Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Comparing the Canon 100-400L mk 1 and mk 2 with and without 1.4x III extender.
Jan 8, 2019 03:54:20   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Monday morning I was looking for some shots to use in a comparison of the performance of the Canon 100-400L mk 1 to the mk 2 both with and without a 1.4x extender to answer a question from someone on another thread.
These are the four images, going back to 2015, that I posted.
All are cropped a lot, a couple cropped in the extreme - a better photographer/PP expert should be able to do even better. 1 & 2 are at the Riverwalk Parkway in Riverside, 3 & 4 in my backyard.
#1 100-400 mk I
#2 100-400 mk I + 1.4x III, notice focus on the eye
#3 100-400 mk II up fairly close
#4 100-400 mk II + 1.4x III with the mk II having an identity crisis, it thinks it is a macro. That skipper is just over 1/2" nose to tail

All were with my 7DII that I very much wish I had kept, my 80D does almost as well, but I miss that 7DII.

100-400 mk I
100-400 mk I...
(Download)

100-400 mk I + 1.4 III
100-400 mk I + 1.4 III...
(Download)

100-400 mk II
100-400 mk II...
(Download)

100-400 mk II + 1.4 III
100-400 mk II + 1.4 III...
(Download)

Reply
Jan 8, 2019 05:42:01   #
venkatesh_eng
 
I had the 100-400 mk1 lens. It was a great lens by itself. But with a 1.4x extender it's performance was not that great. Sometimes it used to hunt to establish focus when you are in a hurry to grab a shot. They made the new 100-400 mkii lens is definitely much better and with the 1.4x III performs really well.

Reply
Jan 8, 2019 05:55:03   #
Largobob
 
Invalid test of course. You can't really compare images like that......different subjects, different days, different places, and who knows what other differences.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2019 13:42:41   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Largobob wrote:
Invalid test of course. You can't really compare images like that......different subjects, different days, different places, and who knows what other differences.


It wasn't a test. I did not label it a test - you did
They are examples of shots with each lens with and without extender taken over aprx 13 months.
I liked the mk 1 so much, both with and without the extender that I bought a mk 2. For about a year I owned both, sometimes using them on different bodies at the same time. I owned a 6D, then added a 7DII, then got an 80D (newer sensor, more f/8 AF points) and then traded the mk 1, 6D, 7DII and Tamron G1 toward a 5DIV. So I then had the 5DIV and 80D but only one long lens. I got tired of swapping the lens back and forth and this last summer bought a Tamron G2 so I am back to two long lenses for my two bodies.

And although the 80D is a good camera I now regret not keeping the 7DII. I miss the options and the super fast AF. And though the "testers" say different I feel that the 7DII's 20mp sensor handled high ISO better than the 80D's 24mp with its smaller pixels. At least out of the lab in the real world I get better results. (My opinion!)

And while I am at it, here are the two "examples" of the G1 and G2 I pulled from my files. Samples taken over 3 years apart, not a test!
I am sure I have better samples but even with culling 75 to 90% of each shooting session I have over 26,000 images in my LR files. When I first got LR years ago I imported every digital photo I had and had over 36,000-I culled like crazy and am still not done, I get bored going through all those folders and files to cull rejects and as to new images the last few years I cull 75 to 100% of each session after import - mostly composition, focus, motion blur or noise factors.

7DII, Tamron 150-600 G1 @ 500, 1/500 @ f/5.6, ISO 400 hand held 070215
7DII, Tamron 150-600 G1 @ 500, 1/500 @ f/5.6, ISO ...
(Download)

80D, Tamron 150-600 @ 600, 1/400 @ f/6.3, ISO 1000 hand held 101018
80D, Tamron 150-600 @ 600, 1/400 @ f/6.3, ISO 1000...
(Download)

Reply
Jan 8, 2019 23:08:45   #
Fullframe Loc: Bucks County, Pennsylvania
 
Bob, I always used the 1-400 II bare. If I wanted a 1.4 crop I'd just do it in post. I always found 400mm to be more than enough in the field. Prime lenses are different story as I would always use 600mmII with a 2xIII TC and always get super sharp images.

I've since switched to Nikon and sold all my Canon gear. I have some regrets on selling my Canon gear.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 01:45:45   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Fullframe wrote:
Bob, I always used the 1-400 II bare. If I wanted a 1.4 crop I'd just do it in post. I always found 400mm to be more than enough in the field. Prime lenses are different story as I would always use 600mmII with a 2xIII TC and always get super sharp images.

I've since switched to Nikon and sold all my Canon gear. I have some regrets on selling my Canon gear.


When I can get close I don't use the extender but far away, esp small birds, I use it. And when I want maximum reach I use the Tamron.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 06:18:36   #
J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio
 
robertjerl wrote:
Monday morning I was looking for some shots to use in a comparison of the performance of the Canon 100-400L mk 1 to the mk 2 both with and without a 1.4x extender to answer a question from someone on another thread.
These are the four images, going back to 2015, that I posted.
All are cropped a lot, a couple cropped in the extreme - a better photographer/PP expert should be able to do even better. 1 & 2 are at the Riverwalk Parkway in Riverside, 3 & 4 in my backyard.
#1 100-400 mk I
#2 100-400 mk I + 1.4x III, notice focus on the eye
#3 100-400 mk II up fairly close
#4 100-400 mk II + 1.4x III with the mk II having an identity crisis, it thinks it is a macro. That skipper is just over 1/2" nose to tail

All were with my 7DII that I very much wish I had kept, my 80D does almost as well, but I miss that 7DII.
Monday morning I was looking for some shots to use... (show quote)

Nice set Jerry.

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2019 12:23:32   #
JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington
 
All of the images you posted seem to be very good images to me, even with heavy crops. Well done...'for a test, that is.' LOL

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 12:31:04   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
J-SPEIGHT wrote:
Nice set Jerry.


Thank you

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 12:32:49   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
JFCoupe wrote:
All of the images you posted seem to be very good images to me, even with heavy crops. Well done...'for a test, that is.' LOL


Thanks
Well when I was in school (as opposed to being the teacher) I was one of those kids with a talent for taking tests.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.