Canon 100-400 IS L lens - more questions!

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks to every one who helped me to decide that the Canon lens was the best choice for me!

Next question - in view of the cost savings - does anyone know if the Kenco Teleplus 2x converter is worth using - I already have one which is actualy useless with the sigma 170-500 but that is probably down to the lens (and lack of solid support)?

Will the IS still work - or must I buy canon converters?

On a similar subject - I want to get an extension tube for dragonflies etc - what length and must it be Canon to maintain full IS etc?

Thanks! :clap:

[nitsch]

Hi there Robert,

I've used the 100-400 for some time, it's a great lens - you're going to love it I'm sure.

I've had some success using it in conjunction with a 1.4x TC but my gut feel is that a 2x TC would degrade the image far too much. Plus you would have an effective f11 max aperture at the long end which is going to make the viewfinder very dark for manual focus.

Although AF won't work, IS will. But at 800mm with slowish shutterspeeds as a result of your f11 aperture I would have thought that you would want to switch IS off and mount the lens on a sturdy tripod.

Extension Tubes - you can use 3rd party ones as long as they have the electrical connections. Kenko and Jessops brands work well and are considerably cheaper than the Canon tubes.

HTH!

Cheers,

Nick

[Roy C]

I will second Jessops tubes - works ok on my 350D, £75 for a set of three.

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks for the answers guys - perhaps the 1.4 converter is a far as I shoud go then.

Or - O No!- perhaps I should reopen thought about getting then sigma 50-500 after all...

[eastwood]

I have the 100-400, a Canon 1.4X Ex II and a Tamron 1.4X SP.
While both extenders rorks fine on my 300 2.8L (Even by stacking them up). I failed to get a satisfactory image on my Zoom (which works well without the extender). I think this has something to do with my manual focus technique. Definitely a 2X should make life even more difficult. I would also like to see someone to share with their successful manual focusing experience.

[Roy C]

I have the 100-400, a Canon 1.4X Ex II and a Tamron 1.4X SP.
While both extenders rorks fine on my 300 2.8L (Even by stacking them up). I failed to get a satisfactory image on my Zoom (which works well without the extender). I think this has something to do with my manual focus technique. Definitely a 2X should make life even more difficult. I would also like to see someone to share with their successful manual focusing experience.
In general, teleconverters work better on a prime lens than a zoom. Have you tried taping the pins to obtain AF with the extender, tends to hunt a bit sometimes but at least it should tell you if your manual focus technique is the problem.

[eastwood]

I have done so with both extenders. By taping 3 of the 10 pins, it does give me AF, but I still find it difficult to get a good pix. May be I will try it again. The same problem with my 70-300 IS USM. It has got only 7 pins, so it would not detect the other 3 in my Tamron extender. (The Canon Ex does not fit this lens). The quality is also not satisfactory. Thank you Roy.
And sorry, Robert, by using your thread to discuss my own problem.
Eastwood.

[Robert Tilt]

That`s OK - I am just interested to see what everone thinks about the choices that exist.

The bottom line seems to be that I must make up my mind wether to go for the image stabilised 100-400 or the extra `pull` of the 50-500 sigma without stabilisation. Its aproblem with so much photography being hide-based in the UK where distances are far but with visits to everglades etc presenting golden opportunities in the form of `tame` larger birds so close-up - when carrying a tripod might kill me! Its the heat you know - none of us getting any younger etc... 8-P

[Robert Tilt]

Wow!

I have just discovered a thread in which Paul Goode links to his photos on pbase - takem with a bigma (and even using a converter) and they are incredible. What`s more , they are taken near to where I live.

These pictures have ended the heart-searching - the bigma seems to offer the best compromise after all- thank everyone for your help!

[gmax]

That`s OK - I am just interested to see what everone thinks about the choices that exist.

The bottom line seems to be that I must make up my mind wether to go for the image stabilised 100-400 or the extra `pull` of the 50-500 sigma without stabilisation. Its aproblem with so much photography being hide-based in the UK where distances are far but with visits to everglades etc presenting golden opportunities in the form of `tame` larger birds so close-up - when carrying a tripod might kill me! Its the heat you know - none of us getting any younger etc... 8-P

I personally wouldn't use a TC on a zoom ... it was not satisfactory on my Tamron .. BTW the Tamron may be a good alternative to the Bigma, same 'pull' (I rarely use its short range at 200mm, I would never use the 50mm of the Bigma for birding!), lighter and perhaps sharper; as for stabilization, why not pondering the Sigma 80-400 EX OS? It's a good and cheaper alternative to the Canon 100-400 ..
Cheers,
Max

[paul goode]

Wow!

I have just discovered a thread in which Paul Goode links to his photos on pbase - takem with a bigma (and even using a converter) and they are incredible. What`s more , they are taken near to where I live.

These pictures have ended the heart-searching - the bigma seems to offer the best compromise after all- thank everyone for your help!


Whoa!! Hang on a minute Robert. Thanks for the comment on the gallery but I think you need to be a little bit careful. There ARE images taken with the bigma and the description should say Sigma 50-500. BUT there are also images taken with the 500mm prime and certainly any with a tc are using the prime lens because I only bought it a few weeks ago, after I sold the Bigma.

Sorry if that hurls a spanner in the works but I'd hate you to blow a load of money based on an easily confused lens description.

All the best

Paul

[Keith Reeder]

That said Paul, you've got some jaw-dropping Bigma shots in there..!

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks for that Paul - it explains why I cxannot find the pictures again!

Looks like funds will mean that the 50-500 lens will have `to do` - your pictures are inspirational.

Thanks
Robert

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks for that!

This lens needs some careful investigation!

Do you have any examples please!

Robert

[Robert Tilt]

Sorry guys, that doesn`t make sense does it.

Does anyone have a few shots taken with this sigma OS lens? Looks very tempting...

Robert

[Keith Reeder]

Have a browse of my site, Robert - although it was used on a Nikon D70, nearly all the pictures on there except the very oldest, were with the 80-400mm OS.

A cracking lens.

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks Kieth

There are some inspiring pictures on your site.
What did you mean when you wrote `the OS proved a challenge` though?

Surely, the oS would make for easier picture taking - I hope to move from heavt tripod to monopod on using OS technology?

By the way - if onterested , my own site is rtimages.org ...

Cheers!

[Keith Reeder]

You'd think that about stabilisation Robert, but - just like anything new, I suppose - it took me a while to get used to it.

But when it clicked... Bang! I was hooked, and I haven't looked back.

I'm not alone in having initial doubts either.

It seems that stabilisation does seem to have something of a learning curve associated with it, and it needs to be worked at.

There's a lot of commentary on the net about people trying a stabilised lens for the first time, not getting from it what they expected (usually the problem is apparent image softness), and giving the whole idea up as a bad job.

But stick at it until it starts to come together, and it's a revelation.

And unsurprisingly, since I'd got used to stabilisation with the Nikon/Sigma combo, I had no problems whatsoever when I moved to a Canon/Canon IS set-up.

I only shoot hand-held, incidentally, and almost invariably at 400mm.