MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon 100-400mm  (Read 25448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2012, 23:57 »
I picked up a 2X Canon converter and after reading reviews wasn't expecting much. Put it on my Canon 70-200mm and was really surprised at how sharp the images were even at f/2.8 (f/5.6). A good combo IMO. 

Maybe you have the new one. I have the old 2X and I keep asking myself why I bought it. (OK I know, the 400 prime is an 800... 100-400 is a decent 600mm... and it does work, just not for anything where I'd want auto-focus) I think people miss the "only with L lenses" part and only with the faster lenses. Also it's marginal on the 40D and 20D, or older cameras, works best with the 1D series. All kinds of limitations. It does the job and for pixel peepers, like Micro shooters, it's probably going to be a fail.

For people shooting sports and wildlife, a few hundred for the 2x is much better than $10,000 for a 500mm lens. I'm willing to give up a little quality.

So what lens have you used it on and what camera? That makes a difference. I met up with a guy shooting a 1D Mark III and a 300mm f/2.8 and he says the auto focus doesn't work. It should on that combination, unless he has the older 300mm?

I also think that when you add more glass, it's bought to degrade the image some. Again for the $9500 savings, I'll suffer!  :D

I might have included this one before, it's with the extender on a 100-400MM (I think? I doubt if I would have used the 35-350?) set for 285mm (I have the pins taped on the extender to fool the camera, it also fools the EXIF data) 320th @ f/5.6 ISO 100 - shot through a hole in the chain link fence.

I'd say it worked just fine. (larger version if anyone cares about seeing more pixels:

Back to the beginning. If I could get the 200-400mm with the built in 1.4 extender, it would eliminate my need for carrying the 70-200 - or owning, the 2x Extender, the 100-400, the 400mm. I could have the 35-350 and the 200-400/560 and I'm ready to Rock and Roll. 35-560 should be a suitable range for just about anything outdoors?  8)

When the great "L" lens and accessory sale comes up on FM Forums I'll post it here. LOL

Good point. I guess the version and camera it's on makes a big difference. I have the 2x vII on a 5DMII. I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I which was great but f/2.8 and 200mm were weak spots. I was really surprised when I got good results with the 2x converter. I picked up the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens and it is exceptional at every f-stop and focal length. Works great with the 2X converter.

I looked at reviews for the newer 2x vIII and seems the improvements are barely noticeable so I skipped it. Improvements between vI and vII are supposed to be pretty noticeable. I believe that autofocus works on f/2.8 lenses but not f/4 or above.

I hadn't even considered the MK I lens vs the MK II 70-200 lens. Interesting on the converter. Maybe they are getting better at the electronics. Seems it has more to do with the camera being able to distinguish focus points. more and newer is better. That's why the sports pros still swear by the 1D over anything else.

I never could figure that out. Some guys will carry a 5D, some will shoot with 40-50-60D, but when it comes down to the guys with the 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 primes with the Getty stickers on their lenses, it's a 1D.  :D The 1 series has always been fast focusing, fast burst rate, and good for news, sports and sharp.

Almost bought a used 1D MK III this Spring, decided that a teardrop trailer might be a more useful addition.

Still trying to sell an IBM X235 server, hasn't been run more than two hours since a complete upgrade and overhaul. I thought I was going to edit video on that. So wouldn't I need something that takes video? LOL Then I thought, OK T2i does video, uses the same lenses. Would make a great backup camera... No More Tapes!

Anyway, they announced the G1x and the 200-400 L lens. Everything photo is back on hold, and the trailer is back on top of the list. I'll spend 60-80 days at the track, and I'm really getting tired of tenting (especially after 50mph winds blew holes in my favorite at ALMS in 2010). Got a GMC conversion van. The 14MPG makes me cringe. If I drive to town for ice cubes, it costs me more for gas, than the ice. And think primitive camping, for free, no electric. So I need fresh ice every day. It's dry, costs $600 a year for insurance, was an interesting experiment in ways to camp, dry and without bugs.

Only thing I can hope is that I order the trailer and commit before Canon comes out with the 200-400 at an affordbale price. It would be the "perfect" sports lens for me. Considering the range it's going to be as sharp as the 70-200, just stretched a little higher. Add the 1.4x and it's super lens!

Still the dumb question. I wonder if that lens will allow for a second extender? I've read of people stacking two 1.4s on one lens for wildlife. I don't know if I'd want to do that, but like yours, some people get very good results with the extenders. They just kind of scare me.

Oh yes, minimum lens f/4 in any case, and even at that, it's marginal. All about focusing sensitivity and contrast. Manual they work with any old camera, even a 20D.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
Last post February 22, 2007, 06:48
by CJPhoto
15 Replies
Last post May 20, 2008, 08:17
by RASimon
19 Replies
Last post March 26, 2009, 16:04
by MatHayward
300mm f/4 IS vs 400mm f/5.6

Started by Xalanx « 1 2  All » Canon

29 Replies
Last post January 04, 2010, 22:33
by Jonathan Ross
16 Replies
Last post August 12, 2012, 05:46
by Robic


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle