1.4 extender with 70-200 or 100-400

[zvia_shever]

<p>I posted a while back with some questions about what lenses to take to Alaska. We're finally heading out there in 6 weeks and still can't decide on what tele combo would be best. I've finally decided not to take a wide angle as I think my 17-55 should be wide enough in most cases and I can always combine in photoshop later. My dilemma remains whether to buy a 1.4 extender for my 70-200 f/4 IS or to rent a 100-400 IS.<br>

The 70-200 f/4 IS is by far my favorite lens...it produces tack sharp photos and beautiful bokeh. From what I've read, it works well with the 1.4X and I won't lose much quality. It is small and won't take up too much space in my backpack. The negative is that it will only get me to 280, and not sure if that's enough for wildlife in Alaska.<br>

I do not own a 100-400 IS so I don't have personal experience with it, although I heard it's pretty sharp (can't believe it's as sharp as the 700-200 though). I could rent one for about $100 for Alaska. I'd get a better reach than the other combo....but....it's heavy and I'd be reluctant to leave my 70-200 at home so I'd really be lugging around a lot on hikes etc...<br>

So what I guess I'm asking is: Will 280 be enough reach? I don't mind cropping if necessary, I'm not going to blow up the pictures beyond 12-18 and that's only if I snag a great shot...most of the shots will be printed smaller than 8x10. <br>

Thanks, Zvia</p>

[tim_price2]

<p>I've never been thrilled with the 1.4 extender on my 70-200's (IS and non-is), but I have owned a 400 and rented a 100-400. Both of the 400 solutions were excellent, so I heartily recommend renting vs buying a tc.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>For wildlife, there is never enough reach. I would get the 100-400 without hesitation.</p>

[mark_e3]

<p>Do you know how you're going to be viewing the wildlife? If you go to a preserve (I went to this one: awcc.org), in most cases my 70-300 was a good focal length, and there were only a couple groups of animals hanging out beyond my lens' reach. If you do a wildlife boat tour, the captain does a good job of getting very close to everything, and your 70-200 would be fine (you also see a lot of stuff). I didn't see much wildlife while hiking, which I was actually pretty happy about since I think there were three or four bear attacks while I was there.<br>

The only times I found 300mm inadequate were for beluga whales in the bay from the side of the road, mountain goats we saw while driving along Seward Hwy, and for a few landscape shots that had glaciers way off in the distance.<br>

One other note: the sun is very harsh from like an hour before you get up until very late at night. Luckily we had a few overcast days, but plan accordingly.</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>Hi,<br>

You do not say what camera you have, or are taking.<br>

I am going to Alaska on June 6 and had the same decision to make, however I do own the 100-400mm as well as the 70-200mm, a 1.4tc and a 5d body and a 40d body with a 24-105mm lens also.<br>

At first I decided to take the 70-200 on the 40d (1.6) and use the 1.4 tc which would make it fairly long (448mm),BUT - I am going to go whale watching as an excursion and do some eagles and whatever other wildlife we come across.<br>

SO, the end decision was to take the 40d body with the 24-105 and the 100-400 withOUT the 1.4tc<br>

due to the loss of light on the 100-400. Risking high ISO to compensate.<br>

In your case you are going to get longer than 280mm unless you have a full frame 5d or 5d mkII.<br>

My decision is to take the 24-105 and the 100-400mm with the 40d body since it is a 1.6 crop body the 400 will be a 640mm. I will have equiv. focal length from 38mm to 640mm. \<br>

I will take a Cann g10 as backup.<br>

If you have a 1.6 crop factor body you could get to 448mm with the 70-200 and the 1.4 tc on it.<br>

The 100-400 is heavier and is a push pull zoom, but I have gotten used to it and it produces very sharp photos. So sharp that I am not needing the 70-200mm.<br>

Best of luck.</p>

 

[bob_osullivan]

<p>In terms of view,you're actually at 448mm if you are using a crop body like 20D, 30D, 40D with the 70-200 and 1.4 extender.</p>

<p>My experience has been the oposite of Tim's. I use my 70-200 w tc and get stellar results. Wide open at 2.8 it's a tad softer but all lenses are wide open. If you stop down just 1/2 stop with the tc you'll get razor sharp. </p>

<p>I'm not a wildlife shooter but I can fill the frame with a high school football player from the far side of the field with this combo. </p>

<p>I'd strongly urge you to make a choice and not bring both the rented lens and yours. The reason is that on vacation things happen. You wouldnt' want both to get stolen, dropped or damaged. Pick one. For only $100 renting is tempting, but then leave yours at home. However, I still think you'd get all your shots with the tc and you get to keep that if you buy it.</p>

<p>Have a great trip and please post some shots when you return.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I am using a 30D....so I guess with 1.6 crop factor and a 1.4, I'd be at 448mm (thanks for pointing that out Bob). I don't shoot a lot of wildlife but thought it would be nice to have the reach in Alaska. Wildlife shots will not be my primary focus while away. I'm going on vacation with my husband and 2 other couples who are not photography enthusiasts....only one other person brought his camera on our last trip, a tiny p&s and only used it when he went off with exploring without me. They put up with helping me carry my gear and stopping every few minutes for "must have" shots because they know they'll get a photo book documenting our travels after we get home (last year we went to Ecuador and they were thrilled with the books I produced for them).</p>

<p>Anyhow, we'll be paragliding, white water rafting, flying around Mt. McKinley and landing on a glacier, fishing and hiking etc...not activities which specifically require a huge reach. I think the only time I'd miss not have the 400 reach is on a day cruise from Seward. </p>

<p>I'm leaning more toward the 1.4 extender due to weight also....that's why I originally bought the 70-200 f/4 IS instead of the 2.8 version. I think the 100-400 is closer in weight to the 70-200 2.8. </p>

<p>But still indecisive!</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Judging by he target shots at the The-Digital-Picture, the 70-200 F4 IS does very well with the 1.4x (or 2.0x, but I believe you lose autofocus), comparing to it's f2.8 counterpart, at similar apertures. Here's one case:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3</a></p>

<p>The 70-200 f4 IS a very sharp, lightweight lens, and takes to the 1.4x well. I got the f2.8 IS version before IS was available in f4: it weighs 1470gm, vs the f4's 760gm. The 100-400 weighs in at 1380gm.</p>

[mrossi]

<p>I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400, and I'd probably take them both. I am positive if I didn't take the 400 I'd be regretting it at some point, it's a great lens for this kind of thing.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>I just love this site.....so many excellent opinions and reasons to go EITHER WAY :)</p>

[brent andersen]

<p>The 70-200 f/4 IS should work well. It does well with the 1.4X extender in my experience. The !00-400 L is rather heavy and I wouldn't want to be packing it around on vacation unless I was sure I needed the 640mm reach on the 30D. I would even consider the 70-300 IS lens and it is light and less conspicuous than the 70-200 L. I haven't used this lens but have used the similar Nikon 70-300VR with a D300 and have been impressed. I'm not sure what kind of light you will be shooting in and that might make a difference in lens preference.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>I had the Canon 70-300 IS and got rid of it for the 70-200 L f/4 IS. Excellent decision...the 70-300 IS was okay but was slow to focus and the final product looked lousy compare to the L lens. I think I'm leaning towards the 70-200 with extender. I'm a little person and carrying all that extra weight on a 100-400 might be too heavy for me.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>My f4 IS goes pretty well <a href="../photo/8746001">with the x1.4 TC</a> .</p>

<p>But I can't tell you anything first hand about the 100-400.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>Hi,<br>

I know I am jumping back in BUT I have both these lenses and a 40d.<br>

The 1.4 tc and autofocus works with both lenses.<br>

You will only lose one stop; i.e.. the 70-200 F4 will become a f/5.6.<br>

The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 will become a f/5.6-f/8.<br>

AF may become a little slow on the longer end of the 100-400, that is all.<br>

With the 70-200 you will go to 448mm on the 30d<br>

With the 100-400 you can go to 640 without the teleconverter.<br>

Regards,<br>

Harold</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Harold</p>

[cliff_henry]

<p>Zvia,<br>

I've never been to Alaska but I've shot a lot of wildlife and landscapes all through the Rockies. I did outfit my son with a camera kit for the summer he worked in Alaska. He had a FF, film, body, a 20-35, 35-105, 100-300, and a 400 + 1.4x. He got the traditional bear-catching- salmon at the water falls shots mostly using the 100-300. However, the observation platform at Katmai is close the the falls. </p>

