extenders

Seamus

I'm saving for a Canon 400 5.6 lens. I was wondering if my sigma 1.4 and 2x extenders will work with this lens?

Shay.

pathfinder

shay wrote:

I'm saving for a Canon 400 5.6 lens. I was wondering if my sigma 1.4 and 2x extenders will work with this lens?

Shay.

I think they will, but your AF will not function,unless you are planning on covering the appropriate electrical contact in the lens. I don't remember which contact it is , but I think it is the fourth. Otherwise you will have the lens recognized as an f8 or f11 lens - and the 20D does not AF with lenses less than f5.6

Seamus

pathfinder wrote:

I think they will, but your AF will not function,unless you are planning on covering the appropriate electrical contact in the lens. I don't remember which contact it is , but I think it is the fourth. Otherwise you will have the lens recognized as an f8 or f11 lens - and the 20D does not AF with lenses less than f5.6

Thanks Pf, would a canon extender give me autofocus?

Shay.

wxwax

shay wrote:

Thanks Pf, would a canon extender give me autofocus?

Shay.

Yes. I do not recommend the 2x, tho, IMHO it's soft.

I'm not saying that you cannot USE apertures narrower than f/5.6 or f/8.0 while using the Canon 2x, but the lens + extender (with its 2 stop aperture loss) must be able to open up to at least these apertures for autofocus to work. The lens and extender combo can always be used in manual focus mode. Some people are reporting that the pins on the extender can be covered with tape to trick the camera into autofocusing. I doubt Canon condones this - I have not tried this.

Source

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

Yes.

Yes and no. Because a 1.4TC turns his 5.6 lens into an f/8, which a Canon 20D will not auto-focus on. Unless you pull the tape trick. Even then, you might find you need a lot of light to successfully AF with.

Seamus

wxwax wrote:

Yes. I do not recommend the 2x, tho, IMHO it's soft.


Source

That's what I found with the 2x with my sigma 70-200. As hard as I try I can't get sharp pics. Thanks.

Shay.

Seamus

mercphoto wrote:

Yes and no. Because a 1.4TC turns his 5.6 lens into an f/8, which a Canon 20D will not auto-focus on. Unless you pull the tape trick. Even then, you might find you need a lot of light to successfully AF with.

And there isn't a lot of light here, except for summer most days are cloudy and overcast. Thanks for the help,

Shay.

pathfinder

shay wrote:

And there isn't a lot of light here, except for summer most days are cloudy and overcast. Thanks for the help,

Shay.

As disappointing as it is, the truth is that f5.6 lenses are really at their best in brighter light. Even F4 becomes kind of marginal for early sunrise and sunset particularly with long lenses that need high shutter speeds.

Viewing through f8 lenses is no fun either - press in the apperature preview button on your camera with your lens set at f8 and see if you would be happy with that aperature. Now try it after sunset at f11 ( one stop closed from wide open - that is an f5.6 lens + a 1.4 TX = f8 then stopped down to f11 ) A 2x TX will cost you one more stop of course.
It really is hard to beat faster primes. But Canon doesn't give them away :cry

gus

shay wrote:

And there isn't a lot of light here, except for summer most days are cloudy and overcast. Thanks for the help,

Shay.

If you come to visit me shay...bring a welding helmet for the 1st few days until your eyes adjust.

ps..if your an electrician/jointer my company is sponsoring from the Uk atm. Handy if you've a slow lens

wxwax

pathfinder wrote:

It really is hard to beat faster primes. But Canon doesn't give them away :cry

Man, is that ever true.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

Yes. I do not recommend the 2x, tho, IMHO it's soft.


Source

Sid - I think the useablity of the 2x TX depends, to a great extent, on the quality of the lens it is used with. Used with a great, fast prime I think it is pretty fair. I used a 2x Tx with a Canon 300f2.8 for this image handheld ( f10 1/1600 ISO 800) and the cranes look crisp in an 8 x 13 in print. Might have been sharper if not hand held too. I think the frames with this combination were as good or bettter than the Canon 100-400 without a Tx.


But if you start with a lesser optic, the results won't get better - you're right.

Steve Cavigliano

Shay,

You can also pick up the cheapo Tamron 1.4X TC for under $80. The advantages of this TC are 1) it fits all lenses and 2) it doesn't report aperture. So if you attach it to an F5.6 lens, it still reports F5.6 so the AF works fine No pin taping required.

