# Are extenders useless?



## LSeries (Apr 4, 2015)

I've been playing with EF EX 1.4x II and EF EX 2x III together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM and Canon 7D mk2. I've constantly managed to get better image quality (sharper + deeper colors) by just heavily cropping the 300 mm image without extenders. Does anyone agree? Because of this I'm now a bit puzzled as to how to get closer (to birds) while maintaining the image quality of my 300 mm lens without those huge and super expensive 500 mm or 600 mm Canon lenses. What would you suggest? The 100-400 mm ? I like to go out by bike with the camera in my back bag so this is one of the reasons I love the 300 mm.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 4, 2015)

The 1.4x is fine on my 500mm.
Start with a great lens there ok.

Best suggestion is get a blind, learn calls, feeders if that suits you.
Getting close us preferred.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 4, 2015)

LSeries said:


> I've been playing with EF EX 1.4x II and EF EX 2x III together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM and Canon 7D mk2. I've constantly managed to get better image quality (sharper + deeper colors) by just heavily cropping the 300 mm image without extenders. Does anyone agree? Because of this I'm now a bit puzzled as to how to get closer (to birds) while maintaining the image quality of my 300 mm lens without those huge and super expensive 500 mm or 600 mm Canon lenses. What would you suggest? The 100-400 mm ? I like to go out by bike with the camera in my back bag so this is one of the reasons I love the 300 mm.



The 300f4 is the wrong lens for birding (unless you're on Nikon, but then you have the wrong system for birding, because...), the 400f5.6 prime is the best budget birding lens in history.
The 300f2.8IS2 or new 400f4DOIS2 would be better (the 300f2.8IS2 with 1.4xTC actually looks better than the 400f5.6 which is a real feat for a lens with a teleconverter), but also six times more expensive.
The new 100-400ISMk2 is about the same, but twice as expensive, though it gets the best build quality, IS, and Maximim Magnification Canon has ever put into a telephoto zoom lens.
It should be pretty much ideal if you're willing to pay for it (seeing as you have both TC's I'm guessing that's not a problem? At least selling them would get you most of the way).
I get frustrated trying to shoot small birds with a crop sensor on the 400f5.6 prime, it can't get close enough. With a 1.4xTC it might be ok but I don't have AF at f8 either. You do, so maybe the 400f5.6 prime is the right answer, or maybe the 100-400ISMk2 is.
People get tired of checking test charts, so I'm going to say a rental of the 100-400ISMk2 is probably in order (you will probably fall in love the moment you touch it). Then you can play with the TC's and I would be very excited to see your results.

I think it's worth noting one last time that the 100-400ISMk2 and 7D2 were basically made for each other. That lens is specifically sharp in the middle, which most benefits crop sensors and they're both weather sealed, a setup you're not going to find with a cheaper lens. Given the body in question here I think that makes this combination especially worth consideration unless you know for sure you're never going to get stuck in the rain (don't forget to put a filter on the front).


----------



## Freddie (Apr 4, 2015)

I get absolutely great results with the Canon Teleconverters with any Canon lens I've put them on. I did find that the 2X TC III worked better for me than the 2X TC II but others have found little difference between those two TCs. In testing with charts, none of the TCs significantly detracts from image quality for me. I use them constantly on three different camera bodies and two lenses.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 4, 2015)

Within the Canon lens system, sounds like the only two options would be the 400 5.6 (with no IS) or the new 100-400 II. 

The next step up would be the new 400 f/4 DO II but that's $7K(!)...

Otherwise, it's probably Sigma or Tamron's superzoom 1xx-600mm lenses (which are more affordable, but still quite hefty).


----------



## LSeries (Apr 4, 2015)

9VIII said:


> The 300f4 is the wrong lens for birding (unless you're on Nikon, but then you have the wrong system for birding, because...), the 400f5.6 prime is the best budget birding lens in history.
> The 300f2.8IS2 or new 400f4DOIS2 would be better (the 300f2.8IS2 with 1.4xTC actually looks better than the 400f5.6 which is a real feat for a lens with a teleconverter), but also six times more expensive.
> The new 100-400ISMk2 is about the same, but twice as expensive, though it gets the best build quality, IS, and Maximim Magnification Canon has ever put into a telephoto zoom lens.
> It should be pretty much ideal if you're willing to pay for it (seeing as you have both TC's I'm guessing that's not a problem? At least selling them would get you most of the way).
> ...



The reason I haven't (yet) gotten the 400 f/5.6L is the lack of IS. And I HATE Canon for that  Maybe I'll test it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2015)

I found cropping a bare 100-400 (MkI) was better than using the 1.4xII with it. The MkIII extenders deliver excellent results with my 600/4 II. 

