Canon 100-400L IS with 2X EF Converter.

[doug_roberts]

I have recently acquired a Canon EOS3 with both the Canon 100-400L IS

and Canon 300L F/4 IS lenses, together with both Canon EF 1.4X and 2X

Converters.

 

Can anyone advise me if they have used the 100-400 zoom with the 2X

converter. If so, what did they think of the results. Does anyone

think this is a workable combination, especially for wildlife

photography.

 

I would also be interested to hear of anyone's experience of the

results obtained with the 300mm lens combined with the 2X converter.

 

The feedback I have had relating to the use of both lenses with the

1.4X converter is that the results are very good.

 

Your comments or advice would be gratefully received.

 

Kind regards,

[tom_thurston]

I have had some success using the 300 f/4 with the 2x converter. Since I do not have an EOS 3 or 1v, though, I'm forced to use manual focus. However, if I do manage to focus okay, the results are comparable to the results I used to get with 200 f/2.8 with the 2x converter -- that is, pretty sharp, but not as good as using only the 1.4x or no converter at all.

[mike f]

Go to Arthur Morris's website "Birdsasart" He has done extensive evaluation of the extenders and lenses.

[bobatkins]

Since you have all the lenses, why not tell us!

There may well be good and not quite so good samples

of each lens and TC. so the only way to tell how your

lenses will perform is to test them. Your opinion is the only

one that counts. My opinion and Art Morris' opinion don't

really mean anything, or they may tell you more about Art Morris

and me than they do about the lenses...

 

When I tested these lenses I concluded that neither lens does really well with a 2x TC on it. Results may be "good enough" however. The 300 prime does better than the zoom (which should be no surprise to anyone). The 1.4x on the 300 is good, the 1.4x on the 100-400 turns a slighly soft lens into a slightly softer lens (at the long end of the range).

 

In my opinion a 200-800/9-11 (100-400 + 2x) is not a very useful lens for serious wildlife work, even if it does have IS! It's too slow and it's not really sharp.

[brian_kennedy]

I pretty much agree with Bob. The 2x on the 100-400 is completely unworkable. However, the 1.4x on the 400 is certainly useable with the 1v or 3 (which retain AF at f/8), and the images are only slightly soft. IMO, the images at 400 without the converter are quite sharp, not slightly soft as Bob says, but Bob may be more critical than I.

 

The 300/4 with the 1.4x is clearly sharper than the zoom with the 1.4x, though, as Bob mentions. But both lenses produce fine results with the 1.4x. I think the 2x is a viable option mainly for the big guns -- the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4.

[bobatkins]

"Sharp", "Soft" and "Slightly Soft" are all subjective terms. When I say the 100-400 at 400 is slightly soft at 400mm I mean that, in the center of the image, it's not as sharp as the 300 + Canon 1.4x, which in turn isn't as sharp as the 300 without the TC! It's sharper than a 75-300 + Tamron 1.4x TC, which I would describe as "Soft".

<p>

I've reviewed many Canon lenses on my website at <a href="http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html">http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html</a>, including the 300/4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6L

<p>

Usual disclaimers apply here. Your lenses may be slightly better or slightly worse performers than the ones I looked at. I'm sure there may be small sample to sample variations.

[doug_roberts]

Hi there. My sincere thanks to all who have replied to my initial enquiry.

 

I am very grateful indeed for all your comments and will take on board all the views expressed.

 

I have not had much of an opportunity to personally experiment with the equipment at this time. I shall be flying from the UK to Orlando at the end of this week and will be spending a couple of days at the St. Augustine Rookery where I will put the equipment and your advice to the test.

 

Thanks again. Kindest regards,

 

Doug.

[jeff_nadler2]

Having just obtained the Canon 1.4x EF 2 and testing it on the 100-400, the results are far better than I would have imagined. For wildlife, the issues I have are not softness but the requirement to use faster film and manually focusing.

[ShunCheung]

Doug, I agree with Bob that a 800mm/f11 lens is going to be difficult to use. I don't care how great your optics may be, it is going to be difficult to focus accurately at f11. If I were you, I would shoot a test roll and observe the result before relying on that combo during a long trip.

