Reading mode: Light Dark

100-400 L, 2x teleconverter and 20D

Go to last post
O

opv

Well-known member
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
Concord, NH, US
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800 with this lens if I ever required.

I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy, will that cause a big stress on the camera body?

Thanks!
 
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is marginal with the 1.4x and not good with the 2x. Neither will attempt autofocus with the Canon brands unless the pins are taped. With a 3rd party 1.4x teleconverter focus will be slow if it locks at all.

The IS seems less effective with the 1.4x and I wouldn't even try the 2x handheld. You'll need a very good tripod. I think you'll find that at F11 with a 2x it will be quite hard to manually focus in anything but bright sunlight. You'll need to stop down at least one stop for sharpness which would give you a usable range from F16 to about F22 before diffraction starts to be a problem. In other words forget the 2x.

In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a monopod:


opv said:
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?
Click to expand...
Handholding is no problem at all, with a little practice, the IS works well without any teleconverters. You won't end up trying to hold the combo up by the camera alone, at least not for very long, I can assure you. The slide zoom works well since you can easily slide the zoom while supporting the lens with the same hand and since focus is on the same control it works quite well.

If you get one I'd give it some time to practice with it. Try to keep the shutter speed up above 1/500 (with IS on) to start out with. It's a very bulky lens and takes some getting used to. Be aware that the depth of field is very very shallow up close. Once mastered it's a great lens.

Doug
opv said:
Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
I've used the 100-400 with a 1.4x with ok optical results. The main problem though is the loss of AF, including the insensitive manual focus ring once the TC is attached. I think this is why I never really went any further with the TC idea with this lens and I was using a 1.4x TC not 2x. With the heavy loss of light, you'd have a heck of a time balancing the short comings as they come.

About using the 100-400 without the tripod collar while mounted on a tripod. I seriously wouldn't recommend it. It's a pretty heavy lens, and might cause strain on the camera mount. When it's full extended it gets even worse, because it becomes very front heavy. So yea, wouldn't recommend it.

Hope this helps!

Clayton
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/clayphish
 
A 2x TC on the 100-400L yields a maximum aperture of f11 at the long end. That combined with 800mm and you've got a low-light disaster happening. Plus many have reported soft images. It's not recommended.

A 1.4x TC would be better. You lose only one stop instead of two.

The 100-400L is heavy. Fully extended, it will put A LOT of pressure on the 20d mounting. When using a tripod or monopod, you must mount the LENS, not the camera. Just let the camera hang off the back. The mount can take -- it's designed for that.
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob
 
do you have to use a tripod/monopod (as opposed to handheld).

Like the others said, always use the tripod foot on the lens, not the camera mount. An added advantage of the lens mount is that you can easily turn the camera from landscape to portrait by simply loosening the tripod foot.

Doug
Doug Morgan said:
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is marginal with the 1.4x and not good with the 2x.
Neither will attempt autofocus with the Canon brands unless the
pins are taped. With a 3rd party 1.4x teleconverter focus will be
slow if it locks at all.
The IS seems less effective with the 1.4x and I wouldn't even try
the 2x handheld. You'll need a very good tripod. I think you'll
find that at F11 with a 2x it will be quite hard to manually focus
in anything but bright sunlight. You'll need to stop down at least
one stop for sharpness which would give you a usable range from F16
to about F22 before diffraction starts to be a problem. In other
words forget the 2x.
In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would
really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an
example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but
this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a
monopod:


Doug Morgan said:
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?
Click to expand...
Handholding is no problem at all, with a little practice, the IS
works well without any teleconverters. You won't end up trying to
hold the combo up by the camera alone, at least not for very long,
I can assure you. The slide zoom works well since you can easily
slide the zoom while supporting the lens with the same hand and
since focus is on the same control it works quite well.

If you get one I'd give it some time to practice with it. Try to
keep the shutter speed up above 1/500 (with IS on) to start out
with. It's a very bulky lens and takes some getting used to. Be
aware that the depth of field is very very shallow up close. Once
mastered it's a great lens.

Doug
Doug Morgan said:
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Doug,

Thanks for a details you mentioned in your response. That,and the attached photo, has made me have second thought on using teleconvertors. As it is I find myself overtly meticulous about getting sharp images, I possibly could not be happy with such results.