Note that you need to AFMA the lens+TC separately from the bare lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2015)

Adding a teleconverter into the optical path is to add several optical elements and to increase distortion. Adding 2 teleconverters is twice as bad. Yes, you are getting more magnification, but the distortion increases as well, usually more than the magnification and you end up with a net loss in resolving power


If you are going to use a teleconverter on a crop camera, you need a very sharp lens to be able to get any benefit. The sharpest of zooms will give you more resolving power with a 1.4X teleconverter, you actually drop resolving power with a 2X.....

If you want more reach, go get one of the 150-600 lenses or wait for a series II 400F5.6, you will need a series II prime to get decent performance with a teleconverter.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2015)

NO! They are not useless. Their usefulness depends on the lens you use. It's well known that the 300mm f/4 IS doesn't take extenders well, and is not as good with the 1.4xTC as the bare 400mm f/5.6 or the old 100-400 zoom. The 100-400mm II works very well with the 1.4xTC III, as does the 300mm f/2.8 II with the 1.4 and 2xTC III.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 4, 2015)

LSeries said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The 300f4 is the wrong lens for birding (unless you're on Nikon, but then you have the wrong system for birding, because...), the 400f5.6 prime is the best budget birding lens in history.
> ...



Are you shooting BIF or landed birds more?
For BIF (if your shutter speed is usually at or faster than 1/1000sec), IS makes practically no difference because the shutter speed required to freeze the motion of the bird will also compensate for your wobblyness. The only time you need it is on cloudy days or when the sun is setting (which is prime time for most wildlife though maybe not specifically for birds), but that won't stop the bird from moving too fast for your shutter speed while using IS anyway.


----------



## Viper28 (Apr 4, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> The 1.4x is fine on my 500mm.
> Start with a great lens there ok.



I'd agree with that, start with a good lens. I use a 1.4xIII on my 300/2.8L a lot and unless I really pixel peep I can't tell the difference at any size I usually view / print. That said I know a few people who use the 300/4 + 1.4x to great effect on the likes of 7D's, in most cases however they have had to do some MFA on them to get the best results


----------



## LSeries (Apr 4, 2015)

Viper28 said:


> tell the difference at any size I usually view / print. That said I know a few people who use the 300/4 + 1.4x to great effect on the likes of 7D's, in most cases however they have had to do some MFA on them to get the best results



Yeah, the 300/4 + 1.4x is quite ok despite some chromatic aberrations.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 4, 2015)

I had to try a second 1.4x III before seeing that it works GREAT on my 100-400mm II.

First copy was horrible.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 4, 2015)

LSeries said:


> I've been playing with EF EX 1.4x II and EF EX 2x III together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM and Canon 7D mk2. I've constantly managed to get better image quality (sharper + deeper colors) by just heavily cropping the 300 mm image without extenders. Does anyone agree? Because of this I'm now a bit puzzled as to how to get closer (to birds) while maintaining the image quality of my 300 mm lens without those huge and super expensive 500 mm or 600 mm Canon lenses. What would you suggest? The 100-400 mm ? I like to go out by bike with the camera in my back bag so this is one of the reasons I love the 300 mm.



Putting two extenders together and expecting a sharp image is going to result in a big disappointment. (Did I read this wrong?)

Most recommend sticking with a 1.4X, or on a very good lens, a 2X.

This is the quandary we all face, trying to get a shot of a small bird or a larger one a long distance away. While I have long ago sold my 300mm f/4 in favor of the 100-400, and even bought a 600mm L, there is never enough focal length for birds. The other issue is that the very air between you and the subject can add enough distortion that it over-rides the sharpness of the lens.

If cropping works best for you, then that's the way to go. I may do it either way.

BTW, I would not buy a high MP camera expecting to crop more. Those tiny pixels are not the same quality as the large ones, and may disappoint you at even moderately high ISO levels like 800.


----------



## LSeries (Apr 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Putting two extenders together and expecting a sharp image is going to result in a big disappointment. (Did I read this wrong?)



You read it wrong  Stacking two (Canon) extenders together is not even mechanically possible.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 4, 2015)

LSeries said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Putting two extenders together and expecting a sharp image is going to result in a big disappointment. (Did I read this wrong?)
> ...



