Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

100-400 with 1.4X on a 20D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:06:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've seen posts both ways [and I'm not sure I'll believe any answers to this
post either... :) ], but can anyone say for sure if the canon 100-400 with the
canon 1.4 II extender will auto-focus on a canon 20D body? [And is it limited
to the center spot?]

Thanks.

More about : 100 400 20d

Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Bill -- do you have a 20d, or are you assuming?

I have a 10D (and a 1Ds and two 1D Mark II's) and I've tested it on the
10D with the 100-400 IS (which I have) and the 1.4x, and the AF simply
shuts off and won't even attempt to AF ... the 10D and 20D are both
built on the Elan (film camera) body, which has the f/5.6 AF
limitation. The EOS-3 film body (which I have) has greater sensitivity
and will AF at f/8 (center sensor only), as will the 1V body (which is
what the 1Ds and 1D MII are built on).

>The 20d manual says it should AF with a 5.6 lens or faster -- but doesn't
>say if that means 5.6 before or after the multiplication factor.
>That's the part that confuses me.

It's f/5.6 regardless of whether or not you have the converter on ...
the converter costs you one stop, so lenses with f/4 and faster max
apertures will AF with the 1.4x (and lenses f/2.8 and faster will AF
with the 2x) while anything slower than f/4 will not work with the
converter (without the tricks) because they are now slower than f/5.6.

> [told you I might not believe the answer.....]

Think about it ... your 20D manual says "it should AF with a 5.6 lens
or faster" ... when you add the 1.4x to this lens it becomes f/6.3 (at
100 mm) to f/8 (at 400 mm). The body senses this and shuts off AF, it
won't even try to do it.

Bill
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:24:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tUkxe.1672$kM5.619@trndny05...
> I've seen posts both ways [and I'm not sure I'll believe any answers to
> this
> post either... :) ], but can anyone say for sure if the canon 100-400 with
> the
> canon 1.4 II extender will auto-focus on a canon 20D body? [And is it
> limited
> to the center spot?]
>
> Thanks.

No it won't.
--Not unless you tape over two of the contacts...which will fool the camera,
and allow it to attempt autofocus.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:07:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Ycmxe.259$vE5.235@trndny07>,
"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:

>Bill -- do you have a 20d, or are you assuming? The 20d manual says it should
>AF with a 5.6 lens or faster -- but doesn't say if that means 5.6 before or
>after the multiplication factor. That's the part that confuses me. [and B&H
>seems to say that the 100-400 will AF].

The resultant f-stop (as the camera sees it) is what matters. With the
Canon TCs, and the Kenko Pro 300 and the Tamron SP TCs, the camera will
see the resultant f-stop. With the cheaper TCs, it will only see the
lens' f-stop (or if you tape the better ones).

IMO, unless you are using an f/2.8 lens with a 1.4x TC, you are much
better off manually focusing. It will be faster, and more accurate,
unless you have vision or dexterity issues.

Really, the only time I use AF with telephoto lenses is when there is a
distinct distance gap between the subject, the background, and the
foreground, like a bird on a wire. In many cases, the complexity of the
scene makes AF go off into lala land, and I miss lots of shots. That's
*without* a TC.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
July 2, 2005 9:47:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Samsez,

I do have a 20D and you can take Bill's word for it. It operates as he
states.

regards

Don
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120271373.416181.119320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Bill -- do you have a 20d, or are you assuming?
>
> I have a 10D (and a 1Ds and two 1D Mark II's) and I've tested it on the
> 10D with the 100-400 IS (which I have) and the 1.4x, and the AF simply
> shuts off and won't even attempt to AF ... the 10D and 20D are both
> built on the Elan (film camera) body, which has the f/5.6 AF
> limitation. The EOS-3 film body (which I have) has greater sensitivity
> and will AF at f/8 (center sensor only), as will the 1V body (which is
> what the 1Ds and 1D MII are built on).
>
>>The 20d manual says it should AF with a 5.6 lens or faster -- but doesn't
>>say if that means 5.6 before or after the multiplication factor.
>>That's the part that confuses me.
>
> It's f/5.6 regardless of whether or not you have the converter on ...
> the converter costs you one stop, so lenses with f/4 and faster max
> apertures will AF with the 1.4x (and lenses f/2.8 and faster will AF
> with the 2x) while anything slower than f/4 will not work with the
> converter (without the tricks) because they are now slower than f/5.6.
>
>> [told you I might not believe the answer.....]
>
> Think about it ... your 20D manual says "it should AF with a 5.6 lens
> or faster" ... when you add the 1.4x to this lens it becomes f/6.3 (at
> 100 mm) to f/8 (at 400 mm). The body senses this and shuts off AF, it
> won't even try to do it.
>
> Bill
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:07:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>John P Sheehy writes ...
>
>I don't know why people even *think* bout AF with TCs, unless
>they're using a multi-thousand-dollar f/2.8 fixed-focal-length lens.

