100mm-400mm with 1.4x converter

[michelle_roche]

<p><strong>I have a Canon 1D Mark 1V and a 100mm-400mm. I bought a 2 x converter which you can not AF with so was thinking of buying a 1.4 converter which you can AF with. I shoot water sports photography so need to rely on quick focus.</strong><br>

<strong>Can anyone recommend the 1.4x converter <br /></strong></p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

[greg_moss4]

<p>I have the 1D IV, the 1.4 III and had the 100-400. I would NOT recommend that combination!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michelle,</p>

<p>What watersport? All Canon TC's will slow down AF a lot to make focus more reliable. Matching a TC to a zoom is never optimal. If you are needing an effective angle of view of a 520 mm lens on a FF you are getting into very specialised, and expensive, territory.</p>

[michelle_roche]

<p>Thanks for your feedback guys. That has sorted out any reservations I had.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Unfortunately, the 500mm f/4 is the optimum choice.<br>

The 300mm f/2.8 with a 2X is pretty good IQ-wise, but I don't know how fast the AF would be.<br>

On the "budget" end of the spectrum you might want to look at the Sigma 150-500mm OS...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Geoff,</p>

<p>Generally I don't get on that well with the 300 f2.8 IS and Canon 2xTC MkII, though AF is very fast IQ is a big step down from the 300 and in many cases cropping the 300 mm shot is just as good.</p>

<p>The one lens I am really interested in is the 200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC, fearful of the price but very interested to see the tests.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>The 400/5.6 with the 1.4 converter may be your best choice if the more expensive primes are out of reach assuming you have enough light or don't mind cranking up the ISO. The AF should work reasonably well for this combination for most applications.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>If you can wait a year or so, Canon is currently developing a 200-400/4 IS with built-in 1.4x teleconverter.</p>

<p>Then there's Sigma 300-800/5.6. It's huge. Reportedly it's very good.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>The 500mmF4 is the preferred choice here, as already mentioned. Since that might be cost prohibitive, I think you'd be better off purchasing a refurbished 7D and using it's 1.6 crop factor as your converter. As good as the MKIV is, it won't help all that much when trying to extend reach on a 400mm. Even with the 400mm5.6L, AF will still be slowed, minimum aperture reduced to F8 AND it doesn't have IS-couple that with a converter and your asking for a very low keeper rate.</p>

<p>Post edit- the 400mm5.6, even though it's an L series lens, it is not weather/dust sealed. That might be a concern if you're shooting water skiers and are within spray distance.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'd definitely disagree with that advice Randall. The full 7D image, in real world use, is no better than a 1D MkIV image cropped to the same size.</p>

<p>When I did static tests on the 7D vs the 1Ds MkIII, the 7D only showed a marginal resolution advantage under the most unrealistic conditions, off base iso, even in situations artificially set up to favour the 7D, there was nothing in it.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Real world use is where it's at. I've only shot with a friends 1DIV on occasion and have no practical comparisons to go by. I would like to own one myself but that will have to wait. I trust what you say, perhaps Michelle is better off renting the 500F4 when needed, or shooting for crops since the other options are poor at best, or cost prohibitive. Thanks for the input. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That is very gracious and non confrontational of you Randall. Thank you.</p>

<p>It would seem there is no substitute for focal length, that is why I was interested in what water sport Michelle was shooting.</p>

<p>I 100% agree with you too, real world use is what matters, people rely on, and repeat, internet static tests ad nausea without actually trying them out.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks again, Scott.</p>

[zml]

<p>Sadly, the best lens to use would be 400/2.8 L IS (either the current model or Mk. II.) It would give you a nice range of focal lengths naked and with different TCs (400/2.8, 560/4 or 800/5.6) with great IQ and fast AF. The "sadly" part refers to its cost and heft (even the Mk. II is rather heavy.) </p>

<p>As an aside: when you say you need "fast AF" I'm inclined to believe that, although the faster AF the better, what you really need is good and fast tracking, and that the 1D4 and 100-400 can do it nicely, provided your shooting/tracking technique is good.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Unless you pay a lot for the big telephoto primes (300 f2.8, 400 F2.8, 500 F4 etc...) your choice is fairly limited. The fact is that TCs slow down the AF of lenses quite a bit - although the 1.4x is a lot better than the 2x (I have both the Canon MkII ones). The MkIII TCs really only offer AF benefits on the MkII lenses (according to Canon) so we are back to the new big teles. With the 100-400 the MkII and MkIII 1.4 will have the same effect.<br>

Not sure what focal length you need but since you are looking at the 2x on the 100-400 it looks like a lot. If you can carry them the 400 F2.8 and 600 F4 give you a lot of reach and a fast aperture. The 300 F2.8 and the 500 F4 tend to be more popular - not least because they are smaller and lighter. I am happy shooting the 300 F2.8 handheld but on the few occasions I have used the 400 F2.8 I have found it a bit of a handful (it weights almost 12lbs). <br>

For cheaper and smaller lenses your choice is limited - 300 F4 IS and 400 F5.6. Both are much smaller and cheaper but the 400 especially is a very old design. I own the 300 F4 IS and like it a lot - it is small and handy and lighetr than my 70-200 F2.8. Unfortunately the fact that you are trying to use a 2x on the 100-400 on an APS-H body suggests that you are looking for extreme reach (this combination would give an effective 1040mm lens equivalent on full frame). I am not sure what you are shooting but you may want to investigate a different approach. If not try the 500 F4, 600 F4 and 800 F5.6 but they are all monsters.<br>

If you are shooting a sport like surfing my understanding is that you either get into the water or suck it up and drop best part of $10,000 to shoot from the beach!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you'll be shooting from a boat and are considering the 400/5.6 alternative, remember that it has no IS.</p>

[dom1]

<p>I'm not a pro, but I have some nice gear. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, particularly if you are shooting water sports :>) I think it depends on what sport and where you are shooting from. A boat or solid ground? I have the 1D IV and a 100-400 lens. I also have a 500 mm f 4.0 and a 1.4 teleconverter. Sometimes the 500 seems a bit to carry around so I use the much lighter 100-400mm with 1.4. I find tracking surfers is easy. However, skittish birds are another story. So, IMHO, it really depends on what you're shooting. I just posted a surf shot taken with the 1DIV, 100-400, and 1.4X. Lets see if I can load it up here. Here's the shot. I cropped it by close to half.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14035836-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="473" /></p>

 

[nwphotog]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5694378">>>Dominick Marino</a><br>

No "butts" about it - that combination works for you!</p>

[jimdavis]

<p>I use the EF100-400L IS with a Kenko Pro 1.4x all the time. I use it on birds, I use it anywhere I want. That's because it's a very portable setup, and since I'm not a pro it didn't cost me much either. Autofocus can be possible as well as AF tracking. I prefer manual focus though, especially on larger objects and at a distance. My body is a 40d currently but I used it with my old 10d and it performed well also.<br>

I don't think there are many other options that will give you this kind of FL, at least not that you can carry around and hand hold. And, not many options nearly so cheap either. Because the 100-400 collapses so small I can carry it quite a small bag (Zoomloader) ready to shoot.<br>

I really hate hearing all these negative remarks from those who have never tried this combo. I personally have no desire to carry around a 'megalens' and I have not forgotten how to manual focus. Nor am I a pixel-peeper. The image is what counts and I daresay I can get images with this combo that someone with a megalens and tripod will never get.</p>