You can use a spacer between the two and they will attach... But at the detriment of the image quality


----------



## Freddie (Apr 4, 2015)

The Series II Canon teleconverters could be stacked. The Series III TCs can only be stacked with a short extension tube between them and that combination will sometimes allow infinity focus depending on the lens. I haven't tried stacking TCs in a very long time though so I can't say what might happen with the image. Here's an image shot with the 600 + 2X TC III. This is a full frame image with no cropping and very little sharpening.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 4, 2015)

For an extender to work, the lens must be sharper than the camera. That is the lens must be producing detail the camera attached cannot record. Lenses are analog, and cameras digital, so there is no 100% effective way of measuring either. So a lens that is not sharp and a camera with high pixel density is not going to benefit from an extender. 

A very sharp lens on the other hand can do very well with an extender. Here is a photo shot with a 400mm f2.8 IS, 2X Extender III, and a 7D Mark 2. An effective 1280mm combination. Sharp enough to read the watch of the surfer who was maybe 100 yards away.



Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 5, 2015)

While I wouldn't call Extenders useless I'm also not convinced by them.
Autofocus is slower and tends to hunt more.
I also think in my experiences that cropping alone is better than shooting with an extender.
They seem to work better with the big whites.
The 100-400 II is a great lens.
Probably made for the 7D II.
I find it works better on the 5D III (which it's a pity doesn't have 10FPS).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2015)

LSeries said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Putting two extenders together and expecting a sharp image is going to result in a big disappointment. (Did I read this wrong?)
> ...



Funny, I do it all the time with my Canon TC 1.4 III and 2X II. Try it!

The 1.4X and 2X TC stack fine up until the version III. You can still stack the 1.4X III with 2X II.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 5, 2015)

LSeries said:


> I've been playing with EF EX 1.4x II and EF EX 2x III together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM and Canon 7D mk2. I've constantly managed to get better image quality (sharper + deeper colors) by just heavily cropping the 300 mm image without extenders. Does anyone agree? Because of this I'm now a bit puzzled as to how to get closer (to birds) while maintaining the image quality of my 300 mm lens without those huge and super expensive 500 mm or 600 mm Canon lenses. What would you suggest? The 100-400 mm ? I like to go out by bike with the camera in my back bag so this is one of the reasons I love the 300 mm.


While I managed to get sharp pictures with the 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4x&2x latest converters, however paired together with EF 300 f/4L IS USM never got sharp pictures. I finally sold them all and I am saving for a good (and expensive) telephoto, probably the new 100-400/II.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2015)

If you are not in reach-limited situations, then there is no advantage image-wise in using an extender or using a crop with smaller pixels. FF without an extender will always give better results. But, if you are in a reach-limited situation, then it may be better to use an extender and a crop camera.

The usefulness of extenders depends on the lens and body. To assess the merits for an up and coming bird-watching trip, I spent yesterday recalibrating with Focal my 5DIII and 7DII with my 100-400mm II and 300mm f/2.8 II with 1.4 and 2xTCs, I spent some time staring at iso-12233 charts snapped with the recalibrated lenses.

Conclusions:

1.	100-400mm II on the 7DII does out resolve the 100-400mm II on the 5DIII, with some loss of contrast.
2.	100-400mm II on the 7DII is very similar to the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC III on the 5DIII in both contrast and resolution.
3.	100-400mm II + 1.4x TC on the 7DII does out resolve the 100-400mm II 1.4x TC on the 5DIII, with loss of contrast.

The situation is different for the 300mm f/2.8 II. On the 5DIII, the addition of 1.4 and 2xTC IIIs leads to a progressive increase in resolution, but the 7DII doesn’t work well with the 2xTC (as I have found in the past from experience), and is best at 420mm with the 1.4xTC.

So, I’ll be packing both bodies, the 1.4x TC and the 100-400mm II to take with me; the 7DII for distant bird watching and the 5DIII for closer work in darker situations. For mild hiking at home, the 5DIII with 300mm f/2.8 plus 2xTC is still my preferred combination, but I am increasingly grabbing the 7DII + 100-400mm II.

Edit, here is the summary of shots of the centre of the chart that led to the conclusions - self-explanatory.


----------



## LSeries (Apr 5, 2015)

Thank you all for your great answers! I found this thread extremely interesting and helpful!


----------



## GuyF (Apr 5, 2015)

I'd read somewhere (not on CR) that you can stack both mk3 TCs but only if you add the 1.4x behind the 2x as the 2x has a recessed rear element allowing the insertion of the protruding front element of the 1.4x.

Can anyone confirm this?

Guy.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2015)

GuyF said:


> I'd read somewhere (not on CR) that you can stack both mk3 TCs but only if you add the 1.4x behind the 2x as the 2x has a recessed rear element allowing the insertion of the protruding front element of the 1.4x.
> 
> Can anyone confirm this?
> 
> Guy.



That is incorrect. You need to have an extension ring between the two.


----------