Nonsense ... with a 500 f/4 and a pro body (usually 1D Mark II) I shoot
wildlife several times a week, probably 80% of the time with the 1.4x
and most of the rest of the time with the 2x (which still AF's using
the center spot). The AF is lightning quick with either of these
converters, especially the 1.4x. I can even AF on larger birds in
flight (like egrets or herons) with the 1.4x with the 500mm lens
mounted on a Wimberley gimbal tripod head, so long as I can track the
bird.

>Even if they work, they don't.

Works great ... want to see some pics?

>You will lose the moment more often than
>not, as the lens hunts and parks out-of-focus.

What gear are you using? The Rebel and 10D didn't AF very fast (I used
a 10D for a while and thought it was definitely inferior to my EOS-3
film camera for AF), but I hear the 20D is much improved. For sure the
1D and 1D Mark II will AF with great speed, this is what pro
photographers use at the Super Bowl and other sporting events to catch
the action. You need a USM lens, the non-USM lenses are terribly slow,
but with a good USM lens and especially with a Pro body you can AF
really fast, even with the 1.4x.

Bill
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:07:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120316827.401046.131120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >John P Sheehy writes ...
>>
>>I don't know why people even *think* bout AF with TCs, unless
>>they're using a multi-thousand-dollar f/2.8 fixed-focal-length lens.
>
> Nonsense ... with a 500 f/4 and a pro body (usually 1D Mark II) I shoot
> wildlife several times a week, probably 80% of the time with the 1.4x
> and most of the rest of the time with the 2x (which still AF's using
> the center spot). The AF is lightning quick with either of these
> converters, especially the 1.4x. I can even AF on larger birds in
> flight (like egrets or herons) with the 1.4x with the 500mm lens
> mounted on a Wimberley gimbal tripod head, so long as I can track the
> bird.
>
>>Even if they work, they don't.
>
> Works great ... want to see some pics?
>
>>You will lose the moment more often than
>>not, as the lens hunts and parks out-of-focus.
>
> What gear are you using? The Rebel and 10D didn't AF very fast (I used
> a 10D for a while and thought it was definitely inferior to my EOS-3
> film camera for AF), but I hear the 20D is much improved. For sure the
> 1D and 1D Mark II will AF with great speed, this is what pro
> photographers use at the Super Bowl and other sporting events to catch
> the action. You need a USM lens, the non-USM lenses are terribly slow,
> but with a good USM lens and especially with a Pro body you can AF
> really fast, even with the 1.4x.
>


Even on the 300D my 100-400 AF plenty fast enough to catch speedy action.
I've shot racing events, day and night, with my 300D 100-400 combo using AF.
With daytime use I've never missed a shot due to AF. Night shooting is a
bit trickier but definitely doable. That's not to say that I haven't seen
AF issues with the lens but it usually occurs under difficult situation when
what you are focusing on doesn't have much color or contrast differences.

With that said, I do have a cheapo 2x TC which I've used to shoot rowing
events and AF was more cumbersome to use but once I got the hang of it I
could AF on most anything I wanted. My problem was the quality of the
images wasn't great. When I can I'm going to spring for a Canon 1.4 and
hopefully the image quality will be better.

HTH

Rob
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZvidnXfBQexEJlvfRVn-1A@giganews.com...

>
> Even on the 300D my 100-400 AF plenty fast enough to catch speedy action.
> I've shot racing events, day and night, with my 300D 100-400 combo using
> AF. With daytime use I've never missed a shot due to AF. Night shooting
> is a bit trickier but definitely doable. That's not to say that I haven't
> seen AF issues with the lens but it usually occurs under difficult
> situation when what you are focusing on doesn't have much color or
> contrast differences.
>
> With that said, I do have a cheapo 2x TC which I've used to shoot rowing
> events and AF was more cumbersome to use but once I got the hang of it I
> could AF on most anything I wanted. My problem was the quality of the
> images wasn't great. When I can I'm going to spring for a Canon 1.4 and
> hopefully the image quality will be better.
>
> HTH
>
> Rob
>
Yes, but...
Reference the above conversation, if you use the Canon 1.4x, your 100-400
won't AF. And your image quality will suffer, not as much as with the
aftermarket TC, but it will still suffer...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Hjrxe.6553$Eo.639@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>I owned this combo (before I sold my 100-400).
>It will NOT work.
>(Again...as I posted above, there's a work-around, but you won't be
>impressed with the AF performance).

I don't know why people even *think* bout AF with TCs, unless they're
using a multi-thousand-dollar f/2.8 fixed-focal-length lens.

Even if they work, they don't. You will lose the moment more often than
not, as the lens hunts and parks out-of-focus. It's an excercise in
futility.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:49:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <tirxe.6552$Eo.65@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>No it won't.
>--Not unless you tape over two of the contacts...which will fool the camera,
>and allow it to attempt autofocus.