 

I know that some people have used stacked 2x TCs. Maybe they have much better eye sights than I have, but I sure have difficulty dealing with a very dark viewfinder.

[gary voth]

There is some sample variability with the 100-400. Arthur Morris has called his 'ridiculously sharp, even wide open @ 400mm.' I know other shooters like Darrel Gullin who swear by this lens.

 

Mine, however is undeniably soft @ 400mm wide open, which effectively converts it to an f/8 zoom. Possibly Bob's is similar.

 

Moral of story: test your own lenses.

[bobatkins]

It's hard to tell if the differing reports of sharpness reflect sample to sample variations in the lens or if they reflect difference in standards of sharpness between testers and testing methods.

 

I'd say that my results were pretty much in line with the Popular Photography tests (which seem to agree with Gary's observations). Now there's also a wide variety of opinions regarding the dependability of the PP tests, so I'm not sure what such agreement indicates! The photodo numbers look a little better, but they also show that at 300mm the performance is at least 20% down from that of the 300/4L (Center MTF at 40 lp/mm of 0.52 for the zoom at 300mm and f5 vs. 0.65 for the 300/4L at f4 - and the prime would be even better at f5). Again you may or may not put much faith in photodo numbers.

 

I'd say my experience is that the 100-400L is as good as you might reasonably expect. Not as sharp as the primes, sharper (and 100mm longer) than the non-L zooms. A very nice, convenient lens of good quality, but clearly a step down from the primes. If there really are samples out there that are "ridiculously sharp, even wide open at 400mm" my money is waiting to buy one!

[pete_biro]

Readers: be aware of who's making the assessments. For instance, 'riduculously sharp wide open @400mm' comes from a sponsored photographer who would never give anything but glowing comments about Canon equipment. He would even say that stacking two 2x converters on one of Canon's 'amazing' IS supertelephotos yields sharp images.

 

My rule of thumb now, after experience with a 2x on Canon's 200f2.8L and 500f4.5L primes is use a 2x only if you must.

 

Pete, U. Calgary

[gary voth]

Random additional comment for the archives: I just coincidentally returned from a trip to do landscapes in the Sonoran Desert where I had a positive experience with the 2x on (of all things) the 70-200 f/4L.

 

I was travelling *very* light: 1v body, Gitzo 1228 tripod, 20-35 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L, 420EX flash, Nikon 6T diopter, various filters and film. At the last minute I threw in the 2x. I tried it a couple times to shoot some desert cottontails and various small (slow moving!) birds and lizards. To improve my odds I used it only on the tripod at f/11 (one stop down from wide open).

 

The results were stunningly sharp (and I am particular)! The slides looked far better than I expected them to. (Who knew?) Your mileage may vary, but at least with my zoom and converter the combination works well.

 

Now an effective 400mm f/8 lens (used at f/11 for sharpness) is *not* a thing of beauty in the field but I would not hesitate to try this again when I can't afford to carry a longer lens.

[bobatkins]

I actually tested the Canon 2x TC on a EF70-200/4L. At 400/8 the results were about the same as an EF75-300 at 300/5.6. Resolution, on a good day, with MLU, a hefty tripod, Agfa APX25 film and the right phase of the moon might just make 60 lp/mm.

 

On some subjects this can look quite decent as long as you don't have side by side shots taken with a prime!

[gary voth]

Perhaps, but I didn't shoot at f/8. I shot at f/11 and the results were sharp enough to be surprising.

 

That being said, I have never considered this combination potentially useful enough to formally test it, so I won't argue with your results.

[bobatkins]

Judging sharpness from a real world type image can sometimes give different impressions than resolution testing. I've used a 2x TC on a 500/4.5L and a 300/4L and I've got a few shots which were indeed suprisingly sharp. However on real resolution tests these combinations have never shown high sharpness. I'm not quite sure why this is, but I suspect that on some subject matter under some lighting conditions you may not need the untimate in resolution for an image to appear sharp. I've gotten surprisingly sharp shots from a 75-300, wide open at 300. The problem is that on most subjects, under most conditions, wide open at 300mm shots look soft! It's probably a matter of lighting, contrast and the amount of detail you expect to see in a subject. The 300/4L on the other hand, gives sharp images all the time, no matter what the subject or lighting conditions.

