Advice requested re Canon extender (Page 2): I’ll cut to the chase. I had a similar dilemma as you and a concern about spending a lot of money. IMHO, forget the extender idea, your...

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I’ll cut to the chase. I had a similar dilemma as you and a concern about spending a lot of money. IMHO, forget the extender idea, your best option is a Canon 100-400 L ii. If that’s a little rich for your blood, the Sigma 100-400 Cont is a pretty good alternative for less than $1000, but is a half stop slower although lighter. The Sigma 150-600 Cont is good, but the Sigma Sport version is better, albeit more expensive and heavier.

GeorgeK Loc: NNJ

47greyfox wrote:

I’ll cut to the chase. I had a similar dilemma as you and a concern about spending a lot of money. IMHO, forget the extender idea, your best option is a Canon 100-400 L ii. If that’s a little rich for your blood, the Sigma 100-400 Cont is a pretty good alternative for less than $1000, but is a half stop slower although lighter. The Sigma 150-600 Cont is good, but the heavier Sport version is better, albeit more expensive and heavier.

Thanks for the tips and sharing your experience.

MountainDave

I used to own the 70-300 II. It was a good lens for the money but the L series is a whole different level. The 100-400L II is truly legendary and gives a field of view equal to 160-640 on a 7D. I do have a 1.4X which works really well with my 5D IV but the AF really struggles when used with my 77D so I don't use that combo. The Af system in the 7D II may or may not be any better. Something to research before buying an extender.

clickety

recb wrote:

I have a 100-400 mkii which is a great lens, but i was never happy with my results when I paired it with a 1.4x iii on either a 7d mkii or a 5d mk4. However I now have an r5 and have been very pleased with the results of the lens and extender combination.

My first thought was you must be hard to please. But seriously, what issues did you encounter?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

MountainDave wrote:

I used to own the 70-300 II. It was a good lens for the money but the L series is a whole different level.

Not so ! - my experience with 80D. Have also used 300 2.8, 4005.6 and 200 f4 L lenses. The only one that beats the 70-300 II is the 300 2.8 !
.

recb

Yes probably hard to please/high bar for results I am satisfied with to share with others. I take a lot of photos of birds and often in lowlight and handheld. The 1.4 on the lens didn’t produce the level of sharp detail I wanted on the sly bodies but it does on the mirror less.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

GeorgeK wrote:

I have a Canon 7D Mk II that I sometimes use with a Canon 70-300 f/4.5-6 II USM for shooting wildlife. I am considering getting a lens with a bit more reach but would first like to consider an extender before spending a lot on a lens. Is there any real value-add to the extender? If so, any suggestions as to what to purchase?

You CANNOT use any of the Canon teleconverters (they call them "extenders") with that lens. The Canon TCs all have a protruding front element that has to fit inside the rear barrel of any lens. The 70-300mm lenses do not have large enough diameter to allow those TCs to be fitted. There are compatibility charts all over the place.

You MIGHT be able to use a third party TC. Among those, one of the sharpest I'm aware of is the older Kenko 1.4X MC-4 DGX. It is a little soft in the corners, but using it on an APS-C camera such as 7DII crops away those corners and leaves just the sharpest center! There was a more expensive Kenko "Pro 300" version 1.4X too, which seems very good too, better in the corners, but not quite as sharp in the center. It might be a better choice for a full frame camera. I really don't know how these compare to the more current Kenko "HD" teleconverters (I do know these are among the very few or only ones that accommodate EF-S lenses... the Canon TCs don't... but there really aren't many EF-S lenses that it would make sense to use with a TC, anyway... maybe the EF-S 55-250mm).

Problem with ANY TC is that you "lose light" to the additional optics. Effectively, the maximum aperture of the lens is made smaller. With a 1.4X TC you lose one stop. With a 2X you lose two stops. With a 1.4X your 70-300mm will "become a 98-420mm f/6.3-f/8" combo. This is okay on 7DII because it is "f/8 capable". Not all Canon cameras are able to autofocus a lens with less than f/5.6 max aperture. Your camera can... BUT it will be limited to the center AF point ONLY. And autofocus will be likely to be slower and struggle more in less than ideal lighting conditions.

It varies from lens to lens and TC to TC, but there is usually some loss of image quality using a TC on a lens. How much really depends upon the specific combo. I use Canon 1.4X II and 2X II TCs on certain lenses and on most see a slight loss of IQ with the 1.4X and a bit more with the 2X. I use the 1.4X on more lenses than the 2X, partly because of this and partly because of lack of autofocus with the 2X on many more lenses. So I basically just use the 2X with a couple premium prime lenses.

