tele converters

[abzphotoz]

I recently purchased a 100-400mm Canon lens. I want more range, I don't know

whether to get the 1.4x or the 2.0x teleconverter. I'm using it with a 40D. Any

advice?

[mark u]

Don't get a 2x. You won't even get AF with the 1.4x, and the viewfinder will be dark enough at f/8 to make manual focus a struggle in anything but good light. Read Bob's review and discussion here:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review.html

 

If you really want reach, start saving. The "budget" choice - an outstanding lens nonetheless, is the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6, but allow plenty extra for a good tripod and head. You could splash out on the new Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS - but I'd also recommend a good tripod and head as for the Sigma - sell your car to help finance it. I believe the second hand 1200mm f/5.6 L that was on offer at B&H for $99,000 has been sold, so that option is precluded.

 

You'll find many fine shots with the Sigma in Romy Ocon's galleries here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone

[photodiscoveries]

I have the 100-400, and both teleconverters. Also a 40D. you loose autofocus with both, and the image quality is not so good with either of them. Personally, I think the 2X is all but useless...way to slow, lots of image quality loss. Maybe my eyesight is fading, I seem to be unable to manual focus on anything at a great distance.

 

There does not seem to be a good solution for further reach on a budget. To use a teleconverter, you need to start with an f4.0 lens, or faster. Then limit yourself to the 1.4 Teleconverter. And the lens you ultimately buy needs to be something you can carry along with all the other stuff you need with it...heavy duty tripod, gimble or ballhead, and so on.

 

I bought a used 400mm f4 IS DO, and have been elated with the quality of the pix, both with the 1.4 and standing alone. Plus, it is light enough and small enough to hand hold for short periods and to carry if necessary.

 

You can see many shots with this lens combo at http://picasaweb.google.com/djohnh...look at the eagle, egret, osprey and heron shots...almost all of them were taken with the 400DO lens above. Some with the teleconverter as well.

[jay a. frew]

Abner:

 

You can rent a tele-converter here:

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/category/macro-and-specialty/for-canon

 

While you are at it, rent an EF 300 f/4.0L or an EF 400 f/5.6L. Either of those

would give you much better results with the tele-converter than the 100-400.

 

Cheers! Jay

[bobatkins]

I'd stick to the 1.4x. Results are not inpressive with the 2x, plus you're at f11 to start with and need to stop down to f16 for best results.

 

 

If you want to go longer with quality, it's going to cost you. The cheapest route would be to look for a used 500/4.5L or 600/4L, but that's going to cost you something in the $2500 to $4500 range. A 400/5.6L would be a better than what you have, but probably not enough better to justify owning and carrying both lenses

[geoff_foale]

A 1.4x is your cheapest option, and while it does have limitations, many photographers hapilly use this combination including nature photography. Any other option will work out expensive (better, but expensive).

 

It all depends on exactly what you want to photograph. Remember that some of the other possible lenses also have disadvantages; ie the 400 F5.6 has a rather long minimum focusing distance and no IS which is fine for long range birds using a tripod for example but not much use for close ups of butterflies. Other alternatives are third party lenses like Sigma, which are popular with many wildlife photographers. But while they are cheaper, it would still mean a considerable outlay.

 

Like Jay F suggests, if you can borrow or rent these items before purchase it could prevent a wasted purchase.

[abzphotoz]

Thanks for all the quick responses. I definately don't want to give up too much image quality so I'll most likely check out the 1.4x for now. I will probably look in to a Sigma or Tamron in the near future. No possibility any time soon of owning any lens by Canon that sells for over $2500. Great shots of the Phillipine birds (Sigma 300-800) by Mark. How much does that lens go for?