Using Tele converters
 

Does anybody using EF 1.4X II & EF 2X II with 70-200 2.8L IS on XL2. If so please tell me, how you find the performance of it. Actually I wanted to go for 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS, but the pull push zoom design somewhat didn't like. It might suck moisture & in turn infect with fungus as I am from tropical area.
If somebody using the 100-400, they can also contribute their experience on it.

Ashok

Hey, Ashok............
 

How's the new sticks/ head system working with the cam?

(Just to get completely off the track).


CS

Hi Chris.....
 

It's a Black Beauty love the feel of her.I will be writing about it later, as here it' still raining can't go in the field.
Please help me, whether should go for Tele converter or the lens it self.


70-200 2.8 will become 98-280mm f 4 with 1.4X

------do------------- 140-400mm f 5.6 with 2X

EF lens 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6L IS

Can you explain in detail with little expertise which one will be better & pros and cons.

Ashok

With the conversion factor of 7.8, in relation to a 35mm lens because of the XL2's small chip size, the 70-200 becomes a 546-1560mm f/2.8 and with the 1.4x converter it becomes a 764-2184mm f/4.

I shoot still photography full time and use the 70-200 a lot. With the 1.4x it is very sharp, hard to distinguish the images shot with or without the converter. The 2x is not as sharp and I only use it as a last resort. Especially with the magnification your are already getting with the 70-200 and a 1.4x.

As for the 100-400, it is a hard lens to adjust focus and certainly not as sharp as the 70-200 with or without the converter. I would pass on this lens.

Cheers,
Duane

Thanks Duane.......
 

Initially I was not inclined to TC, but the cost involved for additional lens made me to go for TC. how do you find 100-400 with 70-200+2X performance, because 100-400 comes with f4.5-5.6 where as 70-200+2X will be 140-400 f5.6.
Is there any chance the Canon are introducing 200-400 f4 like Nikon?

Bye,

Ashok

Ashok,

I am currently using a 100/400.

First, I have shot a lot of great footage with it that I could never have got!! The imagery is very clear up to about the 350 mark and then there seems to be some softening.

I used a century 2x in the past and it is ok but not even close to the lens mentioned!! I still use it on another camera but my xl2 with the 100/400 is far superior!!!!

My issues with the lens is that you really need a laser sight for it at the longer lenths!!

The push pull design I only use for location and composition.

The tension adjustment is next to the focus which is an engeneering flaw in my book.

I really like the lens

For the most part, in 20 20 hind sight I wished i saved the extra 800 dollars and got the 28-300 zoom lens.


the sigma 50 - 500 would be a consideration

the sigma f4 100 to 300 may also be a sweet lens to consider.


I am not to certain that the image stabiliztion is all that useful, it is a lot of extra money and for video cameras I find myself not using it as much as I would have liked!!

Amazing what you can learn from this forum. For years I have wanted to buy the 100-400 for the extra telephoto it gives. Now Dale says that above 350 the image is "soft". If that's the case, I'll stick to my 70-300 which is sharp all the way. Ashok, the 70-300 zoom is a very good lens. You can buy it at two prices, one in the $200-300 and a sturdier version for $500. I use both the Canon 1.4X with it and a Tamron 2x, and both soften the image and make focusing extra hard. I find them only useful to get ultra close to subjects that are already close and not moving around much.

Interesting. I just did a test. Here's what I found:

The stock 20x with an 1.6 XL extender gets pretty soft at the long end. Upside: LANC (Zoe) zoom control and auto focus still work (although auto focus not all that hot).

EF adapter with a 70-200 2.8 Canon L USM II zoom is also somewhat soft, and about the same as the 20x with extender. Focus is critical.

EF adapter with a 300 2.8 Canon L is just off the chart! It's sharper than the 20x alone. Now, I've seen this same phenomenon with my EOS D Mark II. You think the 70-200 is pretty sweet until you put it beside the 300. I have also tested (on the EOS) the 70-200 with both the 1.4x and 2x Canon EOS extenders. The 70-200 doesn't get along very well with either extender (and if you have a 300, who cares), and the 300 is very good with the 1.4 and acceptable with the 2x.

The 300 on the XL is about at the end of usability unless you get a Ronsrail. I use a Sachtler 12SB on Speedlock legs, and it's pretty jittery. It's also pretty hard to get the balance right with just the touch and go plate.

Thanks a lot..........
 

I did used 100-400 a friends, found good in bright light not in the cloudy weather. But some how I didn't like the sharpness. I even tried 600 f4 it's a monster, though I had rail system with Manfrotto 519/525. It's good for water birds where in you can stay at one place & take the shooting. Not at all for field birds. It's almost impossible to carry.
Dale I will consider your suggestion about not going for TC, regarding 28-300 am of the opinion that if more than 4X zoom tends to soften the image,

Steve I purchased Manfrotto after having a lot of discussion at the forum,such wonderful site we can interact on many things of video & learn many things. I 'm more inclined to L series, so feel others are mortals ( may be I am wrong).

Brian I am yet to use 300 f2.8, definetly primes are sharpest ( locating subject will be difficult without additional scope).
How about we all press the Canon to introduce 200-400 or 500 f4?
Ashok

Ashok,

Today's zoom lenses are hugely better than the past!! Some of the zooms have a particular zone that is sweeter than the rest.

I have not used anything greater than 4x the base value of a lens(not counting the 7.2x going to the ccd) so can not comment on them, ie the sig 50/500.

I may be wrong, but it seems to be that when constructing these lenses there is a specific point the lens is is idal, then they expand the range in two directions from that point.

I have heard the sigma 100/300 constant f4 is one of those lenses that they have hit the sweet spot and it is a superior lens, especially for it price.

Brian,

thanks for the comparison information!! I have heard nothing but good things about the 300 f2.8. Now I hear it tc s real well on top of that!! Maybe its time to look for a used one.


Again, I would like to mention that having the wider end of the lens will facilitate finding and composing footage, just how good it is at the bottom end is really not that important.

I do not think TC's do a good job on a zoom lens at the upper ends in particular.


It would be great to go to a store and test these lenses out!!! for ones self!!!

Thanks Dale......
 

You didn't quote on 200~400/500 f4 from Canon.
This may not be the proper thread yet I would like to share my nightmare with 2nd EF adapter. after facing problem with 1st EF adapter I bought 2nd one, now after a month use it also giving same problem like CHECK LENS blinking in the EVF & humming sound in the lens. I put new battery still same thing.
Please Somebody Help

Ashok

Hi Ashok..
 

Check your thread for the EF adaptor.

CS

Ashok, Dale - the EF 100-400 is a lens of some notoriety, there's good and bad examples everywhere - it seems Canons' QC on this lens isn't quite what it could be. The one I have is good but not as good as the 400mm f5.6 prime, but results with the 1.4II tc attached are not brilliant on the XL2 - though very exceptable on an EOS1 stills body.

Ashok - I'd be very careful about using it in high humidity conditions as it most definately is NOT weather sealed, another thing to bare in mind is the zoom mechanism, some examples of this lens have proven a bit 'fragile' in that departement.