Extender?

mjhoward · Dec 2, 2011

MLeeK said:
Instead of upgrading that Tamron dinosaur I have I am thinking that I probably should just buy the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L USM IS.

If at all possible, try and borrow one of these or go to a local camera store and see if they have one to try. I HATE the push-pull of this lens and quite frankly I find the long end, which is the important end on a lens like this, to be quite soft. IMO it's only good optically, not great.

MLeeK · Dec 2, 2011

mjhoward said:
MLeeK said:

Instead of upgrading that Tamron dinosaur I have I am thinking that I probably should just buy the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L USM IS.

Click to expand...

If at all possible, try and borrow one of these or go to a local camera store and see if they have one to try. I HATE the push-pull of this lens and quite frankly I find the long end, which is the important end on a lens like this, to be quite soft. IMO it's only good optically, not great.

Would you say that you feel there is more compromise with the lens, or by using a 2x extender?

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Dec 5, 2011

If you are going to take a look at the 100-400IS, and you think that you are going to typically shoot at the long end, I would take a serious look at the 400mm f/5.6 prime. Its light, and it doesn't have the "Dust Pump" zoom function. ( They are releasing a new version soon with normal twist zoom but its going to cost like $2000 I think ). You said you mainly shoot sports, so if the action is fast, the IS is just going to slow down your focus. You are going to want to have a high shutter speed to freeze action anyway. You can always throw it on a monopod to gain an extra stop or so of handholding. The benefit of the 400 Prime is that it is lightning fast on the focus, and its razor sharp. And you can typically get it for $1200-$1300 brand new with full warranty.

MLeeK · Dec 5, 2011

I don't ever use the IS (OS) on my 70-200, so the IS is a non point for me. It'll have to be turned off.
I might just rent the 400 and see how I feel about it. I am nervous to be without that zoom. I have no doubt I'd get used to it and might even like it more, BUT...
It would also kind of mean I'd have to shoot on two bodies full time. The 100mm end of the zoom I can easily get away with almost everything and I only need a wide for sidelines and the OTHER things of the game...

gsgary · Dec 5, 2011

The 100-400 is not a good lens for sports

MLeeK · Dec 5, 2011

Tell me why?

photo61 · Oct 24, 2017

Derrel said:
I've seen two really EXHAUSTIVE tests of the new Nikon-made aspherical element, version "III" teleconverters...very carefully-done tests with good subject matter, done under good atmospheric conditions, with lots of sample images to choose from to represent each lens setting and shooting parameters, so as to avoid bad samples with focus errors, and the "new" Nikon aspherical-element converters when paired with the "NEW" 300/2.8 VR,the 200/2 VR,and the new 70-200 Mark II were really, in some cases, MUCH better than those lenses with the older converters Nikon has been making for 10+ years now. One pro shooter's comparisons also added the 400/2.8 VR and the 200-400 VR Nikkors to the mix. The thing is this: the very-newest TC units are pretty well-matched for the very-newest lenses, as a whole. Nikon's TC's have always been designed and intended for single focal length telephoto prime lenses, with "under 200 mm" and "300mm or longer" lenses each having had their own optical designs for almost 20 years with the TC-200 and TC-201 and TC-300 and TC-301 converters for the manual focus lenses made from 1976 to the 2000's; the AF converters were designed SPECIFICALLY for AF-S telephotos, and will NOT, I repeat will NOT mount to many zooms and primes due to where the front elements of the TC unit are going to bash into the rear lens elements on many lenses.

I'm not as familiar with Canon TC units, but one thing I do know about the Sigma-brand TC's is that they have a PRO-series that has a rather deeply recessed front element, so that allows it to mount on many,many more lenses than TC's that have their front elements rather far forward. The Sigma PRO-series 1.4x converter I have seen used by many people on non-Sigma lenses, with good results in some cases. What I have found, and others have too, is that "Occasionally" there is a lens/converter pairing that is quite good to very good; there are also some that are very poor;now that we have 16-18-24 MP cameras, to me the idea of a 1.4 x 200-280mm f/4 zoom is not really all "that" desirable or versatile...when we had 2.7,4.2,and 6- and 8-MP cameras, the optical boost from a TC unit was valuable...nowadays...not so much, unless it's being used on a killer-sharp 200,300,or 400mm prime lens in order to make a longer lens with ample quality to spare. One suggestion: Sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM as a very versatile fast-focusing sports lens, with their 1.4x added for longer-reach needs in good light. Canon's 100-400 trombone is like a dinosaur leg in actual handling....it's a dog...the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is like a dream in comparison...especially for a woman, I would think...if you have not actually shot the Canon 100-400, it's hard to imagine what a slug it is, in several ways...

I sold my Nikon 1.4 teleconverter version II because after tuning it several times using FoCal software it kept coming up +20 when paired with my Nikon 500mm F4. I'm rolling the dice and going out to buy the Nikon 1.4 version III teleconverter to see if it works better with the same set up. Fingers crossed