I used to stack extenders on my 600mm and get half-assed sorta close AF on a 1-series body. f/11....Canon won't say it works, but it does. Don't expect Bird-in-flight response
Not a photo you would make a large print from, but with my crappy eyes, I could get a look at a bird I couldn't otherwise identify.
May work with a Kenko 1.4x extender though ... like the 100/2.8L IS Macro.
garyvot wrote:
For optical reasons I would be surprised if the 200-400L even allows use of (Canon's) external teleconverters. My guess is the rear elements are not recessed enough. If I'm correct, there'd be no desire to limit the primes in the same way.
wtlloyd wrote:
I used to stack extenders on my 600mm and get half-assed sorta close AF on a 1-series body. f/11....Canon won't say it works, but it does. Don't expect Bird-in-flight response
Not a photo you would make a large print from, but with my crappy eyes, I could get a look at a bird I couldn't otherwise identify.
I've stacked them on the 400/2.8 and got good results with AF on the 5D and 5D2. The 7D doesn't do quite as well, but if you choose "zone" AF instead of center AF point, it will focus usually. Like you said, not suitable for bird-in-flight, but the setup is OK for relatively stationary objects.
The results from the 7D were generally iffy - it was a wash between shooting at 800/5.6 with just the 2X and stacking, because the stack caused the shooter to stop down so much that diffraction ate into any gains in focal length gained by the stack.
This looks like a great lens, but I agree that the price is bound to be north of $7500 and probably by a large margin. When you think what a 100-400 goes for and assuming it is retired from the Canon range at some point then they've introduced a huge price gap for anyone looking at a zoom that goes to 400mm.
I see that the price on the new Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is set at around $4700. That lens can take a 2x on my 7D and still autofocus and give me F4 with a 1.4x. If I sell my 100-400 I'd be able to make a dent in that price and I assume it will decrease from the RRP in due course anyway. Looking forward to seeing some reviews on this one. The Canon will no doubt be a better lens, but I'm looking at value for money too.
Any thoughts on any other non-Canon alternatives, I'm not aware of any that are likley to offer a similar or better quality than the 100-400 (which is good enough for me)?
"Found on select Canon lenses and excellently suited for brilliantly sharp sports photography, Optical Image Stabilizer Mode 3 enhances Optical Image Stabilizer Mode 2 by functioning only when the shutter release is fully pressed. By remaining inactive until exposure, Mode 3 stabilization control allows for easy panning. Additionally, Mode 3 compensates shake in a direction perpendicular to the direction of panning when panning is detected and gives the equivalent effect of a shutter speed four stops faster."
waldr_p wrote:
This looks like a great lens, but I agree that the price is bound to be north of $7500 and probably by a large margin. When you think what a 100-400 goes for and assuming it is retired from the Canon range at some point then they've introduced a huge price gap for anyone looking at a zoom that goes to 400mm.
I see that the price on the new Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is set at around $4700. That lens can take a 2x on my 7D and still autofocus and give me F4 with a 1.4x. If I sell my 100-400 I'd be able to make a dent in that price and I assume it will decrease from the RRP in due course anyway. Looking forward to seeing some reviews on this one. The Canon will no doubt be a better lens, but I'm looking at value for money too.
Any thoughts on any other non-Canon alternatives, I'm not aware of any that are likley to offer a similar or better quality than the 100-400 (which is good enough for me)?
No real alternatives to the 100-400L. Sigma has the 120-400 and 50/150-500, but you have to thoroughly test a lens before buying. Plenty of poor feedback on these, although some have gotten good results.
The trouble with the Sigma 120-300 OS, is it'll weigh in at 3kg, so double the 100-400L weight, the non OS version at least is actually only 280mm and have they improved this on OS version? Also we don't know the AF performance, especially with TC's attached. and finally the cost is 3x that of the 100-400L.
My great hope is Tamron updates the 200-500 adds the new PZD AF, VC, and further improves the optical performance and make it f/5.6. I guess it would be nice if Sigma got it's act together and really improved the 120-400 and 150-500 to rival the 100-400L
There looks to be of room for a 100-400II--we'll see a HUGE price gap between the 70-300L and the 200-400L. The one stop difference between the current 100-400 and the 200-400 plus the addition of a build in TC in the 200-400 and the ability to add another 1.4x TC for an effective FL of 392-784 w/AF should be enough to differentiate the two but market cannibalism would most definitely exist to an extent. I'm really curious to see how Canon will play their cards...