Don't know if you followed one of my threads from last week, but the person I was shooting with routinely uses the 400mm F5.6L and the Tamron 1.4X. She gets razor sharp results. This isn't one of her best shots, but it blew away any that I was able to get of this Harrier with the Bigma

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40871403


Good luck,
Steve

pathfinder

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Shay,

You can also pick up the cheapo Tamron 1.4X TC for under $80. The advantages of this TC are 1) it fits all lenses and 2) it doesn't report aperture. So if you attach it to an F5.6 lens, it still reports F5.6 so the AF works fine No pin taping required.

Don't know if you followed one of my threads from last week, but the person I was shooting with routinely uses the 400mm F5.6L and the Tamron 1.4X. She gets razor sharp results. This isn't one of her best shots, but it blew away any that I was able to get of this Harrier with the Bigma

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40871403


Good luck,
Steve

It might be worthwhile to add the Tamron 1.4 to my collection then - it would work with the Tamron 180 macro and would also stack behind a Canon 1.4 for double stacking then. Hmmmm.....

gus

pathfinder wrote:

It might be worthwhile to add the Tamron 1.4 to my collection then - it would work with the Tamron 180 macro and would also stack behind a Canon 1.4 for double stacking then. Hmmmm.....

So brings the question...we all know L is dear & good but does this apply to the extenders so much ? That white canon extender is a whole lot dearer than the black tamron one.

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

So brings the question...we all know L is dear & good but does this apply to the extenders so much ? That white canon extender is a whole lot dearer than the black tamron one.

I'm not sure whther there is a clear answer available that I can point you to 'gus. One of the reall differences was mentioned above - the Canon Tx's communicate with the camera body to tell it that the fstops need to be interpreted differently. Apparently the Tamron does not do this - this is either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your needs.
I chose the white Txs since I wanted to use it with Canon primes - why pay for a good lens and then stack an unknown Tx behind it? But I may pickup one of the $80 Tamrons to try with the 180 macro lens. Maybe someone will post some images with the different Tx for comparison - I think I have seen this somewhere but not sure .

Seamus

pathfinder wrote:

As disappointing as it is, the truth is that f5.6 lenses are really at their best in brighter light. Even F4 becomes kind of marginal for early sunrise and sunset particularly with long lenses that need high shutter speeds.

Viewing through f8 lenses is no fun either - press in the apperature preview button on your camera with your lens set at f8 and see if you would be happy with that aperature. Now try it after sunset at f11 ( one stop closed from wide open - that is an f5.6 lens + a 1.4 TX = f8 then stopped down to f11 ) A 2x TX will cost you one more stop of course.
It really is hard to beat faster primes. But Canon doesn't give them away :cry

Amen, the lens lust has to be contained. A 400 5.6 is €1400 - A 400 2.8 is €9,700. I want sharp pics but €8,000+ is taking the p*ss. I don't mean to exaggerate the poor light but it does rain a lot here. I don't feel too bad about buying the 400 5.6, I will get a lot of use out of it. But I couldn't spend the money on the 2.8 version for my standard of photography. A person who was working for National Geographic could justify that money but for mortals it is a compromise.

I will try your test with the ap button, thanks for the help,

Shay.

Seamus

Humungus wrote:

If you come to visit me shay...bring a welding helmet for the 1st few days until your eyes adjust.

ps..if your an electrician/jointer my company is sponsoring from the Uk atm. Handy if you've a slow lens

I would be on the next plane but Skippy and you have me paranoid about visiting OZ. I would be sleeping with a baseball bat and waking every five minutes looking for the giant bugs that you keep posting. :smack .

As for emigrating I did as little as possible in school so the only job that was open to me was the army. I got bored there and joined the police. So if you know any vacancies for soldiers / coppers I will risk the man eating spiders.

Shay.

Seamus

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Shay,

You can also pick up the cheapo Tamron 1.4X TC for under $80. The advantages of this TC are 1) it fits all lenses and 2) it doesn't report aperture. So if you attach it to an F5.6 lens, it still reports F5.6 so the AF works fine No pin taping required.

Don't know if you followed one of my threads from last week, but the person I was shooting with routinely uses the 400mm F5.6L and the Tamron 1.4X. She gets razor sharp results. This isn't one of her best shots, but it blew away any that I was able to get of this Harrier with the Bigma

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40871403


Good luck,
Steve

Hey Steve, I did follow your thread and, if you are reading Daniella, your pics are helping me decide on the 400. The tamron sounds like a great idea, thanks.

Shay.

gus

I know South Australia just imported 84 wallopers from the UK...i was reading an article on one chap the other day. He said it was odd to now carry a gun with him. He did drop a lot in pay but went on to mention the much lower cost of living & good weather.

