Lens extenders (Page 3): In that one article I read that Some people are reporting that the pins on the Canon 1.4 extender can be covered with tape to trick the camera into...

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

In that one article I read that Some people are reporting that the pins on the Canon 1.4 extender can be covered with tape to trick the camera into autofocusing. Has anyone tried this? I would like to try, but not sure how to do it. Thanks Bee

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

nat wrote:

I shoot a lot of birds, some of which are out of range of my Canon 100-400 L lens. I'm thinking about getting a 1.4x extender. Does anyone have an opinion/experience with extenders? I understand that you lose an Fstop.

I've got the same lens, a 7D, and the 1.4x extender and the autofocus doesn't work with this combo. I have last years extender and don't have the newest extender offered by Canon (1.4x III). My lens manual says it works in MF mode, and in AF if shooting center focusing point on the 1Ds MkIII, Mark II, 1Ds, 1D MkIII, Mk II N, Mk II, 1D, 1V/HS, or 3.

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

Hi Bill, my personal opinion is to buy a used Canon extender off Ebay rather than a Tamron. A Canon was made to go with the Canon L lens. Good luck. Bee

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

BigBear wrote:

kendog wrote:

You didn't say what Canon body you are using, but I had no problem with a 1.4 extender with auto focus on a 1D mark 4 or any other 1D. I'm not sure on the 5D or 7D anything less will not have auto focus capabilities.

It isn't about the body. The 100-400 L lens when using an extender loses the AF feature.

The 1.4x extenders DO AF if they are used with any of the 1D bodies. Read your 100-400mm book on page 14. I believe the same is true with the newest extenders to include the 2x III extender but not the older 2x II extender.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

nat wrote:

I shoot a lot of birds, some of which are out of range of my Canon 100-400 L lens. I'm thinking about getting a 1.4x extender. Does anyone have an opinion/experience with extenders? I understand that you lose an Fstop.

Have used the 1.4 Canon extender with the lens you have mentioned with poor results. Image quality is degrade and auto focus does not work most of the time. For bird photography you really need reliable auto focus. Canon actually does not recommend the use of extenders with this lens. Check out their site.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you have the 70-200 2.8, I would get rid of the 100-400 and use the Canon 2X with the 70-200 - same or BETTER optical results and much better ergonomics. I use a 2X Tamron SP with the older 80-200 2.8 with spectacular results ! Recently I acquired the Canon 300 2.8 non-IS 1st version ( $2400 - for a nice one ) I use it with the Canon 2X II 90% of the time - again with spectacular results. It is the only cheapest way to get past 400mm WITH AF ! I recommend it highly - and for birds you do need to get PAST 400mm !

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

imagemeister wrote:

If you have the 70-200 2.8, I would get rid of the... (show quote)

Its not clear to me that you are gaining much with these suggestions when you look at the cost of the 70-200 F2.8 or the 300mm 2.8 plus the cost of the extenders. I use the 100-400 on a 60D for birding on a regular basis (hand holding)with excellent results. I do crop and PP in Aperture to finish up the image. I find this to be an excellent set up.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you see the images - you will understand what the GAIN is ! I shot with 400mm for a long time and I am here to say images are better and easier with 600mm ! The 70/80-200 with 2X is a much faster handling less awkward set-up. the 100-400 is a very good lens - but there ARE some better alternatives and they can be more expensive.

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

bee7474 wrote:

In that one article I read that Some people are reporting that the pins on the Canon 1.4 extender can be covered with tape to trick the camera into autofocusing. Has anyone tried this? I would like to try, but not sure how to do it. Thanks Bee

I have done it and it does work BUT, AF is very slow and the lens tends to hunt a lot before finally settling down. I decided it wasn't worth doing for bird photography. If you want to explore it for yourself, here is a link that will explain how to do it: http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm

Have fun!

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

nat wrote:

I shoot a lot of birds, some of which are out of range of my Canon 100-400 L lens. I'm thinking about getting a 1.4x extender. Does anyone have an opinion/experience with extenders? I understand that you lose an Fstop.

I use a Canon 2X on a Canon 400mm F2.8 IS. Sure, the F2.8 is no longer available, but the reach becomes good enough for birds. I do not have your Canon 100-400mm, but I am sure either the 1.4X or the 2X extender would work very well with it. When you shoot birs you have the overkill of outdoor lighting, which should leave in good stead for good shots.

Nevada Chuck

The only tele-converter worth owning is the one made by the lens maker. After-market converters will serve if it is a high quality one, AND if you have no plans for enlargement beyond 8 x 10 or any significant cropping.

The lens maker's converters will cost quite a bit more than after-market ones, but still less than a new lens most of the time, and the loss of a stop is usually not a big problem.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

imagemeister wrote:

If you see the images - you will understand what the GAIN is ! I shot with 400mm for a long time and I am here to say images are better and easier with 600mm ! The 70/80-200 with 2X is a much faster handling less awkward set-up. the 100-400 is a very good lens - but there ARE some better alternatives and they can be more expensive.

I agree if you want to go beyond 400mm the best way would be a 500mm or 600mm or even the 800mm fixed focal length lens. Big dollars!

Croce Loc: Earth

OK. Time to end the controversy over what will and will not work. I am sitting in my subdued light office at home and just autofocused on a vase of flowers about 25' away in the dining room. My equipmet: 5DMKII, Canon 100-400, Kenko Tele Plus 1.4 extender. Works fine at f/8 and 1/4 sec and works well at f/11 and 1/2 sec. Why do I not have the Canon 1.4? Because it will not autofocus and puts out inferior image quality to the high end Kenko (and costs a lot more) please don't argue boys and girls. I know and DO that which I speak. The secret? Won't work on Canon TC but if you put a picece of black plastic electrical tape over the 3 rightmost communication pins (not the group of 3 on the left) on the front of the Kenko TC where it mates with the 100-400 ... TA DAAAAA. As for Nevada's comment above, I respectfully disagree. Tried it and it jist ain't necessarily so.

bee7474 Loc: Selah, Wa

Thank you, will try it. Bee

Nevada Chuck

Croce wrote:

OK. Time to end the controversy over what will and... (show quote)

I think that perhaps when your Kenko converter was made, the gods were in a particularly good mood that day. I don't say this to disparage Kenko; I use some of their products and am quite happe with them (extension tubes, for example). But my opinion regarding lens makers converters versus after-market converters is based on over fifty years of personal experience, combined with the opinion of many writers on matters optical. When I say the gods must have been smiling when your converter was made, what I mean is that virtually everything manufactured has production tolerances. And simply by the laws of chance you might have gotten a converter that works especially well with the lenses you are using it with.