In some ways I wish there were a new and improved 100-400/4.5-5.6 in the $2500 range rather than the 200-400/4. Maybe that is crazy talk, but at least I could carry it around better in addition to a 500 or 600.
What amazes me on so many of my safaris is how many people try and try to make a 100-400mm work with a 1.4x teleconverter. Some of my findings:
1) the quality of image sucks
2) autofocus obviously doesn't work, unless you do the tape-on-the-contact trick
3) I would rather crop and image by 1.4x than end up with soft pixels
The 200-400mm is a great lens design, for sure, and is a totally different type of lens than a 100-400mm. The 100-400mm really is a compact lens, and the 200-400mm is more of a super telephoto sized lens and is not designed to be hand held. Two totally different beasts that shouldn't be compared.
Andy Biggs wrote:
What amazes me on so many of my safaris is how many people try and try to make a 100-400mm work with a 1.4x teleconverter. Some of my findings:
1) the quality of image sucks
2) autofocus obviously doesn't work, unless you do the tape-on-the-contact trick
3) I would rather crop and image by 1.4x than end up with soft pixels
The 200-400mm is a great lens design, for sure, and is a totally different type of lens than a 100-400mm. The 100-400mm really is a compact lens, and the 200-400mm is more of a super telephoto sized lens and is not designed to be hand held. Two totally different beasts that shouldn't be compared....Show more →
The 100-400 is not good with a TC (I've had three copies), but those users typically have a 1.6x crop body which puts a lot of strain on the 100-400 as it is. Typically the serious Canon users on safari I see carry a 70-200, 100-400 (or 300/4) and 500 (or 600), plus some wider lenses to taste.
If the IQ is somewhere between the 400/4 DO and the 500/4 (Mk-I) and the price is low enough that I could finance most of it by selling both the afore-mentioned lenses, then I'd strongly consider buying this lens.
The integrated 1.4x-TC is very intriguing. For one thing, it eliminates having to swap the TC in and out, and re-adjusting the lens on the tripod. Also, I'd like to think that the 1.4x-TC would bel sepcifically designed optically to work at its best with this lens at the longer focal lengths. Surely it would be perceptibly better than the "Generic" 1.4x-III offered by Canon (which needs to be reasonably good for a whole range of lenses).
I'd probably even consider swapping out my 1.4x-II and 2x-II for a single 1.4x-III if I got this lens. I'd really have little use for the 2x at that point.
East African (wide open landscapes) safari: 100-400mm and a 500mm f/4. 70-200mm isn't seen as often, as it isn't enough lens for Tanzania or Kenya.
Southern African (wildlife closer and less wide open spaces): 70-200mm + 200-400mm or 300mm f/2.8.
I hate to say it, but even if I switch back to Canon from Nikon I will still need to purchase a 500mm f/4, because the 200-400mm isn't enough lens out on the Serengeti plains.
JD,
Even some white Telephoto lenses of the not so distant past had built in teleconverters. (photo below)
J.D. wrote:
This is not a new idea. Most television lenses have built in doublers.
RamónT wrote:
The integrated focal length extender is not a Canon new idea: here two Canon FD 1200mm f5.6 in action (1984 Summer Olympics, Los Angeles, I think):
shooter00 wrote:
It's called Power Focus.
You really can't see from any of the pics if the 200-400 has it or not.
Looks like there might be another switch behind the extender hump that's hard to see.
RazorTM wrote:
Yes, the switch behind the extender hump is definitely the AF/MF switch, but the most that I can see in any of the photos posted so far is the MF setting. None of the photos shows the entire switch, just a tiny part of it.
Another picture that shows it has the Power Focus on it
DavidP wrote:
If the IQ is somewhere between the 400/4 DO and the 500/4 (Mk-I) and the price is low enough that I could finance most of it by selling both the afore-mentioned lenses, then I'd strongly consider buying this lens.
The integrated 1.4x-TC is very intriguing. For one thing, it eliminates having to swap the TC in and out, and re-adjusting the lens on the tripod. Also, I'd like to think that the 1.4x-TC would bel sepcifically designed optically to work at its best with this lens at the longer focal lengths. Surely it would be perceptibly better than the "Generic" 1.4x-III offered by Canon (which needs to be reasonably good for a whole range of lenses).
I'd probably even consider swapping out my 1.4x-II and 2x-II for a single 1.4x-III if I got this lens. I'd really have little use for the 2x at that point....Show more →
