# New Canon 100-400mm Mk2 lens with 2x extender mk3



## burnfield (Jan 6, 2015)

Hi,
Got the new 100-400mm mk2 lens and have been using it with the canon 2x mk3 extender. As it says it wont auto focus but trying to use live view at 400mm (ie800) is a nightmare. I have a decent tripod but the image still jumps around as you try to focus and I cant say I have actually managed to focus successfully. The images are very soft/ out of focus. I appreciate the quality will be degraded but they seem to me to be next to useless. Plus the degree to which I have to try and focus back and forth to find focus says to me this combo is useless for any wildlife that does not stand still for 5 minutes! I have two questions.
Anyone else experienced issues using the 2x extender?
Do you think this combo should be limited to the 1.4x which can at least auto focus?
I have a 5D mk3 camera.


----------



## Khalai (Jan 6, 2015)

Have you tried using contrast detect AF in live view and trigger the camera via cable release?


----------



## burnfield (Jan 7, 2015)

I have tried this but it did not seem to be any better. Haven't used a cable release but I've set it to 10s delay before firing.


----------



## weixing (Jan 7, 2015)

Hi,
What tripod and head are you using?? I don't have the new 100-400mm II, but I had try the 400mm F5.6L + 2x on 60D using live view AF and can focus quite well... yes, the subject need to be stationary for at least 1 min.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2015)

burnfield said:


> Do you think this combo should be limited to the 1.4x which can at least auto focus?
> I have a 5D mk3 camera.


 
Yes, if you want to use a 2X, its going to be best with manual focus, and very difficult using live af on a tripod. The 5D MK III was originally limited to f/5.6 AF, and Canon revised the Firmware to allow it to try autofocusing at f/8, but F/11 is going to be difficult.

I've had my 1.4X TC on since I received it, and it focuses ok but not great. I did not even bother to try with a 2X, I've tried it before with my 100-400mm L MK I in live view, and it mostly just hunts.

I will try the 2X later on, but have no time right now.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2015)

Khalai said:


> Have you tried using contrast detect AF in live view and trigger the camera via cable release?


That's how I used to use my 400 f/5.6 with the 2x extender...and gives the best results. Turn off IS if you do this to get the best results.


----------



## rpt (Jan 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried using contrast detect AF in live view and trigger the camera via cable release?
> ...


+1
If your IS is on, the image goes all over the map...


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 7, 2015)

burnfield said:


> I have a decent tripod but the image still jumps around as you try to focus and I cant say I have actually managed to focus successfully.
> Do you think this combo should be limited to the 1.4x which can at least auto focus?



What you describe your tripod and head isn't solid enough.
You should be focusing off of the tripod foot and not the camera body so the lens is centered.
A solid tripod and head would have a little vibration but not totally unreasonable.
Just touching the camera will set up a bit of vibration that can make it difficult. A light touch to the focus ring and keep your hands off the camera helps, a little vibration when you are focusing but it is still doable.
A release helps by keeping your hands off the camera body also.

And yes I wouldn't go over the 1.4x.

Another option would be to get a second party 2x so the camera would fool itself in to AF. I assume this would work since it worked with the old 100-400mm.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 7, 2015)

Hi Burnfield,

With 2x, manual focus and turn IS off, or the image will be blurred. 

Please post pics, with 2x, 1.4x and without TC for us


----------



## rs (Jan 7, 2015)

burnfield said:


> I have tried this but it did not seem to be any better. Haven't used a cable release but I've set it to 10s delay before firing.


The idea of using liveview AF _and_ the cable release is you can invoke autofocus without physically touching the camera - this allows you to largely work around any stability issues with your tripod.


----------



## burnfield (Jan 7, 2015)

Hi,
Thanks for all the replies. I suppose I'm trying to find out if others are experiencing the same or whether I am doing something wrong without realising it. I've attached 2 pictures of the recent full moon at 400mm without TC and 800mm, the difference is stark. Given the moon is at infinity I would have thought finding focus would be easier than at a shorter distance. Each photo has had a bit of post processing in Lightroom. At the moment I am concluding the 2x extender either degrades image quality to an unacceptable level and / or gaining focus is a hit or miss affair.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 7, 2015)

I bet you have a metal tripod.
The reason I say this is because when I have tried a similar setup with my very heavy aluminium tripod and geared head, if I touch the camera - even lightly, it can take 10 or so seconds for the outfit to fully stabilize whereas when using my cf travel tripod, the outfit settles down within 2 seconds.
Using my big cf tripod, the settling time is less than a second. 

