I need advice on a Canon lens ...

[retief]

No, I'm not doing a Randy, no matter that I started that thread about selling my Nikon gear :p

But I have a friend, yes an actual "real life person" who shoots Canon and is looking for a bit more "reach". Currently he has a Sigma 100-300 f4 with a 1.4 TC. I'm not sure which body he has, but he talks about an "upgrade" to a 20D. He is also looking at the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS USM lens, but says it won't AF with an added TC.

Now, I read through the 4 page thread started by, I think it was Guy, but I am confused as to the status of this lens and TC's, either Canon of 3rd party. Or is there another option with a 2x on the Sigma lens, or something inbetween, like the Nikon 1.7? Or maybe even the Sigma 50-500. I'm sure that any of these options are not going to be BIF Friendly when it comes to AF, but he is constrained and cannot go the prime route.

I would think that if there is a TC solution with AF for the 100-400, that would be the best choice.

Suggestions?

By the way, I already told him that you foks actually know what you are talking about, the pressures on .... :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Dave Stiles]

I happen to use the Canon 20D and 100-400IS USM (etc.)
And I happen to own the Canon 1.4 TC, and rarely if ever use it.
All images I have posted here were done using the 100-400, without using the TC.

There is a supposed to be a way to make the Canon TC work by taping over some of the contacts.

I am also of the belief that a Sigma TC works without the AF problems using the 100-400.

I will look into it tomorrow after class. I'd do it tonite but I have a killer test tomorrow on evolution and genetics ... need to finish studying for now.

Dave

[Harv]

Bill, one of the constraints is that Canon non-pro bodies max out for AF at f/5.6 and what this means is that an f/4 lens will only AF with a 1.4xTC. A lens such as the 100-400 or the 400 prime (both already at f/5.6) need to fool the camera by using a 1.4xTC which has 3 of the contacts taped or to use a Tamron non-pro series TC that does not have those contacts to begin with. He could probably fool the camera with a Tamron non-pro series 2xTC for his present lens but I have no idea what that will do to his image quality.

Personally, I think he would be into some major slowdown in AF speed doing any of this.

The bottom line here is that there is a price to be paid for a longer reach. Either in AF performance or in dollars. It looks like he wants to stay with a zoom for versatility and if that's the case, the 100-400 with 1.4x Tamron non-pro TC might be a solution for him. Personally, I think he might be better off to keep his Sigma 100-300 and add a 400 f/5.6L with a 1.4x Tamron TC. Others have done well with that combo.

Just my 2 cent worth.

[RikWriter]

The cheap, black Tamron 1.4X TC doesn't report the aperture to the camera and will thus allow a non-1 series Canon body to autofocus with a max aperture smaller than f5.6. It usually costs under $75.
As for a lens for him, the 100-400 is a very nice lens, although it's a bit of a dust vacuum. The 400 prime is also a great lens, very very sharp and fast-focussing as well as cheaper than the 100-400. As he already has the 100-300 f4, my advice would be for him to get the 400 f5.6L prime and the cheap Tamron TC. If he'd rather not go the TC route, there is always the Sigma 50-500, but he'd better like using a tripod...

[retief]

I happen to use the Canon 20D and 100-400IS USM (etc.)

I will look into it tomorrow after class. I'd do it tonite but I have a killer test tomorrow on evolution and genetics ... need to finish studying for now.

Dave

Good luck on the test, and thanks for the info.

The bottom line here is that there is a price to be paid for a longer reach. Either in AF performance or in dollars. It looks like he wants to stay with a zoom for versatility and if that's the case, the 100-400 with 1.4x Tamron non-pro TC might be a solution for him. Personally, I think he might be better off to keep his Sigma 100-300 and add a 400 f/5.6L with a 1.4x Tamron TC. Others have done well with that combo.

Just my 2 cent worth.

A darned good 2 cents worth, in my opinion. This is an issue for all of us, regradless of brand. Turns out there is a 400 f5.6l for sale on the local board at $900, I'll be passing this along.

Thanks,

The cheap, black Tamron 1.4X TC doesn't report the aperture to the camera and will thus allow a non-1 series Canon body to autofocus with a max aperture smaller than f5.6. It usually costs under $75.
As for a lens for him, the 100-400 is a very nice lens, although it's a bit of a dust vacuum. The 400 prime is also a great lens, very very sharp and fast-focussing as well as cheaper than the 100-400. As he already has the 100-300 f4, my advice would be for him to get the 400 f5.6L prime and the cheap Tamron TC. If he'd rather not go the TC route, there is always the Sigma 50-500, but he'd better like using a tripod...

Thanks. Same holds true with some of the varieties of TC's for the Nikons and use with 3rd party lenses. The 50-500 has always intrigued me, but I don't know of anyone who brags about AF speed. As noted, compromises.

Thanks to all, and any future folks, it seems to me that perhaps the best advice for him, assuming that he doesn't need to sell the 100-300 to fund the purchase, is to just buy the 400 f5.6, and go from there.

[Paul S]

Cheap TCs are not worth the money--you'd probably get better image quality by cropping.

I would not use a TC that wasn't made by the lens manufacturer (i.e., Canon TC on the Canon lens, and Sigma TC on the Sigma lens.)

The taping trick will work, but you'd better have a high contrast subject and bright light, or it will drive you to distraction by all the hunting the AF will do.

