bleirer

I'm trying out a used version 1 ef 100-400 on my Canon RP (The price is right, or the price is wrong on the new 100-500).

So a question about adding an extender. Since I can autofocus with the 2x at 400, is it reasonable to get only the 2x and just dial it back if I don't need that much reach, or is it better to have both 1.4 and 2x (strictly in terms of image quality/sharpness). Is the 1.4 better image quality when I don't need the extra reach?

Also, can I use the version iii extenders with the version 1 100-400, and if so is there any reason to spend more on it. Is the version i just as good as version ii?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

My understanding is the optics in the vII vs vIII are the same, the electronics are improved for vIII. The entire EOS system works together, yes the vIII extenders work with compatible vI lenses. New IS enabled EF lenses work exactly the same with original EOS film cameras, etc. I've never seen a definition of 'improved electronics'. My assumption would the AF responsiveness would benefit from 'improved electronics', but that's an assumption. If you're planning to 'double' the lens for purposes of tracking moving wildlife, it would seem the vIII would be the better approach while still not expecting this configuration to be a great performer, rather acceptable on the EOS mirrorless body.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Another thing to keep in mind... you'll be using the 1.4 or 2x extender on top of the EF to R adapter and that could be up to 4" added to the overall length.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

Actually, the extender will have to go between the EF lens and the adapter. Have you considered the new RF 600 or RF 800 lens. Each of which costs less than $1000. Even though they are f/11 that is just about equivalent to the 100-400 when you put a 2X on it as far as f-stop is concerned.
Bud

bleirer

The rf 600 and 800 are intriguing. I'm hoping for some reviews to compare them. Here is a side by side where the old 100-400 at 560 has a slight edge to my eye over the 600. Different cameras so hard to judge. I have 2 weeks to try it so I'll see. Now the ef 600.....

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1511&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=4

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

First things first. The version 1 of the Canon 100-400 is not as sharp as version 11 at 400. Adding a 1.4 will only result in further loss of sharpness at 400 mm and a 2.0 will increase that loss of sharpness. The 2.0 will also cause loss of quick focus and non auto focus on some Canon camera's. This said that lens is still better than most 3rd party mistakes.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

bleirer

So you think I'd be better off for image quality using the 1.4 in situations where I could, instead of trying to stretch the useability of the 2.0?

Lets say 500mm would do the trick, does one get better image quality with the 1.4 at 360 than with the 2.0 at 250?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, the 1.4x offers less degradation than the 2.0x. In situations less than the max focal length and extender (i.e. less than 560mm), and cameras at resolution 24MP and higher, just crop the image from 400mm.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Some more things to think about :

The Ver I lens does not work well with TC's - especially 2X ! and, your AF will be heavily compromised - yes, I know it will still "work".

The ver II TC's will work the best for you - there is no advantage having the III's electronics with a ver I lens !

Unless you already have a 2X, or can return it if you acquire one, I would pass on the 2X.

You should investigate cropping with pixel enlargement software.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

YES

bleirer

Thanks to all that replied, I think I will go for the version ii 1.4 if I keep the lens. I'm trying to keep it below a grand and also keep my whole kit in one not too heavy backpack style camera bag, since I'm often hiking with it, so size and weight also are factors. I really like the EC on the 5.6 400 prime, but it is huge. The 300 prime is also a candidate but i dont think it extended is a good as the 400 unextended. Happy to hear your thoughts.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

You are asking us a question you should be asking Canon. Their explanation will include the differences between versions of T/Cs and how they work with different lenses. The responses here are strictly based on experience and bias. My version II of the 100-400 has its own dedicated T/C, a v. III 1.4. This combination is lightweight and very versatile. In the field I shoot it using a 1 DX on a monopod. From home the lens is mated with whatever body is available and resides on a mobile tripod at a second story bird haven. I have used the 2x T/C with this lens but find I get better results at 800mm using other lenses. My best results using the 2x T/C come with the EF 500 f/4.5 non IS. Focus is almost instant but I must run a faster shutter to compensate for non-IS. The tech reps at Canon are the best source for answers to your questions. Keep in mind that they will preach using a T/C to widen your view, not lengthen it. That may sound confusion but there are differences. Canon reps can give you the answers you need to make your decision. Call Canon, the cost is not a factor as it's free.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Version III Extenders are backwards compatible with any EF lens that could be used with VII or VI Extenders.