One of the reasons why I was toying with this idea was because I have the 70-200 4L and it would overlap significantly with the 100-400. I thought using the TC would remove this overlap. Now I'll have to think if I want to keep both 70-200 and 100-400 or only one of them. I like the portability of 70-200 a lot but do miss the occassional need for further telezoom.
Doug Morgan said:
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is marginal with the 1.4x and not good with the 2x.
Neither will attempt autofocus with the Canon brands unless the
pins are taped. With a 3rd party 1.4x teleconverter focus will be
slow if it locks at all.
The IS seems less effective with the 1.4x and I wouldn't even try
the 2x handheld. You'll need a very good tripod. I think you'll
find that at F11 with a 2x it will be quite hard to manually focus
in anything but bright sunlight. You'll need to stop down at least
one stop for sharpness which would give you a usable range from F16
to about F22 before diffraction starts to be a problem. In other
words forget the 2x.
In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would
really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an
example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but
this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a
monopod:
Doug Morgan said:
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?
Click to expand...
Handholding is no problem at all, with a little practice, the IS
works well without any teleconverters. You won't end up trying to
hold the combo up by the camera alone, at least not for very long,
I can assure you. The slide zoom works well since you can easily
slide the zoom while supporting the lens with the same hand and
since focus is on the same control it works quite well.

If you get one I'd give it some time to practice with it. Try to
keep the shutter speed up above 1/500 (with IS on) to start out
with. It's a very bulky lens and takes some getting used to. Be
aware that the depth of field is very very shallow up close. Once
mastered it's a great lens.

Doug
Doug Morgan said:
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the explaining the need for the tripod collar. Frankly I've never used one and was not sure how it's supposed to be used. I used to think the camera body would still be on the tripod and you'd have to use the collar somehow.

I have a tripod with a tilt/pan head. I wonder if I can use that with a tripod collar?
digirob said:
A 1.4x TC would be better. You lose only one stop instead of two.

The 100-400L is heavy. Fully extended, it will put A LOT of
pressure on the 20d mounting. When using a tripod or monopod, you
must mount the LENS, not the camera. Just let the camera hang off
the back. The mount can take -- it's designed for that.
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob
Click to expand...
 
Your input is definitely helps me deciding on the lens/TC. The picture you posted from this combination is excellant, but I can figure out that one has to be pretty lucky to get a good picture with all the constraints this combination imposes.
Clayphish said:
About using the 100-400 without the tripod collar while mounted on
a tripod. I seriously wouldn't recommend it. It's a pretty heavy
lens, and might cause strain on the camera mount. When it's full
extended it gets even worse, because it becomes very front heavy.
So yea, wouldn't recommend it.

Hope this helps!

Clayton
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/clayphish
Click to expand...
 
I also have the 70-200 (but the 2.8 IS version) that I bought after the 100-400. I had originally thought I might sell the 100-400 if the 70-200 was as good with a 2x teleconverter but I think I'd much rather sell the teleconverter. There aren't many lenses that work well with a teleconverter, outside of the long ($$$$$) prime lenses. Occasionally you see some very nice images taken with a 2x but you have to wonder how many frames were thrown away, how much processing was done in photoshop, and what they would look like printed at 12x16 or larger. They all seem to be taken in excellent lighting conditions which is not normally the case for wildlife photography at least.

As far as the overlap between the 70-200 and the 100-400 they are really two different lenses. I use the 100-400 mostly for wildlife where it's normally at 400mm but great on the occasions you can get in closer and fill the frame at 100mm. The 70-200 is more at 70mm (I actually wish it were even wider) occassionally zoomed out to 200. The 2.8 IS version is as heavy as the 100-400 so it isn't as portable as the F4. Depending on what you would like to shoot the 400 F5.6 or 300 F4 IS might be worth looking into as well as the 100-400. Both are lighter and less expensive. I tested the 300 F4 with 1.4x before buying the 100-400 and found the quality very similar. I'm a zoom kind of guy though.

Good luck in your decision
Doug
opv said:
Thanks for a details you mentioned in your response. That,and the
attached photo, has made me have second thought on using
teleconvertors. As it is I find myself overtly meticulous about
getting sharp images, I possibly could not be happy with such
results.

One of the reasons why I was toying with this idea was because I
have the 70-200 4L and it would overlap significantly with the
100-400. I thought using the TC would remove this overlap. Now I'll
have to think if I want to keep both 70-200 and 100-400 or only one
of them. I like the portability of 70-200 a lot but do miss the
occassional need for further telezoom.
Doug Morgan said:
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is marginal with the 1.4x and not good with the 2x.
Neither will attempt autofocus with the Canon brands unless the
pins are taped. With a 3rd party 1.4x teleconverter focus will be
slow if it locks at all.
The IS seems less effective with the 1.4x and I wouldn't even try
the 2x handheld. You'll need a very good tripod. I think you'll
find that at F11 with a 2x it will be quite hard to manually focus
in anything but bright sunlight. You'll need to stop down at least
one stop for sharpness which would give you a usable range from F16
to about F22 before diffraction starts to be a problem. In other
words forget the 2x.
In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would
really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an
example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but
this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a
monopod:
opv said:
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?
Click to expand...
Handholding is no problem at all, with a little practice, the IS
works well without any teleconverters. You won't end up trying to
hold the combo up by the camera alone, at least not for very long,
I can assure you. The slide zoom works well since you can easily
slide the zoom while supporting the lens with the same hand and
since focus is on the same control it works quite well.