<p>After reading your post my first suggestion was going to be the 100-400 + 1.4x. I based this on my own experience shooting wildlife in Yellowstone - with wildlife more reach is better. I shoot FF bodies with 300 2.8L + 1.4 and/or 2.0 ext. However, after reading your follow-up post and the activities you have planned, I think the combo of 17-55 and 70-200 + 1.4 ext. would serve you fine. My personal preference would be for a wider WA and a faster tele, especially when you start adding tele-extenders. I would suggest a tripod for those low-light shots.</p>

<p>Sounds like a great trip, have fun.</p>

<p>Cliff</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hi Cliff, <br>

Thanks for your response. I'm not too worried about low light situations. We're going mid-June...that time of year in Alaska it's light 22 out of 24 hours a day. However, I never travel without my tripod, it always comes in useful. I doubt I'll use it much while on the go, but I will bring it for landscape shots from where we're staying etc... I've actually decided to rent the 100-400 and the 1.4 extender for a week sometime before we go away. That way I can get a feel for both and see which would be better for me....100-400 vs. 70-200 with 1.4 extender.</p>

[yanzhang]

<p>I mainy dolandscape photography, so I don't have experience in real world wildlife shooting. But I can tell you what I found out just recently, you may find helpful.<br>

I am using 5D Mark II and I have 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. In my mountainous landscape photography, I found 200mm focal length sometimes is not enough, so I was thinking between Canon 2x II or 100-400 L lens. I first got some advice from experienced photographer, then I borrowed from a friend a 2x extender, and combined it with my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS on 5D mark II. I shot with different apertures from f/5.6 to f/16 with focal lengths from 200mm to 400mm.<br>

I must say that from f/8, at 100% closed look, the results are very sharp. If with proper PP, the difference is almost invisible even with 100% enlargement. By the way, I used manual focus though auto-focus was still working.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>"I know I am jumping back in BUT I have both these lenses and a 40d.<br />The 1.4 tc and autofocus works with both lenses.<br />You will only lose one stop; i.e.. the 70-200 F4 will become a f/5.6.<br />The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 will become a f/5.6-f/8.<br />AF may become a little slow on the longer end of the 100-400, that is all.<br />With the 70-200 you will go to 448mm on the 30d<br />With the 100-400 you can go to 640 without the teleconverter."</p>

<p>I'm afraid that the information about AF on the 100~400+1.4x is wishful thinking if you are talking about using a Canon Extender. This combination is designed to work with phase-detect AF ONLY on 1D-series bodies (and on the -3 and -1V film bodies) and then only at the central AF point. If you use an off-brand TC that does not report its presence to the lens through extra contacts, or if you tape over the extra contacts, then the camera will try to AF, but may fail to lock on. Incidentally, on an Extender 1.4x the 100~400 maximum aperture range becomes f/6.3 to f/8, not f/5.6 to f/8.</p>

<p>I use the Extender 1.4x II quite a bit with my 70~200/4L IS, on both FF and 1.6-factor bodies. Image quality is excellent. However, AF is slowed down. Yesterday I was using a 50D to photograph a trained European Eagle Owl being flown directly towards and a couple of feet over my head by a handler. That's quite a severe test of AI servo AF. The lens on its own produced a reasonable proportion of 'keepers' (meaning that the catchlight from the sun in the bird's eyes was critically sharp at 100%), but the lens +extender could not keep up.</p>

<p>I've had a 100~400 since they were introduced, and have become progressively more disenchanted with its image quality as I have acquired more demanding equipment. It's acceptable as a FF lens out to 400mm provided you are not to critical, but is a bit more questionable on 1.6-factor. It certainly needs to be stopped down to give decent results even on its own (whereas the 70~200/4L IS cane be used wide open even on the Extender 1.4x, although IQ is improved by going down one stop on the Extender). However, the 100~400 on a 1.6-factor body is just about the ideal easily-handled 'game-park' combination – don't know about Alaska, but that's certainly my experience in southern Africa – and it is worth working round the IQ limitations by using a reasonably high ISO setting and stopping down. On the Extender 1.4x I have found it difficult to obtain acceptable results with the 100~400, even with the aid of Live View, but with great care about the setup it is possible to obtain critically sharp shots three stops or thereabouts down from wide open.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>I have been to Alaska, Denali Park and crusing in a small boat with a 70-200 and 1.4X. It wasn't long enough. I think we saw 28 different bears, none were close. I now have a 100-400 and I think I would still need the 1.4X on it. If you are just going to the "exhibition" spots, yes, 70-200 would do easily, but if it's true open range wildlife or in the seaways you will need all the length you can get, much more than for an African trip for which the 100-400 is a good starter lens.<br>