I found this if your interested out of date that it is.

gus

pathfinder wrote:

I'm not sure whther there is a clear answer available that I can point you to 'gus. One of the reall differences was mentioned above - the Canon Tx's communicate with the camera body to tell it that the fstops need to be interpreted differently. Apparently the Tamron does not do this - this is either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your needs.
I chose the white Txs since I wanted to use it with Canon primes - why pay for a good lens and then stack an unknown Tx behind it? But I may pickup one of the $80 Tamrons to try with the 180 macro lens. Maybe someone will post some images with the different Tx for comparison - I think I have seen this somewhere but not sure .

I would be interested to see how you find it...tks for the reply.

Seamus

Humungus wrote:

I know South Australia just imported 84 wallopers from the UK...i was reading an article on one chap the other day. He said it was odd to now carry a gun with him. He did drop a lot in pay but went on to mention the much lower cost of living & good weather.

I found this if your interested out of date that it is.

Wallopers , that makes a change from "scumbag". thanks for the research gus but I would miss the sports here too much even if we did blow a chance at the grand slam:cry .

Off topic completely but the government started a savings scheme here 4 years ago to try to calm the economy down. Basically for every €4 you save they give you €1.

I have a small nestegg to collect next year and am going to blow it on a holiday. Dgrin 11, egret fest, is my target at the moment but if that doesn't work out then a tour of Oz and New Zealand is on the cards. To see the barrier reef is a lifelong ambition.

Shay.

gus

shay wrote:

Wallopers , that makes a change from "scumbag". thanks for the research gus but I would miss the sports here too much even if we did blow a chance at the grand slam:cry .

Off topic completely but the government started a savings scheme here 4 years ago to try to calm the economy down. Basically for every €4 you save they give you €1.

I have a small nestegg to collect next year and am going to blow it on a holiday. Dgrin 11, egret fest, is my target at the moment but if that doesn't work out then a tour of Oz and New Zealand is on the cards. To see the barrier reef is a lifelong ambition.

Shay.

The reef is a blow out mate...i stayed at the reaserch station on Heron Island for 2 weeks & dived from there. You can lay on the sand at the bottom at 90 feet deep & look at the surface. The giant groper come up behind you & suck your hair into their mouth...all you feel is this huge vacumme behind your ears . I had a really really close call with an 8' tiger shark but the island ranger said "oh dont worry about harry...he's only after the stingrays...he does like to check you out though "

I dont think there is a better fish to eat than a coral trout.

davev

pathfinder wrote:

I'm not sure whther there is a clear answer available that I can point you to 'gus. One of the reall differences was mentioned above - the Canon Tx's communicate with the camera body to tell it that the fstops need to be interpreted differently. Apparently the Tamron does not do this - this is either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your needs.
I chose the white Txs since I wanted to use it with Canon primes - why pay for a good lens and then stack an unknown Tx behind it? But I may pickup one of the $80 Tamrons to try with the 180 macro lens. Maybe someone will post some images with the different Tx for comparison - I think I have seen this somewhere but not sure .

I don't have any clear answers, but I have tried a couple of tc's.

I had a quantaray 2x for a short time. ( I may buy it again [ $80 at Ritz ] )
I used it for about 3 days with my Canon 70-200l f4 and Canon 75-300is.
It worked way better with the L (faster) glass than with the 75-300is.
I returned it, but I really don't think I gave it a fair shot. The weekend that
I used it was overcast, and therefore lacking in light.

anyway's, a couple of shots from the 70-200L f4 and the quantaray 2x
Yes, i have done post work to them, and they were hand held.






Now on to the Tamron 1.4 ( $80 )

It works OK if you can fill the frame, if you start cropping, the background
looks a little wierd. I have used it with my 70-200L f4, and Sigma 80-400os
and the pics turned out pretty well. I tried using it with the 75-300is and
had no luck using AF. The lens did a lot of hunting.
I use it when I just can't get any closer to the thing that I'm trying to shoot.

Anyway's, Sigma 80-400os with Tamron 1.4, 100% crop of the moon, hand held




Canon 70-200L f4 with Tamron 1.4, full pic, (resized) hand held.




and this ends my mini review of the Quantaray 2x, and Tamron 1.4 tc.

dave.

Seamus

Humungus wrote:

The reef is a blow out mate...i stayed at the reaserch station on Heron Island for 2 weeks & dived from there. You can lay on the sand at the bottom at 90 feet deep & look at the surface. The giant groper come up behind you & suck your hair into their mouth...all you feel is this huge vacumme behind your ears . I had a really really close call with an 8' tiger shark but the island ranger said "oh dont worry about harry...he's only after the stingrays...he does like to check you out though "

I dont think there is a better fish to eat than a coral trout.

