Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?
  
 
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


I am finding myself reach limited sometimes with the 5DsR + 100-400ii + 1.4xiii. I was wondering if it could be useful in any way to use a 2xiii extender.

--- I know it's a combo that will not AF with current bodies ---

Just thinking I might be able to use MF but I'm not sure if the VF gets too dark. Could also use in LV while on tripod for stationary wildlife subjects. Would also be neat to play with stacking the 2xiii on my 1.4xiii + 100-400ii and have fun with moon shots or the like.

All I found while searching was 100-400 vs 70-200/2x comparisons. Sorry if this has been asked before.

Any first hand experience and opinions very welcome.

Thanks,
Ralph



Oct 22, 2016 at 06:09 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


I tried the 2X back when I had a 500 f4 and 2X mk2 on a !DS3. Even though it autofocuses, the images were usually not very sharp. Eventually I concluded that the distance was too great. Atmospheric conditions cannot be overcome with longer FL.

I eventually got to where I could figure out what conditions would spoil the shot, usually a place that may be hot, or with moisture. But close always worked best even when it appeared clear.



Oct 22, 2016 at 07:02 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


rabbitmountain wrote:
I am finding myself reach limited sometimes with the 5DsR + 100-400ii + 1.4xiii. I was wondering if it could be useful in any way to use a 2xiii extender.

--- I know it's a combo that will not AF with current bodies ---

Just thinking I might be able to use MF but I'm not sure if the VF gets too dark. Could also use in LV while on tripod for stationary wildlife subjects. Would also be neat to play with stacking the 2xiii on my 1.4xiii + 100-400ii and have fun with moon shots or the like.

All I
...Show more

I don't really like the 5DsR and 100-400 II with the 1.4x III and with the 2x III it is no good IMO. You need a longer lens or get closer.

EBH



Oct 22, 2016 at 07:19 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


From the testing I did I found the 100-400mk2 plus 2xIII TC pretty sharp so if you can deal with manual focus you should get good results. I could not stack the v3 TC's though. The 2x was not wide or deep enough. I read some place that the 2xII with the 1.4xIII might work though (or maybe 3rd party ones).


Oct 22, 2016 at 07:42 PM
Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


EB-1:"I don't really like the 5DsR and 100-400 II with the 1.4x III "

what is the problem?



Oct 22, 2016 at 09:03 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Don Clary wrote:
EB-1:"I don't really like the 5DsR and 100-400 II with the 1.4x III "

what is the problem?


The AF is limited and the images are hazy for lack of a better word. It's not terribly soft like some lenses, but a noticeable decrease from not using a 1.4x TC. Since there are 50 MP overall IQ can still be good if the frame is filled, but it's not near 50 MP quality. There is no way I'd use a 2X. Stick with the 1.4x for occasional use and get a longer lens if possible.

EBH



Oct 22, 2016 at 09:30 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Thanks everybody for your replies. A longer lens is not an option for me. Too heavy and expensive. It's only the occasional shot that I feel limited.
By the way I find the 100-400i + 1.4x fantastic for fairly close but tiny subjects.



Oct 22, 2016 at 09:34 PM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Of course you can do it, considering f/11, MF or LV. You will find atmospherics will eat the advantage of the greater FL often, and it is really better off a tripod, even with the advantages of IS.

But by all means do it for the experience, the perspective, and sometimes you might you get something you wouldn't have gotten otherwise.






  Canon EOS 5DS R    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +2x III lens    800mm    f/11.0    1/100s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS 5DS R    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +2x III lens    800mm    f/11.0    1/500s    640 ISO    0.0 EV  




Oct 22, 2016 at 09:42 PM
Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


EB-1: I ask this, since I just finished micro adjusting (MA) my 5DsR, 500 II and 1.4XIII extender, and was quite impressed.

My chart below was originally designed to fill the frame at 25 focal lengths with this resolution chart, which will measure the combined resolution of lens and sensor, up to 65 lp/mm.

Canon suggests to MA at 50 focal lengths, which is a bit far with 700mm at about 115 feet. This chart would then resolve about 130 lp/mm at twice the 25 local length distance, if the finest pattern is resolved. This is somewhat beyond even 50.6MP sensors.

I placed the chart about 85 feet, which is about 37 focal lengths, and resolving at the finest pattern might be approaching 100 lp/mm for the combined lens and sensor.

The wood board keeps the chart from blowing over. First entire chart, then 100% crop of MAed 5DsR, followed by MA'ed 5DIII.





chart







100% 5DsR







100% 5DIII




Oct 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


The 100-400 II is a fine lens, but it is not a series II IS tele prime.