Image quality really takes a hit in some cases. In others it's fine. For example, I occasionally put my 1.4X on Canon EF 100-400mm "II" and there is little to no noticeable loss of IQ... which is unusual for a zoom. But I try to avoid that same TC on 70-200mm, where the combo makes images that are only marginally usable IMO. It's even worse with the 2X... I simply don't use it on any zooms (I haven't tried it with the 100-400 II, because there would be no autofocus and even the viewfinder would be dim to try to manually focus).

I've also often used the 1.4X II on Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS lens, where it works very well as a "420mm f/5.6" combo. It isn't quite as sharp as the EF 400mm f/5.6L lens... But that lens lacks IS, while the 300mm f/4L has it and it's still reasonably effective even with the TC. Since that (and the 100-400) is a lens I like to shoot hand held a lot, I really appreciate any help I can get from the IS.

I can't say that the Kenko 1.4X mentioned above will or won't work as well with your particular lens. It might be fine... or it might produce poor image quality. Or maybe something in between. Maybe you can find someone using the specific teleconverter you're considering with the same lens you want to use it upon, and can get a report from them. Of course, even that can be marginally helpful, because it will just be their opinion and depends upon their specific uses and how demanding they are with their gear. "Professional" reviewers like Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture.com won't be any help, because they don't test lenses like yours, that "aren't compatible" with TCs, according to Canon. He does test shots with many lens/TC combos... but none with that lens because it's "not designed for use with a TC".

You might have to just give it a try and see for yourself how it works. Maybe make sure you buy from a place that allows returns? It's a pretty good bet that a longer lens without any TC - like the EF 400mm f/5.6L or 100-400mm II - would give you better results than any 1.4X you might fit to your 70-300mm. But the real question is if the smaller, lighter and cheaper option of a TC might be up to your particular requirements.

recb wrote:

I have a 100-400 mkii which is a great lens, but i was never happy with my results when I paired it with a 1.4x iii on either a 7d mkii or a 5d mk4. However I now have an r5 and have been very pleased with the results of the lens and extender combination.

This simply tells me your lens/TC combo needed Autofocus Fine Tuning calibration on your DSLRs. Because mirrorless cameras' AF sensors are embedded directly in the imaging sensor, they never require calibration the way DSLRs and lenses might. If the lens/TC combo is sharp on one, it could have been made sharp on the other, too.

I don't have a 70-300mm, but the image below was shot with my EF 100-400mm II and Canon EF 1.4X II teleconverter combo (effective 140-560mm f/6.3-f/8) at 560mm and f/8 (wide open) on 7D Mark II. Be sure to click through to the larger size, but if you further click to the maximum magnification, the image may look a little "too sharp" because this was prepared at 300 ppi for printing purposes and may "over enlarge" on a computer monitor. I just didn't bother sizing it down for online display.

(Download)

GeorgeK Loc: NNJ

amfoto1 wrote:

You CANNOT use any of the Canon teleconverters (they call them "extenders") with that lens. The Canon TCs all have a protruding front element that has to fit inside the rear barrel of any lens. The 70-300mm lenses do not have large enough diameter to allow those TCs to be fitted. There are compatibility charts all over the place.

You MIGHT be able to use a third party TC. Among those, one of the sharpest I'm aware of is the older Kenko 1.4X MC-4 DGX. It is a little soft in the corners, but using it on an APS-C camera such as 7DII crops away those corners and leaves just the sharpest center! There was a more expensive Kenko "Pro 300" version 1.4X too, which seems very good too, better in the corners, but not quite as sharp in the center. It might be a better choice for a full frame camera. I really don't know how these compare to the more current Kenko "HD" teleconverters (I do know these are among the very few or only ones that accommodate EF-S lenses... the Canon TCs don't... but there really aren't many EF-S lenses that it would make sense to use with a TC, anyway... maybe the EF-S 55-250mm).

Problem with ANY TC is that you "lose light" to the additional optics. Effectively, the maximum aperture of the lens is made smaller. With a 1.4X TC you lose one stop. With a 2X you lose two stops. With a 1.4X your 70-300mm will "become a 98-420mm f/6.3-f/8" combo. This is okay on 7DII because it is "f/8 capable". Not all Canon cameras are able to autofocus a lens with less than f/5.6 max aperture. Your camera can... BUT it will be limited to the center AF point ONLY. And autofocus will be likely to be slower and struggle more in less than ideal lighting conditions.

It varies from lens to lens and TC to TC, but there is usually some loss of image quality using a TC on a lens. How much really depends upon the specific combo. I use Canon 1.4X II and 2X II TCs on certain lenses and on most see a slight loss of IQ with the 1.4X and a bit more with the 2X. I use the 1.4X on more lenses than the 2X, partly because of this and partly because of lack of autofocus with the 2X on many more lenses. So I basically just use the 2X with a couple premium prime lenses.

