Canon 100-400 IS II with EF extenders; Canon 400mm DO IS II: Has anyone used the 100-400 IS II with the 2x III extender? How is it? I have a chance to buy an old 500mm that would get...

JayB Loc: Northeast US

Has anyone used the 100-400 IS II with the 2x III extender? How is it? I have a chance to buy an old 500mm that would get me to 700mm with 1.4x. Good price but it's a cumbersome lens that has me looking for options. Another thought would be the 400mm DO IS II with the 2x. I can't find many comments on that lens here, with or without the extender. Vastly improved, from what I've read. Would I be right in assuming that the 2x on any lens will deliver noticeable image degradation. Does PP help? Thanks for your thoughts.

cmc65

aerides wrote:

Has anyone used the 100-400 IS II with the 2x III ... (show quote)

Take a look at member Regis s photos.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

cmc65 wrote:

Take a look at member Regis s photos.

I found a "Regis" and a "RegisG". Either one of those? Thanks.

cmc65

Regis.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

cmc65 wrote:

Regis.

Thanks! Very helpful.

chaman

Any lens will suffer from a 2x magnification, some more than others. The 100-400mm with a 2x will show it too and it will not be as good as a 500mm prime Canon L IS f/4 lens. PP will not be of much help either.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

aerides wrote:

I found a "Regis" and a "RegisG". Either one of those? Thanks.

here http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-454173-1.html

sazfoto

First of all I'm not a professional I just take pictures. I have a canon 70-200mm IS f2.8 and a 2X MKIII. Shot at the LA County Air Show featuring the Thunderbirds. Though I've never thought of venturing out of the 400mm range, the 2X MKII did a good job for me. Shooting RAW I was able to crop the picture closer without too much pixelation. I don't sell my pics and they are mostly just for me and my memories. Your choice depending what you are looking for.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

sazfoto wrote:

First of all I'm not a professional I just take pictures. I have a canon 70-200mm IS f2.8 and a 2X MKIII. Shot at the LA County Air Show featuring the Thunderbirds. Though I've never thought of venturing out of the 400mm range, the 2X MKII did a good job for me. Shooting RAW I was able to crop the picture closer without too much pixelation. I don't sell my pics and they are mostly just for me and my memories. Your choice depending what you are looking for.

Thanks for your thoughts. For this application, wildlife portraits. I'm also an enthusiast. Sometimes it's difficult to judge what criteria really count for an amateur, as opposed to a professional. And whether, when somebody says that there is a discernible difference between one setup and another, exactly how discernible it is, and whether it will impact my unprofessional needs or my professionally untrained eye. There's no substitute for "seeing" but renting is easier said than done in some areas. There is a photographer in this forum who uses the DO/2x combination with, in my opinion, spectacular results. I've seen photos from the DO from more than one user that seem so sharp as to appear brittle. Also concerned about bokeh issues with this technology. Thanks for your post.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

aerides wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts. For this application, w... (show quote)

May not be important to you, but all sharpness/IQ issues aside, the 500mm and the DO are an f4, vs the zoom. At the technical end, for me, that puts the primes into a faster lens group. With out checking it might be an A group. That means that ALL of the cross focus points in the camera are working, not just some of them and the multi-cross points are activated as well. So the primes will lock focus faster, especially in low light.
To a pro, these are VERY important factors and to me, even more important than IQ because the IQ is gonna be good enough! Always consider that no matter what the IQ is, if the camera CAN'T lock focus then IQ is a useless attribute. That's the ONLY reason that the 400 2.8 even exist!!! Just saying.
SS

JayB Loc: Northeast US

SharpShooter wrote:

May not be important to you, but all sharpness/IQ ... (show quote)

Absolutely important. Also important is the perspective that you kindly lent, especially your comment about IQ is going to be good enough, and to move on to other important issues. Thank you very much. I'm gonna check that DO lens right now.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

chaman wrote:

Any lens will suffer from a 2x magnification, some more than others. The 100-400mm with a 2x will show it too and it will not be as good as a 500mm prime Canon L IS f/4 lens. PP will not be of much help either.

Other than possible IQ degradation with the 100-400 II and the 2X Extender, the OP may not be aware that he won't be able to AF even with a newer camera which supports a maximum lens aperture of f/8. On the long end the maximum aperture will be f/11 with the Extender attached.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

I'd appreciate not being referred to in the third person. This is my post. You can talk to me. Thanks. I'm aware.

JayB Loc: Northeast US

mwsilvers wrote:

Other than possible IQ degradation with the 100-400 II and the 2X Extender, the OP may not be aware that he won't be able to AF even with a newer camera which supports a maximum lens aperture of f/8. On the long end the maximum aperture will be f/11 with the Extender attached.

Sorry for that curt answer. I should have taken a beat before answering. (It has been my experience here that once someone begins to refer to the OP as an OP, the post spins out of control and can become something of a bloodbath.) Anyway, I'm no longer considering the zoom as a contender. Mostly focused on the DO because of its less common technology that has been controversial in prior versions.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

aerides wrote:

I'd appreciate not being referred to in the third person. This is my post. You can talk to me. Thanks. I'm aware.

First, I replied to that note and not to you directly because he mentioned potential IQ issues and I wanted to additionally remind him about the AF issue. Often when people post they refer to the OP so everyone reading it will know who we are referring to. Additionally, I respond to a lot of threads and I often am not familiar with most OPs handles and the specific spelling of them, so it's usually easier and quicker to respond to them as the OP. No offense was intended and none should be taken.