"Attempt" is a very good choice of word.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:49:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:maadc19iq86jhpdo3k953eq7gr3nktb1jd@4ax.com...
> In message <tirxe.6552$Eo.65@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>No it won't.
>>--Not unless you tape over two of the contacts...which will fool the
>>camera,
>>and allow it to attempt autofocus.
>
> "Attempt" is a very good choice of word.

That word was chosen quite intentionally.
:) 
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:50:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks all !!! Not one response that it works [without the hack]. I'm
convinced....
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ZvidnXfBQexEJlvfRVn-1A@giganews.com>,
"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Even on the 300D my 100-400 AF plenty fast enough to catch speedy action.
>I've shot racing events, day and night, with my 300D 100-400 combo using AF.
>With daytime use I've never missed a shot due to AF.

Have you shot many birds in trees with branches directly behind, and
closer than the bird? In a field of uncut grass?

I can manually focus my 100-400 much faster and more accurately in such
situations. And over-ride is not an option, as the camera/lens combo
may decide to AF again, *OUT* of focus, even if I haven't released the
half-shutter press since I did an over-ride. I have to turn off AF
completely, and not be able to enjoy it when it does work properly,
without flipping the switch. Unfortunately, the size of my thumb and
hand does not allow AF-ing with the button on the back of the camera
when using a large, heavy lens (only works with both hands on the
camera).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:06:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <3tzxe.2141$HV1.28@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>And your image quality will suffer, not as much as with the
>aftermarket TC, but it will still suffer...

Unfortunately, most comments on degradation don't make any distinction
between optical degradation (after taking the 0.707x-ing or halving of
lens resolution into account) and the increased need of shutter speed
just from the magnification, combined with the loss of light due to the
magnification, and the possible need to shoot wide-open.

Many people speak as if the loss of MTF at the focal plane, and the
motion blur, and softness of a wide-open lens are a quality of the TC
itself.

The shots I take with my 100-400 and Tamron SP 2x with flash and
better-beamer at high-ISO show a resolution that is virtually impossible
to obtain in ambient light, so the optical problems are actually not the
main contributors to image quality loss.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:58:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:f0vfc15nvh2cjkoacp6nvrk2vk4rsdurfc@4ax.com...
> In message <3tzxe.2141$HV1.28@fed1read07>,
SNIP
> The shots I take with my 100-400 and Tamron SP 2x with
> flash and better-beamer at high-ISO show a resolution that
> is virtually impossible to obtain in ambient light, so the
> optical problems are actually not the main contributors to
> image quality loss.

Correct, all the extenders do is 'magnify' the image from the lens in
front (and add some aberrations of their own). If the lens has enough
excess resolution capacity, the extender won't ruin enough of it to
become an issue. There may be some contrast loss, and visible corner
unsharpness with Full-Frame sensors. Other factors, like longer
shutter-speed due to loss of light, or camera shake, become much more
limiting to image quality.

And as always, there is still the trade-off to be made between
cropping with magnifying, versus using an extender. I plan on doing
some MTF comparisons, but those will only be valid for the specific
lens and extender (2x Kenko 300 Pro which is identical to the Tamron)
combo.

Bart
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:41:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42c8273e$0$77850$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>And as always, there is still the trade-off to be made between
>cropping with magnifying, versus using an extender. I plan on doing
>some MTF comparisons, but those will only be valid for the specific
>lens and extender (2x Kenko 300 Pro which is identical to the Tamron)
>combo.

Just from subjective experience, I feel that it is probably better to go
a *little* bit into high-frequency loss with a TC than to interpolate a
straight lens, but not too far. Just a little bit overcomes bayer
artifacts to some degree.

Generally speaking, a slightly soft image with the 2x is a little better
when downsized to 50% than using the straight lens, but if it is *very*
soft, nothing is gained.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:30:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:078hc1puuketrdu6a0l2tv4c3nu1hfmpl9@4ax.com...
> In message <42c8273e$0$77850$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>And as always, there is still the trade-off to be made between
>>cropping with magnifying, versus using an extender. I plan on doing
>>some MTF comparisons, but those will only be valid for the specific
>>lens and extender (2x Kenko 300 Pro which is identical to the
>>Tamron)
>>combo.
>
> Just from subjective experience, I feel that it is probably better
> to go
> a *little* bit into high-frequency loss with a TC than to
> interpolate a
> straight lens, but not too far. Just a little bit overcomes bayer
> artifacts to some degree.
>
> Generally speaking, a slightly soft image with the 2x is a little
> better
> when downsized to 50% than using the straight lens, but if it is
> *very*
> soft, nothing is gained.

Yes, that's my take on it as well.

Here are some test results from another RPD "regular":
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpn...

Bart
!