A 5d3 with the 100-400 and tc is not only heavy, but aimed up at the sky it is not the best balanced either, so you need a cf tripod that is rated to carry at least twice what the combo weighs.
Hooking some weight under the spider of the tripod will also help.

In my experience, metal tripods vibrate more and for longer than a cf tripod.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 7, 2015)

@Bennymiata: Good remark about CF tripod. I bought mine for two reasons: (1) smaller weight savings and (2) much higher vibration damping compared to aluminium. This is valid just for the cheaper SIRUI tripods.

Another idea: atmospheric turbulence is a factor with longer focal lengths. With 300mm equiv I havent seen it to often. with 640mm equiv (EF 5.6 / 400) it is a factor, more so with 1280mm equiv.

Using live view in 10x mode you might see strong variations of sharpness and there is no way to be fast enough to correct these variations and hit the shutter. 

A solution which comes into my mind is: Use live view without magnification (or viewfinder) and focus manually - this might average the sharpness variations and might lead to a good compromise. I will try to find a photo and make it available here later.

Another check procedure that comes into my mind: Try focus methods in a room where you have constant temperatures (= no/low turbulence) and look how your methods perform. One of the first photos with my EF 5.6 / 400 was a close up and it was tack sharp, contrasty, with well defined textures of a wooden table and a computer mouse. My first outdoor shots were landscapes in a sunny landscape after a cold night (-5 degree celsius) including dark brown crops (? areas which were prepared to grow corn) - a good condition for heavy turbulence!

Good luck - Michael


----------



## J.R. (Jan 7, 2015)

A couple of quick issues which I noticed using the 2x extender on the 100-400-II-

1) Trying to focus using the LV is going to be PITA. If you do need to use contrast detect AF, then you should start by turning the focus ring manually so that the lens is focused behind the subject and then start the contrast detect AF. This is usually much faster.

2) Unless you have one of the best tripods available, using a tripod with the 2x attached is a no go. Even the slightest of vibration using the tripod is going to muck up the image. I've tried it with my manfrotto (AU tripod) but it is a struggle with the slow shutter speed at f/11. The only way I've got reasonable shots using a tripod with slow shutter speed is with MLU or shooting LV. 

3) In my opinion, the IQ using the 2x is better than it was with the 100-400 v1 with the 1.4 extender. 

4) My shots with the 2x extender are not exactly razor sharp, but they are not as blurry as yours. I will post some images once I can access my home computer 

Happy shooting!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 7, 2015)

Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.



I have always found that in practice 2x extenders are best left at home on the shelf.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.



There is some truth in that. However, for someone chasing birds, any addition to the focal length is welcome. This usually results in experimentation with extenders. 

Nevertheless, getting a supertelephoto is well outside of a normal budget, the 2x extenders provide a lot of additional focal length albeit at a price in IQ.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jan 7, 2015)

J.R. said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Just an observation: I'd have thought that in practice 2x extenders are best kept for fast lenses.
> ...



+1, i tend to always have a TC with me, just in case!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2015)

adhocphotographer said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Chasing birds at f/11 without AF is not easy, to say the least, unless the bird is sitting immobile. In my opinion, the sheer inconvenience in using a 2xTC on an f/5.6 and the concomitant loss of IQ are not worth the the extra reach over 1.4x, which will be fairly marginal anyway because of the poorer IQ and the higher noise.


----------



## rpt (Jan 7, 2015)

burnfield said:


> Hi,
> Thanks for all the replies. I suppose I'm trying to find out if others are experiencing the same or whether I am doing something wrong without realising it. I've attached 2 pictures of the recent full moon at 400mm without TC and 800mm, the difference is stark. Given the moon is at infinity I would have thought finding focus would be easier than at a shorter distance. Each photo has had a bit of post processing in Lightroom. At the moment I am concluding the 2x extender either degrades image quality to an unacceptable level and / or gaining focus is a hit or miss affair.


What were the camera settings?


----------



## burnfield (Jan 7, 2015)

Hi,
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2015)

burnfield said:


> Hi,
> Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.
> 
> I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.


I don't think it's motion blur - just softness from the lens+extender combo. It matches Brian's results from The Digital Picture. The 2x isn't ideal for most lenses and it looks like the new 100-400 is (sadly) no exception.


----------



## KimH (Jan 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> burnfield said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



I am not sure what the root cause is here.... It's complicated as some would say, it depends!

I have the RRS 3 tripod with the fitting RRS gimbal and when trying the 300-2.8 with 1.4 - well balanced - across the valley where I live, it was VERY sensitive to wind and the platform I was on (a balcony) - then the 100-400 II with and without 1.4... Same experience.

