I am looking for a TC for my 100-400 now that I have my 1d, I would like the extra reach:
I cannot really afford a Canon one right now.
How do the others compare? I have used the Sigma which was alright, what about the Kenko Pro 300 or the Tamron?
Matt,
I've had 3 Canon 1.4x's and 2 Tamron SP's, and I currently have one of each.
If there is a difference in how they perform, my eyes aren't good enough to see it. Various tests that I've seen show that, in the center of the glass, performance is virtually identical, but the Canon has a slight advantage at the edges of the glass. With a 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor, you aren't using the edges anyway. So, if I was using a FF camera, perhaps my judgment would be different, but with my 1.3 or 1.6 crop bodies, I don't hesitate to use the Canon or the Tamron interchangeably.
Les
I've had two Tamron TC's as well as two Canon 1.4's and the current one I have is the best of the bunch (although all of the above have given good to excellent quality), however with the 100-400, you will need a very bright day to get acceptable results. I've tried on various occasions, before just breaking down to get longer glass. Unfortunately, the 100-400 has less than ideal results with the teleconverter as there was moderate to severe fringing, and sharpness was also degraded. Focus also suffers a little because of light loss.
Thanks Les, since you're the reason I came back to the 100-400, I am taking your advice. They are out of stock @ BH, but I'll run into Tri-State today
M
eeprete wrote:
I've had two Tamron TC's as well as two Canon 1.4's and the current one I have is the best of the bunch (although all of the above have given good to excellent quality), however with the 100-400, you will need a very bright day to get acceptable results. I've tried on various occasions, before just breaking down to get longer glass. Unfortunately, the 100-400 has less than ideal results with the teleconverter as there was moderate to severe fringing, and sharpness was also degraded. Focus also suffers a little because of light loss.
I currently have a Canon 1.4 II. Although I have yet to use it on my 100-400, on the lenses I have used it on, I have gotten good results. On the 100-400, I'd suggest stopping down an extra stop to hopefully gain some sharpness back. Since it's seals you are shooting and there is a good chance they will be a fair distance, I'd even suggest F11 to also retain enough DOF.
I would agree with the comment that you'll need a bright day to get acceptable shots from the 100-400 with a 1.4x, even with a tripod. In my experience, the zooms just don't work that well with teleconverters. I've never had much success with this combo. My rule of thumb is to only use the 1.4x on primes. On my 135/2.0 and 500/4 the loss of quality is negligible.
Yes, you will get the poster who shows a nice pic with this combo. And I've used the 2x on occasion with good results. I'm new to the 1D and love the way it will auto-focus up to f8 (the 500/4 with the 2x). I've even gotten some good pics stacking the 1.4x and the 2x. However, your percentage of good shots will be far less than with the 1.4x alone. And, as mentioned, you'll need excellent light as you should stop it down as much as possible. I try for f11 or higher when using the 2x. I would do the same if trying the 100-400 with the 1.4x.
My friend tried the Canon (Mk II, pins taped) and Kenko pro on his 20D. His conclusions were that:
1. Optically they are identical.
2. Focus speed was quicker with the Kenko. It also hunted less.
Matt,
I am not sure whether you have seen this picture before on the Wildfife Forum or not but this a shot using Canon 1.4X II TC on 100-400mm at wide open aperture. You can buy the first version (not weather sealed but no big deal) for around $180.00....
For the web, yes. I used one of FM plug-ins called Web Presenter Pro for resizing and sharpening at the same time. For printing, you have to apply a generous amount of sharpening as well.
?