p.1 #1 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Can you get decent images using a 60D + 100-400 + 1.4 TC? Some swear you can, some swear you can't. I don't want to buy a TC if it's a total waste. Any feedback from people who've tried it?
I'm posting this question after reading this article in which the author says it's a really, really, really bad idea: Arguments for not using 100-400 with TC
p.1 #3 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
paperdesk wrote:
Can you get decent images using a 60D + 100-400 + 1.4 TC? Some swear you can, some swear you can't. I don't want to buy a TC if it's a total waste. Any feedback from people who've tried it?
I'm posting this question after reading this article in which the author says it's a really, really, really bad idea: Arguments for not using 100-400 with TC
Ted
That article IMO is not worth the bytes it wasted.
Your problem with the 60D is that you will not get AF unless you use a non-reporting TC or tape pins on the TC to make it non-reporting. Even then I've heard it can be flaky on some cameras; not sure about 60D. IQ however, is very good and there is a recent thread on this with examples posted. On my 1D IV I use 100-400L + 1.4x TC quite often and am very happy with IQ and even AF performance is quite good in normal light.
p.1 #4 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
It has been my opinion that it was better to crop a 100-400L shot than to put a 1.4 TC on it. After looking at a few photos posted here I decided I had better have another look. So I took around 10 shots of my Airconditioner label @ 560mm (400x 1.4) with my 7D (400x1.4x1.6=896mm). OK, at 100% the're soft but at 50% they look ok and at normal they look pretty smart.
The main difficulty is getting manual focus spot on. That is hard to do on a crop, so out of the 10 hand held at 1/1000 only half really looked good, but I was surprised that they looked as good as they did.
Have to do another check comparing them to cropped shots. Maybe the cropped AF shots will show that it's the 100-400+ 7D's AF that makes the difference.
p.1 #5 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Pixel Perfect, I saw that thread with the examples, and was quite impressed. It seemed that the photographers that posted were using full frame body's though,
Ted
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That article IMO is not worth the bytes it wasted.
Your problem with the 60D is that you will not get AF unless you use a non-reporting TC or tape pins on the TC to make it non-reporting. Even then I've heard it can be flaky on some cameras; not sure about 60D. IQ however, is very good and there is a recent thread on this with examples posted. On my 1D IV I use 100-400L + 1.4x TC quite often and am very happy with IQ and even AF performance is quite good in normal light.
p.1 #6 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Fantastic to hear some real tests on a crop! I can see how achieving accurate focus could be difficult. Did you try taping your TC to see if it could autofocus? I understand that the 7D has better AF than the 60D.
Ted
Ferrophot wrote:
It has been my opinion that it was better to crop a 100-400L shot than to put a 1.4 TC on it. After looking at a few photos posted here I decided I had better have another look. So I took around 10 shots of my Airconditioner label @ 560mm (400x 1.4) with my 7D (400x1.4x1.6=896mm). OK, at 100% the're soft but at 50% they look ok and at normal they look pretty smart.
The main difficulty is getting manual focus spot on. That is hard to do on a crop, so out of the 10 hand held at 1/1000 only half really looked good, but I was surprised that they looked as good as they did.
Have to do another check comparing them to cropped shots. Maybe the cropped AF shots will show that it's the 100-400+ 7D's AF that makes the difference....Show more →
p.1 #7 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
I shoot with the 60D and tried tapeing the three left hand points on my 100-400 for use with the Canon 1.4 II and it works in very bright light (kinda). I quit using it because the IQ was severely affected and AF was very slow. Probably never really acheived a good focus, even though it lit up. Would rather MF if I need that much reach.
p.1 #8 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Thanks for the input. I can understand the focus issues, but what's puzzling me is the wide difference in reported IQ. Perhaps it has to do with sample variation, i.e. different quality lenses?
dsr1 wrote:
I shoot with the 60D and tried tapeing the three left hand points on my 100-400 for use with the Canon 1.4 II and it works in very bright light (kinda). I quit using it because the IQ was severely affected and AF was very slow. Probably never really acheived a good focus, even though it lit up. Would rather MF if I need that much reach.
p.1 #9 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
paperdesk wrote:
Can you get decent images using a 60D + 100-400 + 1.4 TC? Some swear you can, some swear you can't. I don't want to buy a TC if it's a total waste. Any feedback from people who've tried it? I'm posting this question after reading this article in which the author says it's a really, really, really bad idea: Arguments for not using 100-400 with TC
The truth is that the 100-400 L with Canon 1.4x Tele-extender has no problem making "decent" images and is capable of making excellent images (constrained of course by the skill of the photographer). I use the combination frequently on full-frame (and used to on crop-factor when I had it) and just manually focus.
The referenced articles states:
If you have cheaper wildlife/sports lenses (under $2,000), then a teleconverter will bludgeon your image quality to a bloody pulp. Seriously, it’s nasty.
That's nonsense. It only applies to a cheap teleconverter on a cheap lens. The 100-400 L is not a cheap lens, but price is not the deciding factor in the final analysis in any case. The 100-400 L is a very sharp lens that does well with the Canon 1.4x Tele-extender.
The article is right that you will lose one stop of light and lose AutoFocus. But with careful technique, you don't need it, even for birds in flight. This is the 100-400 L with Canon 1.4x Mark II on a 20D (an earlier crop factor camera), cropped down some from the original image, manually focused (in good light):
p.1 #11 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
paperdesk wrote:
Pixel Perfect, I saw that thread with the examples, and was quite impressed. It seemed that the photographers that posted were using full frame body's though,
p.1 #12 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
I use a 2.0X TC on my 100-400 reguarly. Most of the problems I see on posted images are camera/shutter motion. Most people don't realise that even if they can't see their hands shake, they really have a high frequence shake and coupled with shutter shake it degrades their image. Landscape is easier because you can use a tripod and mirror lockup, but with careful bracing and some dampening you can improve handholding significantly as the image above shows.
Paul
p.1 #13 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
It's very interesting to hear you say this Paul, because it confirms my own suspicions, though I was hesitant to mention it for fear of offending someone regarding their "technique". I was quite taken aback at first at how difficult it can be to take sharp photos at high magnification, even with image stabilization.
Ted
Paul Gardner wrote:
I use a 2.0X TC on my 100-400 reguarly. Most of the problems I see on posted images are camera/shutter motion. Most people don't realise that even if they can't see their hands shake, they really have a high frequence shake and coupled with shutter shake it degrades their image. Landscape is easier because you can use a tripod and mirror lockup, but with careful bracing and some dampening you can improve handholding significantly as the image above shows.
Paul
p.1 #17 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Better to use 100-400 L and 7D or 60D and crop.
TC slows down & exaggerates shake.
Mainly use 100-400 w/ flash to catch zoo animals,
butterflies& hummingbirds.
p.1 #19 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
The difference has me puzzled also. When I see images posted here that completely blow mine out of the water, something needs to be done. I'm going to see if I can send some sample images to Canon and see what they say. My lens may need some correction.
paperdesk wrote:
Thanks for the input. I can understand the focus issues, but what's puzzling me is the wide difference in reported IQ. Perhaps it has to do with sample variation, i.e. different quality lenses?
p.1 #20 · What's the truth regarding 100-400 with 1.4 TC on 60D.
Dsr1, that did happen to me once with a non-Canon lens. It never gave me good images, and finally I sent it in for calibration, after that it was great.