My experience is that when using 10x you get an idea of how the pict will look - watching wind - and leaving time for the IS to engage makes the world of difference. Assuming cable or camRanger or remote is in use.

It honestly felt a bit like a sharpshooter must feel when doing their training.


----------



## hockeydude35 (Jan 8, 2015)

I just received my 100-400II along with the 2xIII today. Here's an 800mm moon shot that I took this evening, for additional comparison. This is probably about 70% crop or so, and I did play with it a bit in Lightroom just to see what it was capable of. This was from an aluminum tripod, 10 second countdown, 1/13s exposure, f/14. I manually focused it with 10x live view, keeping IS on until I was ready to take the shot. I think it came out pretty well and so far I'm pretty impressed with the few shots I'm seeing using the 2x. I'm hoping to get out this weekend and really try it out with some wildlife.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 8, 2015)

AlanF said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



True. As I said, using 2x TC with f/5.6 lenses is usually in the nature of experimentation usually. The additional FL is at great cost - no AF, f/11 and less than excellent IQ.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 8, 2015)

What was the EXIF for the moon shots



burnfield said:


> Hi,
> Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.
> 
> I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.


----------



## Hooty Whooo (Nov 4, 2015)

Reading this thread gave me an idea. When I get home tonight I may throw my 100-400 II and 2X III on my camera's (7DII and 5DII) with the IS off and attach to a camranger so that all focus and shutter actuation is completely hands off. We shall see how it goes.


----------



## PCM-madison (Nov 5, 2015)

I suspect camera shake even on a tripod are limiting. This series of images of Venus transiting the Sum were with the 100-400mm v1 + canon 1.4X + tamron 2X extenders on a 60D. Focusing was not a problem. Even though these were taken through a very dark filter, the shutter speed was high >1/500 for all exposures because of the bright subject.


----------



## Jan Jasinski (Dec 18, 2015)

Handheld with the 2x MKII:


----------



## Click (Dec 18, 2015)

Jan Jasinski said:


> Handheld with the 2x MKII:



Excellent picture. Well done, Jan.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

Click said:


> Jan Jasinski said:
> 
> 
> > Handheld with the 2x MKII:
> ...



Indeed,very well done.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2015)

I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.




Joke? These look horrible!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 18, 2015)

I can confirm that the 2x iii converter does provide a slightly better image on that lens when you need to really get the reach. Did much testing versus 1.4x and bare lens cropping to same perspective. BUT, this was true only when the conditions were extremely controlled, and particularly, when I was able to use a remote shutter release AND the platform was stable - which includes what's under the tripod in addition to the tripod itself. 

I recall realizing during my tests that my wooden floor - built over 12" spaced 2x12 stringers - was completely inadequate for this type of test.

So the list of things to check so far:
- MFA that bad boy with the 2x teleconverter on it. Your MFA may change because of the teleconverter - that's why Canon puts a place for a separate adjustment in its software. For those out there who swear they never MFA, this is the sort of application where it really matters sometimes.
- Solid head and tripod
- Solid surface underneath that
- No IS during exposure
- Tests done at as close an interval as possible between shots so that atmospherics don't interfere in the comparison
- Use a remote trigger
- Wouldn't hurt to have the mirror flipped prior to exposure to reduce shake

I would have said that if the above fails to deliver, then you have a bad teleconverter, but the shot of the stone wall you put up shows that this does work in some conditions as is. I'll note, however, that your shot seemed like it wasn't at 400/800mm, and there are two MFA settings, one for the wide end and one for the long end of that lens. It could theoretically be that the wide end works with no MFA, and the tele end is crud without adjustment.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I posted these a year ago, but they are worth showing again. Here are 3 shots of a Swarovski target for testing their telescopes. It was 240 metres away and was 1mx1.3m. Top is the 100-400mm II on the 7DII at f5.6, middle + 1.4xTC III at f/8 and bottom +2xTC III at f/11 and liveview. This lens takes converters exceptionally well.
> ...



Try thinking before making rude comments. At 400mm, the target, only 1mx1.3m at 240m away, fills only a 300x524 crop from the centre of the 20 mpixel image, at which size it is impossible to resolve most of the target because the details are below the Nyquist limit. The 2xTC III brings features above the Nyquist limit and you can resolve details in the round section of the target. Those images show that the TC is able to increase resolution without degrading the image - you can easily read the the 6 10 14 18 in the circles, which are only smears without the TC.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 20, 2015)

I hope its relevant, but I shot this with an APS-C a6000 mirrorless using a Photodiox Adapter, manually focused the 100-400ii on a 2x TC mk.III.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



AlanF, you are right, I didn't understand what I was looking at.

Sorry.


----------

