Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2023 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

OK, before everybody thinks I'm not playing with a full deck, the reason I ask this is three fold:

1) I'm going to costa rica shortly
2) limited gear to select from - only one long lens (100-400 II)
3) only asking this question as a possible emergency contingency (if something happens to my 100-400 and I am deep in Corcovado NP so no option to rent a replacement)

Key points:

a) I have a R5, which will be paired with the 100-400 II f/4.5-5.6
b) I have a 7D MII, which will be paired with one of two standard zooms for the occasional forrest, treetop or river shot. The 7DM2 will also serve as my backup body for the 100-400 II if something bad (groan) happens to the R5
c) I have the EF 1.4x III TC
d) I will also be taking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro
e) the two standard zooms are the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS II and the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

I am contemplating taking the 17-55 because it is f/2.8 versus the f/4 of the 24-105 so a full stop better for low-light jungle shots. But I got to thinking that if something happens to my 100-400 I'm really pooched as probably 99.9% of my non-macro photos would be with that lens. If I could use the 1.4x TC on the 24-105 in a pinch, then that would be the way to go, given I don't expect to take too many forest landscapes anyway. Even with the the TC, I would be at 147mm, but I could go to crop mode and have a reach of 235 effectively. While still limiting, I would be able to get some wildlife photos.

Another alternative would be if I could put the 1.4x TC on the 100 macro. This would be 140mm and in crop mode I would have a reach of 224 effectively. So similar limitations to the 24-105 but, again, better than nothing.

I have searched online but found very little. There are posts saying neither will work but a few posts saying it (one or the other or both) would work with a kenko extender in between, and one post saying it would work natively on the 24-105 but only at the longer FLs.

So, anybody got first hand experience pairing/trying to pair the Canon EF III !.4x TC with either the 24-105 and/or the 100 macro? Can it work natively or with a kenko extender in between (and if yes with extender, which size)? If there is a combo that works, how is the AF and IQ? Are they impacted?

Thanks!

Mar 13, 2023 at 02:53 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

The EF 1.4x TC III does not mount to the EF 100/2.8 USM macro. The TC sticks into the lens too far.

Mar 13, 2023 at 03:03 PM

EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

Ok. Can it be mounted with a kenko in between and would it function properly re AF and IQ?

Mar 13, 2023 at 03:15 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

I don't have any extension tubes to test, but it should work. You'll lose infinity focus with any extension tube.

Mar 13, 2023 at 03:25 PM

Abbott Schindl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

I just did the experiment for you, as I happen to own all of the parts:

R5 — 100 f/2.8L Macro — Canon 12mm extension tube — EF 1.4X (III) Extender — Canon Control Ring EF-RF Adapter
The entire assembly is about the same length as the 100-400 (III) closed without an adapter.

AF works, but is sluggish. Focusing range is from ~4" to ~48"; definitely not useful for distance shots. It does, though, get you to 1.4X magnification (regardless of which camera: 1.4X is 1.4X).

R5 — EF 24-105L (II) — 12mm tube — EF-RF Adapter
AF is a tad slow, but still fine. Delivers up to 0.5X magnification (i.e. ~3" FoV on the R5), but again focuses to only about 4' distant. I think you could use this combination in place of your 100 Macro. It won't be as sharp and it's slow (f/5.6 max), but if you're limited on what to carry, this could help.

Frankly, I think you're going to miss some shots regardless of your gear. Given your gear and what I've read about Costa Rica (I'll probably be going next year), I'd take the R5, 24-105, 100-400, Extender, and a 12mm extension tube. Forget about combining the Extender with a tube to get it to work with anything, because AF is too sluggish, image quality suffers a bit, max focus distance is very limiting, and the resulting assembly is pretty awkward to handle.

Think about the EF-S lens. While it will work on the R5, it'll reduce the imaging circle. Instead, consider renting a EF 16-35 or RF 14-35. I wouldn't worry about f/2.8 vs f/4 because the R5 has reasonable and controllable noise up to ISO 3200, and very usable to ISO 6400 or 12,800. For me, FL is more important.