EBH



Oct 22, 2016 at 10:42 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


EB-1 wrote:
The AF is limited and the images are hazy for lack of a better word. It's not terribly soft like some lenses, but a noticeable decrease from not using a 1.4x TC.

EBH


Nonsense.





  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x lens    560mm    f/8.0    1/500s    3200 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x lens    560mm    f/8.0    1/50s    1600 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS-1D Mark IV    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x lens    560mm    f/8.0    1/320s    200 ISO    -0.3 EV  






  Canon EOS 5DS R    EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +1.4x III lens    560mm    f/8.0    1/1250s    1600 ISO    +0.3 EV  




Oct 23, 2016 at 01:51 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


rabbitmountain wrote:
Any first hand experience and opinions very welcome.

Thanks,
Ralph


If you want to waste your time playing around with MF through a dark VF or using LV, got for it.

You will probably get as good or better results cropping a 1.4x TC image.



Oct 23, 2016 at 01:54 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Well Tony i use the bare 100-400ii on the 5DsR for most stuff and the 1.4xiii when I need it. The 2.0x would be only for the occasional shot. Glass is better than more cropping. Especially when the resulting image is about 100% crop like with the moon image. But nearly 500 bucks is a lot of cash. I'll chew on it for a while....


Oct 23, 2016 at 09:46 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


...you can also tote the 2xIII TC along with the 70-200L 2.8 II, not that bad and handy in a pinch.

would be even better with the 5DSR






  Canon EOS 5D Mark III    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +2x III lens    400mm    f/5.6    1/1250s    250 ISO    0.0 EV  




Oct 23, 2016 at 10:14 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Thanks John, aamof I got the 100-400 for wildlife around town and for travelling, I use the 70-200ii for sports, theatre/dance and some studio. The new 100-400ii is better at 400 than the 70-200/2.8ii+2xiii, especially AF and IS. It's just that sometimes I want more than 560mm and at those outings I only have the 100-400 in the bag.
Sometimes one can't get closer when shooting moon and stars or when standing on shore and photographing sea life or surfers. A longer lens is no option money wise and I also don't do enough of that shooting to justify it.



Oct 23, 2016 at 01:44 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


rabbitmountain wrote:
Well Tony i use the bare 100-400ii on the 5DsR for most stuff and the 1.4xiii when I need it. The 2.0x would be only for the occasional shot. Glass is better than more cropping. Especially when the resulting image is about 100% crop like with the moon image. But nearly 500 bucks is a lot of cash. I'll chew on it for a while....


In a lot of cases glass is not better than more cropping.

Myself and another poster over on Canon Rumors forums did some tests with 400DOII +2xTCIII on the 5DSR. He had reported that he couldn't get more resolution out of that combo than with the 1.4TCIII. So I tried my own experiment and came to the same conclusion. My images looked identical when cropped to the same FOV on the 5DSR. On the 1DX2 both of us found that the 2xTCIII did result in a better image over bigger cropping of the 1.4TCIII. He theorized that it may be that you are past the aperture on the 5DSR where diffraction sets in and this may be hurting the extra magnification.

Now if one of Canon's sharpest primes on the 5DSR with a 2xTCIII can't out resolve the 1.4TCIII then I don't see how the 100-400II with 2.0TCIII will ever be better than cropping the 1.4TCIII image.

I've gone back and forth on whether TCs do help and I think in most cases it is actually a lot closer than most think between using the TC or cropping more without the TC. I think in most cases the 1.4TCIII does improve the reach limited image but I don't think it is 1.4x better. The 2xTCIII is probably only useful on prime lenses and mostly on f/2.8 and f/4 base lenses and as for the above, may be only useful on lower MP bodies.



Oct 23, 2016 at 03:14 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


rabbitmountain wrote:
Glass is better than more cropping.


That depends on the glass. Using a 2x TC does not always result in an equal or better result than cropping your 1.4x TC to the same size.



Oct 23, 2016 at 03:55 PM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Thank you. I understand that sometimes glass isn't better than cropping. But it depends on the situation I suppose. If I take a picture of the moon using 5DsR + 100-400ii + 1/4xiii, the moon is so small in the frame that I will need to crop down to 100%. For the moon I'll use base ISO, but if I use ISO 400 or 800, 100% crops are a mess.

Based on your input I will go and experiment some more with the equipment I already own, before deciding on new gear. Thanks a lot



Oct 24, 2016 at 08:33 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


...with the moon, I find adding more lens often just compresses more atmospherics with no net gain in detail of the subject. You need a really crystal clear night, usually cold, to make significant gains with optics.


Oct 24, 2016 at 08:49 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 100-400ii + 2xiii: usable?


Thanks John, I'll try.


Oct 24, 2016 at 11:03 AM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password