EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM + Extender EF 2x III + Rebel EOS T7I

[sridzyowski]

Hi Everyone,

Im new to photography. My Wife loves to take pictures of flowers and insects however I mainly like to take pictures of Birds from a distance and other things further away like the moon with my powershot sx60 

SO MY QUESTION IS. 

I just purchased the new Rebel EOS T7I .. Love it. but looking to ger the   EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM .. but i was also looking into purchasing an extender with it and figured why not get the   Extender EF 2x III . Would all this be possible and work with my T7I .. or would i just need to get the 1.4x ? 

All answers are helpful as well as any suggestions. 

Thanks Ahead of time

[kvbarkley]

Third party lenses cheat and tell the camera they are *really* 5.6 or so to get around these limitations.

[sridzyowski]

3rd pary as in my 150-600 sigma lense. can u explain more in detail. 

[ebiggs1]

Let me clear up some points I think you have glossed over.

Most any of these combinations 2x, 1.4x, a100-400mil or even the 150-600mil, whatever, will work.  Or perhaps, they can be made to work phrases it better. I have even stacked converters and got it to 'work'.  But that word work is pretty arbitrary. Everything in any lens suffers when an extender is used.  How much is, OK, is up to you.  

The problems will multiply because of the crop factor of your T7i, also.  At 400mm (640mm for you) most people can get decent photos with out too much effort.  600mm (960mm for you)*1.4

has a bit more challenges.  However, you are talking in the area of a 1200mm and more.  At that focal length even the waves in the atmosphere become a problem.  AF will be slow if not impossible (there are tricks to get it to AF).  The VF will become darker.  ISO will have to be set very high if not maxed out.  A good tripod will be mandatory.

The example of the flower posted earlier which may just be a snap shows how difficult even 400mm is. One other suggestion for you, do you have a good post editor?  I hope so because that is where great photos are made.

[sridzyowski]

Agreed. Makes more sense now. so now it my T7I body that is becoming the issue now or i shouldnt worry to much about a full zoom that much anyway.. 

since the sigma 150-600 should just be as sufficient enough. my thing was i wanted to have a canon on canon vs a sigma lense on a canon camera . and figured since i hace the new t7i i should get the new 100-400 and returen my sigma lense ?

what do u think on this ?

[cicopo]

The Sigma (or Tamron) has lots more reach & a lot of us use it for that reason. It's a matter of what will work that you can afford and for me it's the 150-600 & my old 100-400 (ver 1) is on standby.

[TTMartin]

---

@cicopo wrote:

The Sigma (or Tamron) has lots more reach & a lot of us use it for that reason. It's a matter of what will work that you can afford and for me it's the 150-600 & my old 100-400 (ver 1) is on standby.

---

Yes, the old 100-400 (ver 1) was almost a 20 year old design, it doesn't compare to modern lenses from Sigma, Tamron, or Canon.

However, you won't find a better and more versitile lens than the EF 100-400 L IS II.  Even with a 1.4X TC III its image quality is on par with the best Sigma and Tamron have to offer, and without a TC its image quality is unmatched, except by the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Add to that a short minimum focus distance and the EF 100-400 L IS II is the best lens in the 100-560mm range.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@cicopo wrote:

The Sigma (or Tamron) has lots more reach & a lot of us use it for that reason. It's a matter of what will work that you can afford and for me it's the 150-600 & my old 100-400 (ver 1) is on standby.

---

Yes, the old 100-400 (ver 1) was almost a 20 year old design, it doesn't compare to modern lenses from Sigma, Tamron, or Canon.

However, you won't find a better and more versitile lens than the EF 100-400 L IS II.  Even with a 1.4X TC III its image quality is on par with the best Sigma and Tamron have to offer, and without a TC its image quality is unmatched, except by the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Add to that a short minimum focus distance and the EF 100-400 L IS II is the best lens in the 100-560mm range.

---

Note, however, that the 70-200 (any versions) is a constant-aperture lens, while the 100-400 isn't. Outdoors on a bright day that may not matter, but it's a reminder that the 100-400 isn't a universal substitute for the 70-200 (especially not for the f/2.8).

[cicopo]

How well does the 100-400 Ver 2 + a 1.4 TC do at focusing on fast objects (over 100 MPH) travelling towards or away from you but at an angle something like the plane in this photo? It would be on either a 1D4 or 7D2.

[Waddizzle]

1D Mark IV and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.  All you need is Photoshop.  Too bad DPP cannot stack photos.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

1D Mark IV and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.  All you need is Photoshop.  Too bad DPP cannot stack photos.

---

My phone rang when I posted this shot.  I didn't finish my remarks.  I used LR on this shot, and PS when I want to make "repairs".

I used no extender.  Image quality comes from lenses, while focusing comes from the camera bodies.  I have a better success focusing with the 1D4 than the 7D2.  Both have sophisticated AF tracking.