Posted by eric weight on October 25, 2008 at 3:19 AM
After another disappointing day using my canon 1.4x tc, I got to wondering how I might be sure that there isn't a fault with it, whether the lens(in this instance my 100-400)just doesn't work well with one or whether I am expecting too much. How can I find out whether different makes are better suited to different lenses? For example using a canon camera with a sigma lens, would I be better with a canon, a sigma or maybe even a kenko convertor. I have had a scout round on the internet and although there are plenty of lens comparisons, there seems to be a dearth of info on TCs.
I appreciate that any tc is probably a compromise, but they are an important part of the armoury these days as a look at most people's techs on this forum show. It seems that we spend a lot of time choosing, and a lot of money paying for, good glass, but then just stick a tc on the front. We may decide to play safe with a manufacturers own brand, but do we really know if it is better than any other make or the best option for the lens we have on.? Any web links or personal experience would be very welcome. Eric
Posted by Matt Cole on October 25, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Hi Eric
When you say it doesn't work well with your 100-400 are you talking about autofocus performance or actual image quality? I have used the Kenko Pro DG 300 1.4 converter on both my 400 f5.6 and my Sigma 150. Image quality is very good, but AF is next to useless on the 400 5.6, even with the pins taped. I also have a cheaper Kenko 1.5 (apparently the same as a Tamron 1.5) which does AF better, and is regularly reported on the net to AF better, but there is a bigger drop in image quality.
I have done a fair bit of research on different TCs over the years and the consensus appears to be that the Kenko Pro DG 300 and the Sigma 1.4 are very similar in terms of IQ to the Canon. But AF will struggle with all of them on a 1.6 crop body which won't AF on a lens with a max aperture of f8 (e.g. both the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400). However, it does seem that the Canon 1.4 will AF better on the 100-400 than on the 400 5.6 for some reason.
The Canon 100-400mm isn't an ideal lens to use with an extender/teleconvertor. In ideal conditions, with a static subject, excellent long lens technique and preferably using mirror lock up and perhaps a remote release you can perhaps get an acceptable result, even pretty good results sometimes. However this is the exception rather than the norm and I'd think of the 1.4X extender as a last resort.
As you say, from reading the techs that people post with their images, the 1.4X extenders are very frequently used, however the big difference here is they're usually being used with the big 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm primes and not the 100-400mm lens. You can fit a 1.4X extender to a big prime and generally not really give a second thought to any image quality loss, or to a lesser extent, a drop, in auto focus speed. Unfortunately this isn't the case when it's used with the 100-400mm.
I've had my 100-400mm for about seven or so years, I bought a Canon 1.4X extender at the same time. I've only probably used it a dozen or so times with that lens, the results, whilst sometimes very good, just aren't consistent enough to warrant regular use.
For scenes/subjects where absolute image quality/sharpness isn't such a priority then the extender may come in useful. For instance if you just want a record shot of a species,etc. etc.
For most occasions though, I'd say the few seconds that it takes to fit the extender would be better spent trying to get a couple of feet closer to your subject, although I can appreciate this is easier said than done in a lot of situations.
I've never tried any third party convertors on that lens, so can't help with that one.
Posted by Chris Jones on October 25, 2008 at 4:37 AM
Eric
I've had no luck with a 1.4x on a 100-400, the auto focus plainly doesn't want to know and the already soft lens (at 400), just to my eye, gets worse.
However on my 500 f4, IQ and auto focus wise you wouldn't know it was there (to my eye anyway, I'm sure others would differ). Plus the value to the shoot with that extra reach is just great, I find myself putting it on 90% of the time.
Fraid its also just a ramble, but thats my experience.
Regards Chris
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 25, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Eric - you should loose all AF function on the 100-400 + 1.4TC on your 1.6c crop body. I'm pretty sure only the 1D pro bodies will AF with that lens and tc combo, as I think your body only has working AF to f4.
Doubtless someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
The 100-400 is a bit of an odd lens, I tried 4 in the shop before I found one that was sharp all the way through its FL range, so if you've got a softish one then the TC will just amplify the error.
You have to remember that even though tc's may fit a lot of lenses it's not always a "match made upstairs".
There are some notoriously good combos out there - Canon 500m f4 + 1.4, Canon 600m f4 + 1.4 (a la Jeroen Stels King shots), Nikon 200-400 f4 + 1.4 and 1.7, Sig 120-300 f2.8 + Sig 1.4 to name but a few.
