and 2X II. Try it!
The 1.4X and 2X TC stack fine up until the version III. You can still stack the 1.4X III with 2X II.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Deleted member 399245
- EOS R