HOWEVER, you could save quite a bit of money buying used version II rather than new version III. I looked up some yesterday and saw the EF 1.4X III was selling new for $429, while good, used copies of the EF 1.4X II were going for around $200. (There's not much to wear our or break in a teleconverter. So long as the optics are good, it latches properly to the camera and the lens locks securely to it and it doesn't look beat up, I wouldn't hesitate to buy used from a reputable dealer.)

There definitely is a difference between the optical formulas of the VII and VIII... But, at least with the 1.4X, it doesn't have much effect on image quality. I have not compared the 2X, simply because I use it much less than the 1.4X, so really wasn't considering an update to the newer version. I ended up NOT updating the 1.4X II either, since I saw little to no difference in images or performance.

I don't know how well the original 100-400mm (push/pull zoom) works with teleconverters. Never owned that lens, so never tried it with teleconverters. Only ever shot with loaners briefly.

I do know that the original 100-400mm seems to have some optical "quirks". For some reason, it doesn't play well with filters. ANY filter, even the very best you can buy, will cause that particular lens to "go soft". I have no idea why that is, but it's been observed by a lot of users of the lens over the years. Many of them were surprised how much better their lens was when they simply removed the "protection" filter they'd had on it from new! I don't know, but it's possible that adding a teleconverter will have similar effect as adding filter.

100-400mm "II", on the other hand, works very well with EF 1.4X II Extender. There is virtually no loss of image quality I can see. I have not tried it with my 2X II, simply because I have no need for an 800mm lens. I shoot sports and wildlife... and usually use an APS-C camera. So with 1.4X on it, making for a 140-560mm combo, on the crop camera it is "acting like approx. 225-900mm zoom" would on full frame.

Also, the lens is f/5.6 at the long end..... adding a 1.4X makes it an f/8. My cameras can autofocus that (though with limited AF points). Adding a 2X to an f/5.6 lens makes it an f/11... which no Canon DSLR can autofocus at all. It also will be rather tricky to manually focus, since the viewfinder will dim down. Might need to use Live View with Exposure Simulation.

It's another matter if using the lens and TC on one of the R-series mirrorless. Those can AF an f/11 lens. And their electronic viewfinders provide exposure simulation, so composition or even manual focusing or focus tweaking would be no problem.

But mirrorless or DLSR, there is always greater loss of image quality with a 2X. I have one, but use it far less than I use my 1.4X. I only use the 2X on select lenses... no zooms, only on a couple premium primes. (Note: the 2X III is said to work well with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS "II" lens... and probably the "III" lens as well. I can tell you for certain the 2X II works poorly with other 70-200mm zooms I tried... too much loss of image quality for my tastes.)

So, I'd recommend trying a 1.4X... and possibly a used version II at that. Give that a try. If you still need more "reach" and are using a full frame camera, I'd recommend getting an APS-C camera instead of the 2X.

1st shot below was done with EF 100-400mm "II" and 1.4X "II" (at 560mm, on Canon 7D Mark II).

Compare with 2nd shot done with EF 100-400mm "II" without the TC (at 400mm, on Canon 7D II).

Both images were shot hand held, post-processed similarly from RAW and have been sized for printing (300 ppi, so may appear over sharpened at highest magnification). The 2nd image, in particular, is not my greatest shot. Shot about a week later, lighting was harsh and the berries were picked over. But these were tests trying to show how the TC performs on that particular lens. But, again, I don't know if the image quality will hold up as well using a TC on the first version of the 100-400mm.

EF 100-400mm II with 1.4X II Extender

(Download)

EF 100-400nm II without any teleconverter

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I don't know what EC is, but if size and weight matter along with sharpness, the 400 5.6 prime IS the ticket ! Takes the 1.4x II beautifully and probably the 2X also -IF- it was well stabilized in GOOD light. The optical IQ of the 400 prime with 1.4X II is equal to the 100-400 II with the 1.4X III (personally tested) and is smaller/lighter. Some will say, (me included) that the AF of the prime is faster than the 100-400II also.
.

bleirer

I meant IQ, was typing fast. The 400 is 10 inches 43 ounces at birth, the 100-400 is 7 3/4 inches but 48 ounces. So as you say, pretty similar. But then I'd have a hole between 100 and 400, maybe I wouldnt care, or maybe I'd feel the need to fill it.

I rented the 400 last summer. Very nice.