But I'll tell you now, when I had Canon gear, even though my 100-400 was stellar it did suffer noticeably with the 1.4 converter, but my 400 f5.6 performed fine with it in the sharpness department.
And when I had a Sig 500 f4.5, though stunning on its own, it was not too brilliant with the Sig 1.4tc, nor the Nikon 1.4 either.
Like Matt though, I'd be interested to know exactly where your dissatisfaction lies - sharpness or AF (which you shouldn't have - or are you taping pins up?).
Posted by eric weight on October 25, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Quick response Guys and much appreciated.
I have taped up the pins on my lens, but to be frank the extra chuntering about while it finds focus sounded like a lot of extra wear on the lens motor/gearing, so I always use manual focus with the tc, so that is not the issue. It is simply one of image quality. My 100-400 gives me quality that I am more than happy with. My problem is (or soon will be - fingers crossed!) - will my canon tc give me better results on for example a sig prime than either a sig tc or a kenko one. Are all tcs as good as each other given the limitations of the lens that they are fitted to. I have a canon tc, but will I better off with a different make on a sig prime? Image quality is my number one concern.
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 25, 2008 at 6:45 AM
I'd say the Sig 1.4 and the Canon 1.4 will give about the same results Eric - the Sig is a very good bit of glass.
But I don't think you'll get much by way of improvement matey whichever you use - but the Sig 500m I had did not like tc's at all.
Sell the wife (she's worth a goodly sum) and get a decent bit of gear
Posted by Rob Howard on October 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Hi Eric,
For what it's worth my Canon 1.4 tele is permantly bolted onto my 600/4 on either a 1Ds or 1D MK III, the converter I have found does slow the AF of the lens a fair bit but I can just change the focus range to stop it having to "hunt" so much, not sure if the 100-400 has this, also with the conveter on I always shoot at f7.1 at worst, and normally f8.
I used to use the 100-400 when I got my first digital body (20D), but decided to chop it in for a 300/4 prime and a 1.4 converter, IMO this gave me much better quality images.
To be frank... avoid using an extender on a zoom.... all zooms have compromises built in, an extender magnifies everything... the 1-400 can be a great lens, but its performance will suffer dramatically when an extender is added to the equation....
I am still old fashioned and never use a lens wide open, and abide by the rule of stopping down one extra stop with a 1.4 extender and two stops with a 2x... this way you keep good image quality but only IMO with primes...
BTW my 2x that I use very often is a Kenko Pro.... I tried it side ny side with a Canon and there was no appreciable difference in image quality (but a big difference in price)
Discussion
8 repliesI appreciate that any tc is probably a compromise, but they are an important part of the armoury these days as a look at most people's techs on this forum show. It seems that we spend a lot of time choosing, and a lot of money paying for, good glass, but then just stick a tc on the front. We may decide to play safe with a manufacturers own brand, but do we really know if it is better than any other make or the best option for the lens we have on.? Any web links or personal experience would be very welcome.
When you say it doesn't work well with your 100-400 are you talking about autofocus performance or actual image quality? I have used the Kenko Pro DG 300 1.4 converter on both my 400 f5.6 and my Sigma 150. Image quality is very good, but AF is next to useless on the 400 5.6, even with the pins taped. I also have a cheaper Kenko 1.5 (apparently the same as a Tamron 1.5) which does AF better, and is regularly reported on the net to AF better, but there is a bigger drop in image quality.
I have done a fair bit of research on different TCs over the years and the consensus appears to be that the Kenko Pro DG 300 and the Sigma 1.4 are very similar in terms of IQ to the Canon. But AF will struggle with all of them on a 1.6 crop body which won't AF on a lens with a max aperture of f8 (e.g. both the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400). However, it does seem that the Canon 1.4 will AF better on the 100-400 than on the 400 5.6 for some reason.
I hope that ramble helps (probably not!)
Matt
The Canon 100-400mm isn't an ideal lens to use with an extender/teleconvertor. In ideal conditions, with a static subject, excellent long lens technique and preferably using mirror lock up and perhaps a remote release you can perhaps get an acceptable result, even pretty good results sometimes. However this is the exception rather than the norm and I'd think of the 1.4X extender as a last resort.
As you say, from reading the techs that people post with their images, the 1.4X extenders are very frequently used, however the big difference here is they're usually being used with the big 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm primes and not the 100-400mm lens. You can fit a 1.4X extender to a big prime and generally not really give a second thought to any image quality loss, or to a lesser extent, a drop, in auto focus speed. Unfortunately this isn't the case when it's used with the 100-400mm.
I've had my 100-400mm for about seven or so years, I bought a Canon 1.4X extender at the same time. I've only probably used it a dozen or so times with that lens, the results, whilst sometimes very good, just aren't consistent enough to warrant regular use.
For scenes/subjects where absolute image quality/sharpness isn't such a priority then the extender may come in useful. For instance if you just want a record shot of a species,etc. etc.
For most occasions though, I'd say the few seconds that it takes to fit the extender would be better spent trying to get a couple of feet closer to your subject, although I can appreciate this is easier said than done in a lot of situations.
I've never tried any third party convertors on that lens, so can't help with that one.
I've had no luck with a 1.4x on a 100-400, the auto focus plainly doesn't want to know and the already soft lens (at 400), just to my eye, gets worse.
However on my 500 f4, IQ and auto focus wise you wouldn't know it was there (to my eye anyway, I'm sure others would differ). Plus the value to the shoot with that extra reach is just great, I find myself putting it on 90% of the time.
Fraid its also just a ramble, but thats my experience.
Regards Chris
Doubtless someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
The 100-400 is a bit of an odd lens, I tried 4 in the shop before I found one that was sharp all the way through its FL range, so if you've got a softish one then the TC will just amplify the error.
You have to remember that even though tc's may fit a lot of lenses it's not always a "match made upstairs".
There are some notoriously good combos out there - Canon 500m f4 + 1.4, Canon 600m f4 + 1.4 (a la Jeroen Stels King shots), Nikon 200-400 f4 + 1.4 and 1.7, Sig 120-300 f2.8 + Sig 1.4 to name but a few.
But I'll tell you now, when I had Canon gear, even though my 100-400 was stellar it did suffer noticeably with the 1.4 converter, but my 400 f5.6 performed fine with it in the sharpness department.
And when I had a Sig 500 f4.5, though stunning on its own, it was not too brilliant with the Sig 1.4tc, nor the Nikon 1.4 either.
Like Matt though, I'd be interested to know exactly where your dissatisfaction lies - sharpness or AF (which you shouldn't have - or are you taping pins up?).
I have taped up the pins on my lens, but to be frank the extra chuntering about while it finds focus sounded like a lot of extra wear on the lens motor/gearing, so I always use manual focus with the tc, so that is not the issue. It is simply one of image quality. My 100-400 gives me quality that I am more than happy with. My problem is (or soon will be - fingers crossed!) - will my canon tc give me better results on for example a sig prime than either a sig tc or a kenko one. Are all tcs as good as each other given the limitations of the lens that they are fitted to. I have a canon tc, but will I better off with a different make on a sig prime? Image quality is my number one concern.
But I don't think you'll get much by way of improvement matey whichever you use - but the Sig 500m I had did not like tc's at all.
Sell the wife (she's worth a goodly sum) and get a decent bit of gear
For what it's worth my Canon 1.4 tele is permantly bolted onto my 600/4 on either a 1Ds or 1D MK III, the converter I have found does slow the AF of the lens a fair bit but I can just change the focus range to stop it having to "hunt" so much, not sure if the 100-400 has this, also with the conveter on I always shoot at f7.1 at worst, and normally f8.
I used to use the 100-400 when I got my first digital body (20D), but decided to chop it in for a 300/4 prime and a 1.4 converter, IMO this gave me much better quality images.
HTH
Regards
Rob
To be frank... avoid using an extender on a zoom.... all zooms have compromises built in, an extender magnifies everything... the 1-400 can be a great lens, but its performance will suffer dramatically when an extender is added to the equation....
I am still old fashioned and never use a lens wide open, and abide by the rule of stopping down one extra stop with a 1.4 extender and two stops with a 2x... this way you keep good image quality but only IMO with primes...
BTW my 2x that I use very often is a Kenko Pro.... I tried it side ny side with a Canon and there was no appreciable difference in image quality (but a big difference in price)
All the best
Phil