Wildlife photography is flukey, We had a large Grizzly come up within 20 feet of us at Morant's Curve near Lake Louise before he realised we were there and took off (I went there to photograph the trains), we spent a week at Denali and only got to 300 yards from bears. A guy I met there had been camped beside the road in a big RV for 3 weeks and still had not seen one. Hope it happens for you, spring is a great time to go.<br>

Neill</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hi Robin and Neill,<br>

I'm going to rent both options before I go to get a feel for the weight. That's my biggest worry, and the reason I bought the 70-200 f/4 IS instead of the 2.8. I'm a little person and it would be pointless to bring a lens I simply can't use. Also, it's either the 70-200 with extender or the 100-400. I wouldn't attempt to put an extender on the 100-400, I think I'd lose too much light. My 30D does a fine job at 400 ISO, but starts to look unacceptable (at least for nature shots in my opinion) by 800. From what I'm told, the weather in Alaska is completely unpredictable, it could be blue skies and very bright or could be raining all day. So I'm just praying for some nice slightly overcast days...just 10 of them :) Wishful Thinking!</p>

 

[andreasb]

<p>My vote is for the 100-400mm and the 1.4x TC. You will regret not having both. Make sure you read about taping the three contacts on the TC so it will auto focus with your camera body. I have the 40D and my 100-400mm + 1.4x TC will not auto focus at or close to 400mm without taping three of the contacts. When taped, it works great! By the way, I use a Tamron 1.4x TC.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I suggest that you get the 1.4 TC and rent the 400 f5.6. The 1.4x produces quite acceptable results on my 70-200 F2.8 and will still give AF on your 70-200 F4 and probably quite acceptable results. I have had little experience with the 100-400 (I borrowed one for a day from a friend) but found the images to be soft and the contrast low. It must be said that I was shooting full frame so it my perform better on a crop body. I would advise against the 2x TC - this has never been a Canon strongpoint. On my FD lenses the 1.4x is much better than the 2x (Canon made two versions of the 2x in those days) and the same is true today. The 1.4x will also work on the 400 F5.6 if you rent one.</p>

[w_t1]

<p><em>I'm a little person and it would be pointless to bring a lens I simply can't use.</em><br /><em></em><br />i believe you also mentioned you're doing some active outdoor activities - with that said, get a g10 and enjoy the trip. Most of the wildlife you're going to see is other tourists. I lived in Alaska for 5 years, two of those summers I worked outdoors in the wilderness 24/7 and I can count the wildlife other than birds on one hand (2 bears 1 of which ripped the %^$^% out of my truck interior, 1 wolf carrying half of a deer carcas, and a goat) notcounting porcupines or deer which are a dime a dozen or people that live out in the boonies and wouldntg look at you lol. I have all the gear you do and more, shoot 4x5 and believe me the tradeoff using a light weight g10 (or g9 in my case) vs. the few missed pics of a dslr is miniscule. ALASKA is about wide open expanses, huuuuuuuuuuge landscapes, maybe that's why i'm a wide angle guy primarily, I lived in AK when got interested in photography. Also, when I was 19 I learned that tripods on ferries, translated to cruise ships don't work lots of vibrations lol. get a bogen pocket tripod and a gseries, trust me and good luck Tom</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Hi WT....I've tried the G10 (my best friend has one) and honestly, I don't love it. The final product just isn't as good, IMHO. Also, I'm so used to the functions etc...on my 30D, that it would be uncomfortable to use something else right now. I do see your point though regarding a light weight "do it all". What's going to end up happening is that I'll have the 30D with the 17-55 attached to it around my neck 95% of the time. Whatever other lens/combo I choose to bring with me will be schlepped around by my husband :)....that's what happened in Ecuador last year!</p>

<p>After all the discussion on lenses, I really don't think it matters too much in the end. Everyone I've spoken to who has been to Alaska has told me the same thing....it is so breathtaking that it will be hard to take a bad picture!</p>

<p>BTW, we're not doing the cruise thing (too many people). We're renting a Suburban in Anchorage and spending a couple of nights in Girdwood, Homer, Seward, Talkeetna and Matanuska Glacier area (cabins in the middle of nowhere). We're staying at little bed and breakfasts away from the tourist areas (except for Seward, where I hear that's impossible. Most of the photos will be documenting our trip, although it would just be nice to get a couple of wildlife shots while we're there. </p>