I'd recommend the 50-500, if he's willing to use a tripod everywhere (unless he can get shutter speeds faster than 1/500). If he already has a Sigma 1.4 TC, he can use it with that lens, but without AF. (And a good tripod will be even more important.) The 50-500 is virtually as good as the 100-400 for image quality (better if you have a 100-400 on the low end of its range of variability). It has more reach. What it lacks is IS and a good zoom lock (which I've only ever missed when doing macro work with an extension tube) It's only 1/3 stop slower than the 100-400. AF speed is not wonderful--but not bad either, since it's an HSM lens. I doubt the 100-400 is much better.

-Paul

[Igor]

I'd go for 50-500 too.
100-400 is a nice lens, but it gets sharp at 400mm only at f/6.3. Imagine what lighting one need after putting a TC14, which makes it 560mm f/8, and more or less sharp only at f/11...

[RikWriter]

Cheap TCs are not worth the money--you'd probably get better image quality by cropping.


Sorry, my personal experience tells me you're incorrect.
This picture was taken with my 5D with a 400mm f5.6L lens and the Tamron 1.4X TC.
http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/51372292.jpg

[Paul S]

Rick, It's impossible to judge critical sharpness from a web-sized image. If that's all the person wants to do with his/her images, then a cheap TC is fine. Printing at 8x10 or bigger is another question, and only 100% pixels are good enough to judge sharpness.

As for that image--the toes look reasonably sharp, but most of the bird is beyond the range of DOF...

Some things depend greatly on the person viewing them. I know one person whom I respect greatly who discredits the 17-40L has having "horrible" distortion--while I've only ever taken one shot with mine where I've even noticed any distortion at all. He and I apparently have very different tolerances for distortion! Sharpness can be the same between different people, and that's okay!

-Paul

[RikWriter]

Rick, It's impossible to judge critical sharpness from a web-sized image. If that's all the person wants to do with his/her images, then a cheap TC is fine. Printing at 8x10 or bigger is another question, and only 100% pixels are good enough to judge sharpness.

As for that image--the toes look reasonably sharp, but most of the bird is beyond the range of DOF...


Actually it's not, Paul. Most of the bird is perfectly sharp.
BTW, here's another shot with a 1.4X Tamron TC on a Sigma 120-300.
http://www.pbase.com/image/73801690.jpg

[Paul S]

Like I said: you and I have different definitions of sharp. Nuff Said.

-Paul

[RikWriter]

Like I said: you and I have different definitions of sharp. Nuff Said.

-Paul

Nope. I am pretty sure your definition of sharp is variable for circumstances...you said that the 100-400 was "not much better" than the 50-500. Having owned and used both lenses extensively, I would say the 100-400 is indeed a much better lens both for IQ and focus speed.

[gluwater]

Rik judging sharpness on web size images can be almost impossible. But the first image you posted the head is definitely not sharp because the DOF is too small, the second image you posted does not look sharp at all. Paul has agreed to disagree with you but you are trying to force him to see your point, which by posting images like these you will not do. The sharpness of using a TC is argued over all the time and some people like them and some people don't. I don't mind using them on some lenses but others I will never use them on. It is personal preference to what acceptable sharpess is.

[RikWriter]

Rik judging sharpness on web size images can be almost impossible. But the first image you posted the head is definitely not sharp because the DOF is too small, the second image you posted does not look sharp at all. Paul has agreed to disagree with you but you are trying to force him to see your point, which by posting images like these you will not do.

Actually no, I am not forcing him to do anything. I am stating my position. He and you can feel free to disagree with it based on your opinion on the matter. I've seen both images at 100% and I know how sharp they are. I also know what the DOF is on the first image. There is some blur at the wingtips, I am aware, but that's totally beside the point of how sharp or how good of an IQ a third-party TC has.

[dmwphoto]

Ok, time to move on and let OTHERS share their opinions. Debating this point here is going no where.

[gluwater]

If your friend does end up getting the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 and wants to use the Canon 1.4TC on it he will have to tape over three pins. Here is a shot with the three pins to tape circled in red.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/59057617-M.jpg

[Keith]

We are definitely lacking in this area , wouldnt it be nice if Canon would come up with a 200-400mm IS lens f4 or 200-500mm bouncy; OK Im dreaming but sure would be nice ;)

[Harv]

We are definitely lacking in this area , wouldnt it be nice if Canon would come up with a 200-400mm IS lens f4 or 200-500mm bouncy; OK Im dreaming but sure would be nice ;)

And very expensive.

[retief]

We are definitely lacking in this area , wouldnt it be nice if Canon would come up with a 200-400mm IS lens f4 or 200-500mm bouncy; OK Im dreaming but sure would be nice ;)

Oh, you just have a bad case of Nikon Envy :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Isn't it funny how we all still find something to bitch about, no matter what we have? Darned good too, because without that, life would be pretty darned dull........;)

What amazes me is the AF with TC's issues, and both companies have this. My best guess is that they don't want people complaining about the problems they are having with "focus hunting". As well as having a way to drive people toward the more expensive bodies.

[retief]

If your friend does end up getting the 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 and wants to use the Canon 1.4TC on it he will have to tape over three pins. Here is a shot with the three pins to tape circled in red.


Thanks for the info. The same needs to be done on the Sigma TC for the long Sigma lenses and we have a tab to file off on the Nikon AFS TC's to use with 3rd party lenses and to stack. Nothing is easy is it?

I'll pass this on, I believe he has been in contact already with someone local who has a 400 5.6 for sale.

That sure "feels" like the best solution for him, I know how frustrated I would be with the focus speed of the 50-500. My wife got annoyed with the focus speed of a consumer grade 70-300 lens on a D70, she is much happier with the 70-200 AFS and 200-400 AFS on the D200, hmmm, I wonder why.....