"The Queensland Groper has been implicated in fatal attacks on humans." Jeez, is there any kind of flora or fauna that doesn't try to eat you in Oz?

Heron Island looks absolutely spectacular, it's now top of the list . I was looking at underwater cameras and the canon a95 has a cheap underwater casing. I don't know if the results would be any good but it is a lot cheaper than a case for the 20d. Getting a shot of the tiger shark while he was browsing the lunch menu would be cool . Btw, how close a call was it?

Shay.

pathfinder

davev wrote:

I don't have any clear answers, but I have tried a couple of tc's.

I had a quantaray 2x for a short time. ( I may buy it again [ $80 at Ritz ] )
I used it for about 3 days with my Canon 70-200l f4 and Canon 75-300is.
It worked way better with the L (faster) glass than with the 75-300is.

Like I said, it is always better to start with a good prime - the Tx is lesser of the two in importance. And shooting full frame is always preferable to cropping. I just wish the birds were aware of that importance also.

I returned it, but I really don't think I gave it a fair shot. The weekend that
I used it was overcast, and therefore lacking in light.

anyway's, a couple of shots from the 70-200L f4 and the quantaray 2x
Yes, i have done post work to them, and they were hand held.






Now on to the Tamron 1.4 ( $80 )

It works OK if you can fill the frame, if you start cropping, the background
looks a little wierd. I have used it with my 70-200L f4, and Sigma 80-400os
and the pics turned out pretty well. I tried using it with the 75-300is and
had no luck using AF. The lens did a lot of hunting.
I use it when I just can't get any closer to the thing that I'm trying to shoot.

Anyway's, Sigma 80-400os with Tamron 1.4, 100% crop of the moon, hand held




Canon 70-200L f4 with Tamron 1.4, full pic, (resized) hand held.




and this ends my mini review of the Quantaray 2x, and Tamron 1.4 tc.

dave.

I think your shots look pretty nice and show just what can be accomplished with a 2x Tx or a 1.4 Tx. I am giving more thught to adding the Tamron 1.4 Tx to my kit - will work with the 100 or 180 macro lenses I think.:):

Andy

canon 1.4x converter, 100% crop
1/1000th, f/8, iso 400

canon 70-200 f/2.8L + canon 1.4x teleconverter is, imo, a good combination. i won't hesitate to use it at all

here's the representative pic



click here for the 100% crop .

no post whatsover on this. it's pretty darn sharp i'd say. the image responded well to a little post-processing to bring up the shadows.

ginger_55

The Canon 1.4 with the 300 Prime is a darn good tool, too. I am checking into the 2 Xs also, but with expensive glass don't want to go downhill.

I would recommend the 1.4, I have researched it, and just about everyone recommends it.

It would extend the 70- 200 just far enough for some people.

this photo started out as horizontal, so I know it is cropped. I don't usually crop........sometimes, and I am in a hurry. 300L L with the 1.4 extender.

Harry said he liked it.




wide 17-40L to this with the 300 extender. I know some people don't like these, but I do. That is the important thing right. I wouldn't have wanted it longer.

See the daddy bird hold the little birds, 2, in his arms, while two other birds are nearby, all over on that tree.



Gotta go, plan to spend more time here, so comments could be helpful. I cannot get closer. I do like the family groups. A close up would be nice, but the equipment to get it.

Anyway, this is wide to 300 with 1.4 extender.
cropped pretty much a bunch.

ginger (I underexposed so as not to blow the white egrets. In doing that I developed a noise problem. My book on RAW mentioned that last night, don't know, but hope to learn what to do, I used Noise Ninja.)

Stan

shay wrote:

"The Queensland Groper has been implicated in fatal attacks on humans." Jeez, is there any kind of flora or fauna that doesn't try to eat you in Oz?

Heron Island looks absolutely spectacular, it's now top of the list . I was looking at underwater cameras and the canon a95 has a cheap underwater casing. I don't know if the results would be any good but it is a lot cheaper than a case for the 20d. Getting a shot of the tiger shark while he was browsing the lunch menu would be cool . Btw, how close a call was it?

Shay.

Steady wasn't there a Brit in a cage last week or was that South Africa. Sorry I'm on holiday no news no internet (oops) since friday evening. now only 01:11 BST cos we have changed time here. I here Theonly place out of sync is the USA....

But then Gus changed today but instead of going forward..............