Advise on Canon EF 1.4 Extender

[Dr Bob]

I am considering a Canon 1.4 Extender to use with the Canon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM lens. I do not use this Len frequently, but recently on vacation I needed a little more distance on a rare wildlife shot. Anyone have any experience using the Canon extenders with this lens?

Thanks.

Dr Bob

[Bobobird]

Which camera?

A point to note - Canon 1.4 Teleconverters will not fit this lens. The Kenko version will.

[Dr Bob]

I would be using it on a 7D, but if it does not fit this lens I can scratch that idea. I better save my money for a larger lens.

Thanks.

Dr Bob

[Bobobird]

That is a good option.

[William W]

also . . . consider the AF:

As already noted, the Canon x1.4 will not mount on that lens – so that stops that discussion.
If you use a third party x1.4 you will most likely have AF difficulty, as for much of the zoom’s compass your Largest Available Aperture will exceed the Camera’s AF limit.

The EF 400F/5.6L USM is a very nice, inexpensive 400mm lens.

Dr Bill

[Dr Bob]

Thanks Bill.
I noticed the EF 400mm, 5.6L USM lens. Have you used this lens? I have also read a few reviews and it seems to perform well.

Dr Bob

[Glenn NK]

Bob:

I was looking at the 70-300 and the 70-200 lenses. My choice was the 70-200 because it will take either of the EX's (1.4 or 2.0).

There are quite a few other Canon lenses that won't take the EX; 100 macro, 24-105 (both of which I have) and others.

Glenn

[Dr Bob]

Glenn:

Yea, I didn't think about at the time. I like the 70-300mm lens, it takes excellent photos. I am more of landscape and macro photographer. I bought the 70-300mm lens for those few longer shots. I was challenged on recent trip to capture some wildlife so obviously I am now wanting a larger lens. I have to weigh the cost against my needs and how much I will use the 400mm lens.

Dr Bob

[Steve S]

Hi bob, have you considered the 300 f/4 L IS. It works great with the 1.4 X TC and you will have 2 lenses in one. The straight 300 is sharp as a tack and with the tc , you will get 420mm and IS to boot. Much better lens in my opinion.

[Glenn NK]

Bob:

I should have added: I have the 70-200 f/2.8 (not the Mark II), and it is a HEAVY lens. And it won't fit into any bag that I have - fortunately it comes in its own case - but it doesn't come with a porter.

When the 80-300 came out, I tried one out in the camera shop, and the size was very compact and would fit into my bag - and it wasn't all that heavy.

Maybe we should trade . . . .

Glenn

[rpcrowe]

I have the 400mm f/5.6L and it is a fantastic lens with top notch autofocus speed and accuracy as well as great IQ. The only drawback is that it doesn't have IS so the shutter speed (for me at least) must be kept over 1/500 second or thereabouts when hand-holding the lens. The saving grace of this lens is that image quality is as good shooting wide open as it is stopped down a bit...

This hydroplane was crossing my camera position at a high speed and fairly close. The autofocus locked right on.




This hydroplane was approaching the camera at a likely speed of over one hundred miles per hour...



I am not a birder but, the 400L is generally considered one of the best birds in flight lens there is...

[William W]

I noticed the EF 400mm, 5.6L USM lens. Have you used this lens? I have also read a few reviews and it seems to perform well.

No I have not: I get to 400mm by other means.

Richard Crowe's comments and photos are absolutely commensurate with the "Birders" in the Camera Club I often visit.
It is considered by them a top notch "birds in flight" lens - just as Richard mentioned - and it is really REALLY, good value for money.
I suggested the lens on my colleagues’ comments and their results: which I have interrogated & judged.


***

. . . the 300 f/4 L IS . . . works great with the 1.4 X TC and you will have 2 lenses in one.

I have used this combination and can endorse both the 300F/4L IS lens and the use of the x1.4MkII with it. The 300/4 is cracking sharp and very good with both the x1.4MkII and MkIII

I did not suggest this combination because you already have a 70 to 300 zoom with IS and I was not answering outside that box.


***

I was looking at the 70-300 and the 70-200 lenses. My choice was the 70-200 because it will take either of the EX's (1.4 or 2.0). There are quite a few other Canon lenses that won't take the EX; 100 macro, 24-105 (both of which I have) and others

Not that this comment matters all that much, but Dr Bob is discussing the EF 70 to 300F/4~5.6 IS USM . . . and

NOT the EF 70 to 300F/4.5~5.6L IS USM.


I only mention this becasue I am just a little confused by the flow of conversation.

The 70 to 300 is not in the same bracket of lenses as the 70 to 200L series, nor the 24 to 105L.

And the comment about the Tele-extenders seems to be directed at them NOT fitting on SOME L Series Lenses - which they do not.


BTW -

I have very good reasons to believe the x2.0MkIII EF Tele Extender – WILL attach to the EF 70 to 300F/4.5~5.6L IS USM.

But only to use the lens and extender combination SPECIFICALLY as a 600 F/8 Manual Focus Prime Lens.

I understand that zooming may present problems.

I have NOT shot with this package myself – but it is on my “To-Do” list: specifically to confirm this suggestion of what is actually possible.

Obviously I did not suggest this earlier, because I assumed Dr Bob would want the zooming function and also, I am yet not 100% sure - but I am 99% sure that what I wrote just now, is correct.

WW

[Dr Bob]

Thanks Richard. Nice photos and very helpful comments on the 400mm lens. It is under consideration, if I decide to purchase a longer lens.

Thanks William. You are correct in that I was specifically referring to the 70-300F lens. I was just trying getting the most out of a lens I already have. You and others have given me lots of things to consider here. I will give the various options consideration AND save my money for a future lens and/or extender.

Thanks all. This is the value of this fine site.

Dr Bob

[rpcrowe]

I no longer have any images I shot with my previous Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX lens, but the image quality was very good considering I only paid $100 USD for the lens used on eBay USA (I later sold it for $150). The auto focus, while accurate, was quite a bit slower than my present 400mm f/5.6L lens. However, for the price, it was a very viable long lens for stationary or slow moving subjects.

The image quality of the ATX lens was far better than the non-ATX lens which preceeded it at Tokina and I suspect better than the 80-400mm Tokina zoom (at 400mm) which was (and I believe still is) Tokina's entry into the long lens field. I know that the IQ of the Tokina ATX was better than that of the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 but, I don't know if the AF was better or worse than the Sigma or the Tokina zoom.. Additionally, I know the Tokina ATX would function with Canon DSLR cameras at least up to the 40D. That was my most modern DSLR when I had the Tokina. It is always a gamble when you try to use an older Sigma lens on more modern Canon DSLR cameras...

[Ken MT]

What about a 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6. I find this a useful lens, and do use it with a 2x converter, although it means manual focus, but IS still works.


Greyfaced heron in Christchurch wetlands at 800 mm