Image quality really takes a hit in some cases. In others it's fine. For example, I occasionally put my 1.4X on Canon EF 100-400mm "II" and there is little to no noticeable loss of IQ... which is unusual for a zoom. But I try to avoid that same TC on 70-200mm, where the combo makes images that are only marginally usable IMO. It's even worse with the 2X... I simply don't use it on any zooms (I haven't tried it with the 100-400 II, because there would be no autofocus and even the viewfinder would be dim to try to manually focus).

I've also often used the 1.4X II on Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS lens, where it works very well as a "420mm f/5.6" combo. It isn't quite as sharp as the EF 400mm f/5.6L lens... But that lens lacks IS, while the 300mm f/4L has it and it's still reasonably effective even with the TC. Since that (and the 100-400) is a lens I like to shoot hand held a lot, I really appreciate any help I can get from the IS.

I can't say that the Kenko 1.4X mentioned above will or won't work as well with your particular lens. It might be fine... or it might produce poor image quality. Or maybe something in between. Maybe you can find someone using the specific teleconverter you're considering with the same lens you want to use it upon, and can get a report from them. Of course, even that can be marginally helpful, because it will just be their opinion and depends upon their specific uses and how demanding they are with their gear. "Professional" reviewers like Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture.com won't be any help, because they don't test lenses like yours, that "aren't compatible" with TCs, according to Canon. He does test shots with many lens/TC combos... but none with that lens because it's "not designed for use with a TC".

You might have to just give it a try and see for yourself how it works. Maybe make sure you buy from a place that allows returns? It's a pretty good bet that a longer lens without any TC - like the EF 400mm f/5.6L or 100-400mm II - would give you better results than any 1.4X you might fit to your 70-300mm. But the real question is if the smaller, lighter and cheaper option of a TC might be up to your particular requirements.

The image below was shot with EF 100-400mm II and Canon EF 1.4X II teleconverter combo (effective 140-560mm f/6.3-f/8) at 560mm and f/8 (wide open) on 7D Mark II. Be sure to click through to the larger size, but if you further click to the maximum magnification, the image may look a little "too sharp" because this was prepared at 300 ppi for printing purposes and may "over enlarge" on a computer monitor. I didn't bother sizing it down for online display.

You CANNOT use any of the Canon teleconverters (th... (show quote)

I appreciate your detailed response, Alan. My options appear limited and I am inclined to just get a new/used lens. At the moment, I am considering the EF 100-400mm II.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

GeorgeK wrote:

I appreciate your detailed response, Alan. My options appear limited and I am inclined to just get a new/used lens. At the moment, I am considering the EF 100-400mm II.

No reason to keep the 70-300 then except for the lighter weight .....and, you will need lots of money for the 100-400 ...

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

GeorgeK wrote:

... The 150-600 lenses that I can find all seem to be specifically for FF cameras.

Any EF lens for a full frame camera works well on an EF-S APS-C camera.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

GeorgeK wrote:

I have a Canon 7D Mk II that I sometimes use with a Canon 70-300 f/4.5-6 II USM for shooting wildlife. I am considering getting a lens with a bit more reach but would first like to consider an extender before spending a lot on a lens. Is there any real value-add to the extender? If so, any suggestions as to what to purchase?

I would only go to the 1.4 and not the 2. Due to less light coming in your auto focus might or might not work. With the 2x way to dark. I would match the lens to extender

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

Maybe a reason to upgrade to mirrorless.

clickety

recb wrote:

Yes probably hard to please/high bar for results I am satisfied with to share with others. I take a lot of photos of birds and often in lowlight and handheld. The 1.4 on the lens didn’t produce the level of sharp detail I wanted on the sly bodies but it does on the mirror less.

While I was always pleased with my 7DII, 100-400+1.4 combo, I too felt it needed light for best results. But I still think it is/was a great body and would suggest that the real issue is the low light reducing the contrast needed for sharp focusing, especially if you noticed it withe the 5DIV as well.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

GeorgeK wrote:

Good to know the impact on focusing speed with the 2.0X. The 150-600 lenses that I can find all seem to be specifically for FF cameras.

Your 70-300mm is a FF lens.
I have all FF lenses for my 7D except the 10-18mm.
All work just fine.
I do use a Canon 2X III with my 100-400mm MII.
For your 70-300mm get the latest tc of your choice. 1.4x would be best.
Or better yet get a used Tamron 150-600mm G2 and never look back. Worth the investment.