- Messages
- 910
- Name
- gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
the canon100-400 lens which teleconveter works best on this lens please
canon 100-400mm question
- Thread starter garymicheal
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You'll going to need to keep it below f5.6 if you want your 50D to still autofocus... which means technically none of them will work on the 50D.
The lens is f4.5-5.6, and even a 1.4x TC will add one stop, which you havent got at the wide end at f4.5....
You could stick on a TC and tape over the connectors that tell the camera its there, but its going to give you pretty grotty soft shots...
The lens is f4.5-5.6, and even a 1.4x TC will add one stop, which you havent got at the wide end at f4.5....
You could stick on a TC and tape over the connectors that tell the camera its there, but its going to give you pretty grotty soft shots...
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you can find a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x convertor you will not loose autofocus - but it will not be as quick due to the light loss associated with a convertor. If you are shooting fairly static subjects you shoud be fine with that one.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Only because that isn't a "smart" TC and lacks the connections to the camera body that I suggested you could tape up....
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
The 50D will AF quite well with the 100-400 and a Kenko Pro 300 DG teleconverter with taped pins, but only on the outer diagonal focus points. The centre point may focus but most likely will struggle and fail. You really need great light and strong contrast to be in with a chance using the centre point. The other outer points should be nearly as good as the diagonals but the diagonals do seem better to me. I would not attempt AI Servo focusing on a moving subject (e.g. BIF) on anything but a 1 series body with the teleconverter in place.
Remember that the AF system is designed to work with a lens of f/5.6 or faster. By taping pins you are lying to the camera about the true f/stop value of the lens. You are effectively trying to use it out of specification. The problem is not so much to do with light levels but to do with the optical path taken by the light and the phase difference that occurs with a wide aperture vs a narrow aperture for an OOF subject. Please don't ask me to explain the nitty gritty, because I can't, but the long and the short of it is that narrow apertures make AF tough. That is why you get "high" sensitivity/accuracy focusing with f/2.8 and faster glass, "OK" sensitivity between f/2.8 and f/5.6 and "pants" sensitivity narrower than f/5.6. I think the issues are very much related to the same magic that affects DOF....
- wide aperture = shallow DOF = easy to find point of sharp focus;
- narrow aperture = large DOF = big wallowy area where the sharp point of focus can not be easily located.
Remember that the AF system is designed to work with a lens of f/5.6 or faster. By taping pins you are lying to the camera about the true f/stop value of the lens. You are effectively trying to use it out of specification. The problem is not so much to do with light levels but to do with the optical path taken by the light and the phase difference that occurs with a wide aperture vs a narrow aperture for an OOF subject. Please don't ask me to explain the nitty gritty, because I can't, but the long and the short of it is that narrow apertures make AF tough. That is why you get "high" sensitivity/accuracy focusing with f/2.8 and faster glass, "OK" sensitivity between f/2.8 and f/5.6 and "pants" sensitivity narrower than f/5.6. I think the issues are very much related to the same magic that affects DOF....
- wide aperture = shallow DOF = easy to find point of sharp focus;
- narrow aperture = large DOF = big wallowy area where the sharp point of focus can not be easily located.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
"Soft n grotty" is of course a comparitive term...
Its nowhere near as good as the 100-400 at 400mm, and definitely not as good as a 400 f4 with a 1.4xTC on it, but it does cost less - assuming price/performance is what we are talking about.
Is a "soft n grotty" picture better than no picture at all? The answer to this in terms of news reporting is of course that ANY picture is better than nothing at all. Whether same same is true in terms of hobby photography, that's only down to yourself to decide...
Its nowhere near as good as the 100-400 at 400mm, and definitely not as good as a 400 f4 with a 1.4xTC on it, but it does cost less - assuming price/performance is what we are talking about.
Is a "soft n grotty" picture better than no picture at all? The answer to this in terms of news reporting is of course that ANY picture is better than nothing at all. Whether same same is true in terms of hobby photography, that's only down to yourself to decide...
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, without the teleconverter I'd have a subject that was 1.4X smaller in linear pixel dimensions and contained only half the number of pixels in total. Whether it would have been "far better" in terms of IQ I rather doubt. If you need to capture fine detail in feathers or fur then you need sufficient pixel density. If each pixel is larger than the fine detail projected onto the sensor then you will lose the detail completely. If, on the other hand, you first apply additional optical magnification, before the image strikes the sensor, you then stand a fighting chance of seeing the detail.
In short, if you have enough light to maintain a sufficiently high shutter speed, and you can focus properly then I'd say you're better off with the teleconverter. However, if that extra stop of lost light costs you in terms of shake/blur/diffraction then you'd be better off losing the TC and cropping from a sharper, if smaller, image.
In short, if you have enough light to maintain a sufficiently high shutter speed, and you can focus properly then I'd say you're better off with the teleconverter. However, if that extra stop of lost light costs you in terms of shake/blur/diffraction then you'd be better off losing the TC and cropping from a sharper, if smaller, image.
- Messages
- 5,722
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have both the Kenco and the Canon 1.4 TC. Using them with the 450D and the 100-400L, I 've never been able to get the AF to work, even with the pins taped. It just keeps hunting.
I took these and never bothered doing anything with them because of the feeders. But at least they will give a fair indication of what you can get, and I've seen a lot better on here too
Taken with the Canon TC using MF. The Kenco is allmost as good quality as the Canon, it's a job to tell them apart, the price being the main difference.
Uncropped, straight from the camera with a resize and a smidgen of sharpening.
Oh and one away from the feeder.
I took these and never bothered doing anything with them because of the feeders. But at least they will give a fair indication of what you can get, and I've seen a lot better on here too
Taken with the Canon TC using MF. The Kenco is allmost as good quality as the Canon, it's a job to tell them apart, the price being the main difference.
Uncropped, straight from the camera with a resize and a smidgen of sharpening.
Oh and one away from the feeder.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suppose at ~600mm your options are limited...
100-400 with a 1.4xTC
300 f4 with a 2x TC
300 f2.8 with a 2x TC
400 f4 with a 1.4x TC
500 f4 with a 1.4x TC
600 f4
And really, I suspect you aren't going to get anything much better until the last three on that list, even though the 50D will AF from the 300 2.8 onwards, but the 2x is never wonderful in terms of IQ (IMHO! I expect some smart alec to show me something otherwise, but generally, its not...)
100-400 with a 1.4xTC
300 f4 with a 2x TC
300 f2.8 with a 2x TC
400 f4 with a 1.4x TC
500 f4 with a 1.4x TC
600 f4
And really, I suspect you aren't going to get anything much better until the last three on that list, even though the 50D will AF from the 300 2.8 onwards, but the 2x is never wonderful in terms of IQ (IMHO! I expect some smart alec to show me something otherwise, but generally, its not...)
- Messages
- 3,036
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Never tried this, but how about the 50D, 1.4x and then crop into the image after that?
Will that induce the lack of detail that Tim describes? Logic tells me it will, since you have a mild degradation due to the 1.4 then you're taking pixels out by cropping, but I guess I could be wrong..:shrug:
Will that induce the lack of detail that Tim describes? Logic tells me it will, since you have a mild degradation due to the 1.4 then you're taking pixels out by cropping, but I guess I could be wrong..:shrug:
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 910
- Name
- gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so a 1x4 t c seems ok how about the 2x