If you get one I'd give it some time to practice with it. Try to
keep the shutter speed up above 1/500 (with IS on) to start out
with. It's a very bulky lens and takes some getting used to. Be
aware that the depth of field is very very shallow up close. Once
mastered it's a great lens.

Doug
opv said:
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
opv said:
I have a tripod with a tilt/pan head. I wonder if I can use that
with a tripod collar?
Click to expand...
Sure you can. It is just a mount point. The camera just hangs behind it, pan, tilt just as before. The difference is that the focal plane is several inchs behind the mount point. In other words, don't plan to stich photos with it. To be honest, standard pan and tilt heads aren't designed for good pano use (focal plane is not centered over the camera mount).

Bear
 
Technically you're correct. However, today's stitching software easily compensates for that. The difference in perspective/angle between the focal point being directly over the horizontal point of pivot and a few inches behind is minute.
Bear said:
opv said:
I have a tripod with a tilt/pan head. I wonder if I can use that
with a tripod collar?
Click to expand...
Sure you can. It is just a mount point. The camera just hangs
behind it, pan, tilt just as before. The difference is that the
focal plane is several inchs behind the mount point. In other
words, don't plan to stich photos with it. To be honest, standard
pan and tilt heads aren't designed for good pano use (focal plane
is not centered over the camera mount).

Bear
Click to expand...
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob
 
Very Nice, Doug! I am seriously jonsing to get out with my 100-400. I don't have the 1.4x TC. Too many people, including yourself, have commented that it's tough to get consistently good results -- though this one certainly qualifies.
Doug Morgan said:
In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would
really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an
example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but
this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a
monopod:

Click to expand...
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob
 
Thanks for your opinion. I am rather a zoom guy myself.
What kind of tripod collar do you use for the 100-400? How much does it cost?

Thanks!
Doug Morgan said:
As far as the overlap between the 70-200 and the 100-400 they are
really two different lenses. I use the 100-400 mostly for
wildlife where it's normally at 400mm but great on the occasions
you can get in closer and fill the frame at 100mm. The 70-200 is
more at 70mm (I actually wish it were even wider) occassionally
zoomed out to 200. The 2.8 IS version is as heavy as the 100-400
so it isn't as portable as the F4. Depending on what you would
like to shoot the 400 F5.6 or 300 F4 IS might be worth looking into
as well as the 100-400. Both are lighter and less expensive. I
tested the 300 F4 with 1.4x before buying the 100-400 and found the
quality very similar. I'm a zoom kind of guy though.

Good luck in your decision
Doug
opv said:
Thanks for a details you mentioned in your response. That,and the
attached photo, has made me have second thought on using
teleconvertors. As it is I find myself overtly meticulous about
getting sharp images, I possibly could not be happy with such
results.

One of the reasons why I was toying with this idea was because I
have the 70-200 4L and it would overlap significantly with the
100-400. I thought using the TC would remove this overlap. Now I'll
have to think if I want to keep both 70-200 and 100-400 or only one
of them. I like the portability of 70-200 a lot but do miss the
occassional need for further telezoom.
Doug Morgan said:
opv said:
I've been considering buying the EF100-400L. I was thinking of
using the 2x teleconvertor that would give me a range of 200-800
with this lens if I ever required.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is marginal with the 1.4x and not good with the 2x.
Neither will attempt autofocus with the Canon brands unless the
pins are taped. With a 3rd party 1.4x teleconverter focus will be
slow if it locks at all.
The IS seems less effective with the 1.4x and I wouldn't even try
the 2x handheld. You'll need a very good tripod. I think you'll
find that at F11 with a 2x it will be quite hard to manually focus
in anything but bright sunlight. You'll need to stop down at least
one stop for sharpness which would give you a usable range from F16
to about F22 before diffraction starts to be a problem. In other
words forget the 2x.
In almost a year I haven't got anything with the 1.4x that I would
really call a keeper except maybe a couple moon shots. Here's an
example of the kind of quality that's possible with the 1.4x but
this is the best of dozens of shots and was taken with IS on and a
monopod:
Doug Morgan said:
I would like to know of how this combination works out. Anyone been
using this combination with very good results?

Another question: is it ok to use the 100-400 on the 20D without a
tripod/monopod for the LENS? Given that the lens is big and heavy,
will that cause a big stress on the camera body?
Click to expand...
Handholding is no problem at all, with a little practice, the IS
works well without any teleconverters. You won't end up trying to
hold the combo up by the camera alone, at least not for very long,
I can assure you. The slide zoom works well since you can easily
slide the zoom while supporting the lens with the same hand and
since focus is on the same control it works quite well.

If you get one I'd give it some time to practice with it. Try to
keep the shutter speed up above 1/500 (with IS on) to start out
with. It's a very bulky lens and takes some getting used to. Be
aware that the depth of field is very very shallow up close. Once
mastered it's a great lens.

Doug
Doug Morgan said:
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top