New Canon 100-400mm Mk2 lens with 2x extender mk3

[burnfield]

Hi,
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.

 

[mackguyver]

Hi,
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.

I don't think it's motion blur - just softness from the lens+extender combo. It matches Brian's results from The Digital Picture. The 2x isn't ideal for most lenses and it looks like the new 100-400 is (sadly) no exception.

 

[KimH]

Hi,
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.

I don't think it's motion blur - just softness from the lens+extender combo. It matches Brian's results from The Digital Picture. The 2x isn't ideal for most lenses and it looks like the new 100-400 is (sadly) no exception.

I am not sure what the root cause is here.... It's complicated as some would say, it depends!

I have the RRS 3 tripod with the fitting RRS gimbal and when trying the 300-2.8 with 1.4 - well balanced - across the valley where I live, it was VERY sensitive to wind and the platform I was on (a balcony) - then the 100-400 II with and without 1.4... Same experience.

My experience is that when using 10x you get an idea of how the pict will look - watching wind - and leaving time for the IS to engage makes the world of difference. Assuming cable or camRanger or remote is in use.

It honestly felt a bit like a sharpshooter must feel when doing their training.

 

[hockeydude35]

I just received my 100-400II along with the 2xIII today. Here's an 800mm moon shot that I took this evening, for additional comparison. This is probably about 70% crop or so, and I did play with it a bit in Lightroom just to see what it was capable of. This was from an aluminum tripod, 10 second countdown, 1/13s exposure, f/14. I manually focused it with 10x live view, keeping IS on until I was ready to take the shot. I think it came out pretty well and so far I'm pretty impressed with the few shots I'm seeing using the 2x. I'm hoping to get out this weekend and really try it out with some wildlife.

 

[J.R.]

Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.

There is some truth in that. However, for someone chasing birds, any addition to the focal length is welcome. This usually results in experimentation with extenders.

Nevertheless, getting a supertelephoto is well outside of a normal budget, the 2x extenders provide a lot of additional focal length albeit at a price in IQ.

+1, i tend to always have a TC with me, just in case!

Chasing birds at f/11 without AF is not easy, to say the least, unless the bird is sitting immobile. In my opinion, the sheer inconvenience in using a 2xTC on an f/5.6 and the concomitant loss of IQ are not worth the the extra reach over 1.4x, which will be fairly marginal anyway because of the poorer IQ and the higher noise.

True. As I said, using 2x TC with f/5.6 lenses is usually in the nature of experimentation usually. The additional FL is at great cost - no AF, f/11 and less than excellent IQ.

 

[J.R.]

What was the EXIF for the moon shots

Hi,
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.

 

[Hooty Whooo]

Reading this thread gave me an idea. When I get home tonight I may throw my 100-400 II and 2X III on my camera's (7DII and 5DII) with the IS off and attach to a camranger so that all focus and shutter actuation is completely hands off. We shall see how it goes.

 

[PCM-madison]

I suspect camera shake even on a tripod are limiting. This series of images of Venus transiting the Sum were with the 100-400mm v1 + canon 1.4X + tamron 2X extenders on a 60D. Focusing was not a problem. Even though these were taken through a very dark filter, the shutter speed was high >1/500 for all exposures because of the bright subject.

 

[G650ER]

Handheld with the 2x MKII:

 

[Click]

Handheld with the 2x MKII:

Excellent picture. Well done, Jan.

 

[JMZawodny]

Handheld with the 2x MKII:

Excellent picture. Well done, Jan.

Indeed,very well done.

 

[AlanF]

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.

 

[YuengLinger]

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.

Joke? These look horrible!

 

[[email protected]]

I can confirm that the 2x iii converter does provide a slightly better image on that lens when you need to really get the reach. Did much testing versus 1.4x and bare lens cropping to same perspective. BUT, this was true only when the conditions were extremely controlled, and particularly, when I was able to use a remote shutter release AND the platform was stable - which includes what's under the tripod in addition to the tripod itself.

I recall realizing during my tests that my wooden floor - built over 12" spaced 2x12 stringers - was completely inadequate for this type of test.

So the list of things to check so far:
- MFA that bad boy with the 2x teleconverter on it. Your MFA may change because of the teleconverter - that's why Canon puts a place for a separate adjustment in its software. For those out there who swear they never MFA, this is the sort of application where it really matters sometimes.
- Solid head and tripod
- Solid surface underneath that
- No IS during exposure
- Tests done at as close an interval as possible between shots so that atmospherics don't interfere in the comparison
- Use a remote trigger
- Wouldn't hurt to have the mirror flipped prior to exposure to reduce shake

I would have said that if the above fails to deliver, then you have a bad teleconverter, but the shot of the stone wall you put up shows that this does work in some conditions as is. I'll note, however, that your shot seemed like it wasn't at 400/800mm, and there are two MFA settings, one for the wide end and one for the long end of that lens. It could theoretically be that the wide end works with no MFA, and the tele end is crud without adjustment.

 

[AlanF]

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.

Joke? These look horrible!

Try thinking before making rude comments. At 400mm, the target, only 1mx1.3m at 240m away, fills only a 300x524 crop from the centre of the 20 mpixel image, at which size it is impossible to resolve most of the target because the details are below the Nyquist limit. The 2xTC III brings features above the Nyquist limit and you can resolve details in the round section of the target. Those images show that the TC is able to increase resolution without degrading the image - you can easily read the the 6 10 14 18 in the circles, which are only smears without the TC.

 

[K-amps]

I hope its relevant, but I shot this with an APS-C a6000 mirrorless using a Photodiox Adapter, manually focused the 100-400ii on a 2x TC mk.III.

 

[YuengLinger]

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.

Joke? These look horrible!

Try thinking before making rude comments. At 400mm, the target, only 1mx1.3m at 240m away, fills only a 300x524 crop from the centre of the 20 mpixel image, at which size it is impossible to resolve most of the target because the details are below the Nyquist limit. The 2xTC III brings features above the Nyquist limit and you can resolve details in the round section of the target. Those images show that the TC is able to increase resolution without degrading the image - you can easily read the the 6 10 14 18 in the circles, which are only smears without the TC.

AlanF, you are right, I didn't understand what I was looking at.

Sorry.