I suggested renting the EF lens because it will give a nice wide FoV on both of your cameras without crop issues, and it's an excellent lens overall. The RF lens is much more compact and lighter, but it won't work on your 7D II.

Let us know what you decide to take.

Mar 13, 2023 at 04:19 PM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

I use a 1.4 on my Tamron 180 the vast majority of the time, it's great. I almost always stop down a stop for iq. Doesn't help af. Skeptical the 100+1.4 is long enough, though.

Recently tried to buy 100mm macro intending to out a 1.4 on it. Probably too short for my use though.

Mar 13, 2023 at 05:38 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

Maybe rent the 180/3.5 macro, which also takes a TC. The R5 is just so much better than the 7D II in noise I would not care about f/2.8 vs. f/4. Consider renting an R7 if feasible as it gives extra reach.

I had a bunch of gear in CR 2023, but mostly used a 24-105 RF, 100-500, and 500/4 IS II with a 1.4x III practically glued to it. I did bring an RF 1.4x but didn't use it much. I have an old Sigma 150/2.8, but it's obsolete and not available to you.

I know everyone is into the small and light, but some birds are just a bit farther away and/or smaller so a 500/4 or 600/4 with a 1.4x is just the thing for those shots. The ISO is lower and borka is a helluva lot better with the big primes at say f/6.3 (f/4 + 1.4x stopped down 1/3 stop) than a 100-500 + 1.4x at f/11 (stopped down 1/3 stop).

EBH

Mar 13, 2023 at 07:07 PM

TakesRandomPics
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

EB-1 wrote:
The ISO is lower and borka is a helluva lot better with the big primes at say f/6.3 (f/4 + 1.4x stopped down 1/3 stop) than a 100-500 + 1.4x at f/11 (stopped down 1/3 stop).

I assume you mean bokeh not borka? I'm curious if you have any comparison samples as a 100-500 user that is following 6 buy-sell threads for big primes

and apologies to the OP for hijacking their thread.

Mar 14, 2023 at 05:45 PM

jpeter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

I used to put a 1.4x on my 200f2.8 when I didn't have room for something bigger. Just got a rf100-400 for the same purpose.
Good luck hope you see some good birds and animals.
JP

Mar 15, 2023 at 08:23 PM

rmhh
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

Just to note, the efs 55-250 is smaller and about 200g lighter than the 2.8/100 macro. It would be an excellent backup to the other long lens and can do closeups up to m=0.29 at a comfortable distance. So it depends on how important a "real" 1:1 macro is for you.

Mar 17, 2023 at 03:20 AM

EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

Thank you to all for you input. Much appreciated.

Mar 17, 2023 at 09:38 AM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · strange question, valid reason: 24-105, 100 macro & EF 1.4x III TC

EB-1 wrote:
I had a bunch of gear in CR 2023, but mostly used a 24-105 RF, 100-500, and 500/4 IS II with a 1.4x III practically glued to it. I did bring an RF 1.4x but didn't use it much. I have an old Sigma 150/2.8, but it's obsolete and not available to you.

Have you been having any issues with the 150? I'm thinking it might be more recent that 180 L. At any rate both gave been around for a long time. Supposed to be better optically than the OS version. Unfortunately no one makes a 150mm or 180mm anymore AFAIK. So I think about getting one sometimes

Yes I'd rather have lighter. I take the 55-250 a lot, probably more than I should. But it doesn't have 1:1 and a lighter 1:1 lens might not get close enough. Sometimes you need heavy gear.

Just saw the comment above yes the 55-250 is 88 400 ff equivalent at less than 1 lb. One of my most used lenses ever. Should've recommended it myself. Probably get the latest version. Af can be funky, fast though. Much better backup if you are taking crop imo. Excellent macro about the same as 1:2 on ff as far as filling the frame. Used to be under $100 now more like $175 last I checked in USA. Still not bad

Mar 17, 2023 at 11:47 AM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.