[scott_fairbairn]

I find it somewhat worrisome the sample variation with this lens. My lens was sharp at 400mm, but with noticeable degradation with the 1.4x on it. I wouldn't even try a 2x on it. Sadly, my lens was stolen a week ago so who knows what the next one will bring.

[david_behrens]

Doug,

I have the 100-400 and the Canon 2x. On a day with excellent light (early morning sun behind me on a blue sky) and with mirror lock-up I can get good results - from there on it is a rapid fall downhill. I got better results with the 70-200 f2/8 but now that I have the 100-400 that combo is never used. At least for me the 2x is not a recommended solution.

Brgds,

Dave Behrens

[chuck_loftis]

I have started a similar thread -- my question is not "Is it 'sharp' but is it visibly worse than a fixed 400 f/5.6 with the same converter ?" Sharpness is relative term - depends on the equipment, film, user technique, scan processing, post processing. (I have photos posted of the moon with stacked 2x TCs on the 400 zoom. This may look sharp on your PC, but the 3Meg jpg file at 72 dpi is NOT sharp. In my user area I have some comparisons of the moon with different lens/converter combos. I would like to see a side-by side of the moon (on a clear, dry evening) of various lenses. Maybe someone in a club could arrange such a trial. A celestial body would be a nice standard. I frequently use the 1.4x with the 400 zoom because I still have AF. If I bracket manual focus I can get acceptable slides with the 2xEF-II and the zoom. ('Acceptable' means they are as sharp as I can see using an 8x high quality loupe.) One pro finally indicated this week he has *rarely* obtained sharp photos (of birds) with stacked TCs, even with the BIG glass. He has been trying for years. I wish we had a reasonably priced 400 f/4 so we COULD AF at f/8 with the 2xEF.

[bobatkins]

<em>"is it visibly worse"</em>

<p>

Again this is subjective.

<p>

What do you mean by "visibly worse"? On a projected slide? Under a 4x loupe? Under a 10x loupe? Under a 100x microscope?

<p>

On Tech Pan film? On Velvia? On Provia 400F? On Kodak Royal Gold 800? On 4x6 prints? On 8x10 prints? On 11x14 prints?

<p>

With your eyesight? With my eyesight? With glasses?

<p>

The only real objective criterion is a resolution test and I can tell you for sure that TC degrade resolution (even the best 1.4x TCs on the best lenses) and that, with very few exceptions (and the 100-400 isn't one of them) primes are sharper than zooms with and without TCs.

<p>

Though the moon is a tempting target, it's not realistic unless you are an astrophotographer and shoot pictures of the moon a lot. Plus it moves (quite fast when shot through a long lens) and "seeing" (atmospheric turbulance) can influence image quality.

<p>

The best way to tell "if it is visibly worse" is to shoot shots of what you regard as a typical subject on the film you typically use and look at the images in the way you typically look at them. Shoot with both lenses, shuffle the slides/prints and see if you can pick out which shots were shot with which lens. If you can't, it's not "visibly worse", if you can, it is.

<p>

So it all comes down to the same old story. "Is it sharp enough for me?", and that's a question only you can answer with your own tests.

<p>As a final comment I very much doubt there ever will be a "reasonably priced 400/4" of sufficient quality to give really sharp (by my standards) images when used with a 2x. I doubt that even an unreasonably priced lens could do that! My guess is that the (as yet) mythical 400/4 DO won't be that lens either, whatever the price. It will sell on its features of size, weight and IS, not optical excellence. Just my best guess. I've been known to be wrong before and I have no real knowledge of the optical properties of the 400/4 DO, just some general optics background that leads me to that opinion. I hope I'm wrong of course! If Canon would like to send me a sample for review, I'll give it an honest test. Chances of that happening I'd guess are slim to none though.

[arthur_morris1]

While many factors that influence the sharpness of a given image, one that has not been mentioned at all is often the most important: the skill and sharpness techniques used by the photographer. Photographers employing excellent sharpness techniques will always make sharper images than photographers using sloppy technique, IS or not.

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART