NatureScapes.net Forums

Anyone had experience using an original Canon 100-400 with a 1.4x on a R5 or R6? 
Same question using the new RF 100-500 with a 1.4x
Thanks

From my limited impressions testing the R5 with both lenses, the 100-500 takes the 1.4x better than the 1-4, both in terms of image quality and AF. The differences between these lenses aren't dramatic but there's a noticeable edge to the 100-500 with or without the TC. I really don't miss the 100-400 II.

Edit: I misread this. My impressions are limited to the 100-400II not the v1.

Greg Schneider wrote:From my limited impressions testing the R5 with both lenses, the 100-500 takes the 1.4x better than the 1-4, both in terms of image quality and AF. The differences between these lenses aren't dramatic but there's a noticeable edge to the 100-500 with or without the TC. I really don't miss the 100-400 II.

Edit: I misread this. My impressions are limited to the 100-400II not the v1.

I had the 100-400 version one when I started out 15 years ago and I've heard it said, and I agree, that it's the worst piece of glass Canon ever produced. If you put an extender on it I'm sure the results will be regrettable. 

gary woods wrote:

Greg Schneider wrote:From my limited impressions testing the R5 with both lenses, the 100-500 takes the 1.4x better than the 1-4, both in terms of image quality and AF. The differences between these lenses aren't dramatic but there's a noticeable edge to the 100-500 with or without the TC. I really don't miss the 100-400 II.

Edit: I misread this. My impressions are limited to the 100-400II not the v1.

I had the 100-400 version one when I started out 15 years ago and I've heard it said, and I agree, that it's the worst piece of glass Canon ever produced. If you put an extender on it I'm sure the results will be regrettable. 

I know that the 100-400 has that reputation, but the one that I have is excellent

I would like to see that, because i still have that 100-400 mk1 as well [it is still with a friend and need to get it back as soon as possible], also i still have Canon 1.4x mkII extender didn't sell it yet while i already have 1.4x/2x mkIII extenders, but i don't have any new cameras since 2014 [due to very bad situations i faced since then, and also got into astronomy since 2017 so no more photography equipment purchase].

Here are my thoughts on the Canon 100-400L IS (v1) from 2004.  I remember doing tests with the lens on a Canon 300D Rebel and found the images to be acceptably sharp even at f/5.6.  Sharp is relative.  I was comparing the lens to the 400 5.6L at the time.  I left the 100-400 on the shelf for years because I started to use the 400 5.6L and 70-200 2.8L non-IS regularly.

As the years passed, the 100-400L IS (v1) encountered focusing issues where I began to think, hey maybe everyone is right.  The images at f/5.6 are not sharp, etc.  I sent it to Canon and they diagnosed an issue with the AF unit.  After the repair, I see the lens is back to decent sharpness.  I'm sure the newer 100-400 (v2) is way sharper.  

I'm not sure what it is with the 100-400 (v1) but maybe the AF unit mixed with the IS can be iffy.  Maybe it falls out of tolerance easier than other Canon lenses.  I don't know. I use the 100-400 (v1) now with the 7D MK2 and 6D (v1) and get mixed results for moving subjects. For still subjects it is very decent performing.  But this was only after getting it serviced at Canon.

I haven't even thought about using a 1.4x with the 100-400 (v1).  Maybe for still subjects but definitely not for flying birds or fast moving animals especially with a combo of IS.  

I plan to keep the 100-400 (v1) whenever I upgrade to the R series cameras.

OntPhoto wrote:Here are my thoughts on the Canon 100-400L IS (v1) from 2004.  I remember doing tests with the lens on a Canon 300D Rebel and found the images to be acceptably sharp even at f/5.6.  Sharp is relative.  I was comparing the lens to the 400 5.6L at the time.  I left the 100-400 on the shelf for years because I started to use the 400 5.6L and 70-200 2.8L non-IS regularly.

As the years passed, the 100-400L IS (v1) encountered focusing issues where I began to think, hey maybe everyone is right.  The images at f/5.6 are not sharp, etc.  I sent it to Canon and they diagnosed an issue with the AF unit.  After the repair, I see the lens is back to decent sharpness.  I'm sure the newer 100-400 (v2) is way sharper.  

I'm not sure what it is with the 100-400 (v1) but maybe the AF unit mixed with the IS can be iffy.  Maybe it falls out of tolerance easier than other Canon lenses.  I don't know. I use the 100-400 (v1) now with the 7D MK2 and 6D (v1) and get mixed results for moving subjects. For still subjects it is very decent performing.  But this was only after getting it serviced at Canon.

I haven't even thought about using a 1.4x with the 100-400 (v1).  Maybe for still subjects but definitely not for flying birds or fast moving animals especially with a combo of IS.  

I plan to keep the 100-400 (v1) whenever I upgrade to the R series cameras.

This thread wasn't intended as a critique of the 100-400 version 1, but just FYI I have never had my 100-400 v1 serviced and mine is excellent. I was asking about using it with the 1.4x on the R6 for still shots. I know that combo is worthless for flight shooting

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:Here are my thoughts on the Canon 100-400L IS (v1) from 2004.  I remember doing tests with the lens on a Canon 300D Rebel and found the images to be acceptably sharp even at f/5.6.  Sharp is relative.  I was comparing the lens to the 400 5.6L at the time.  I left the 100-400 on the shelf for years because I started to use the 400 5.6L and 70-200 2.8L non-IS regularly.

As the years passed, the 100-400L IS (v1) encountered focusing issues where I began to think, hey maybe everyone is right.  The images at f/5.6 are not sharp, etc.  I sent it to Canon and they diagnosed an issue with the AF unit.  After the repair, I see the lens is back to decent sharpness.  I'm sure the newer 100-400 (v2) is way sharper.  

I'm not sure what it is with the 100-400 (v1) but maybe the AF unit mixed with the IS can be iffy.  Maybe it falls out of tolerance easier than other Canon lenses.  I don't know. I use the 100-400 (v1) now with the 7D MK2 and 6D (v1) and get mixed results for moving subjects. For still subjects it is very decent performing.  But this was only after getting it serviced at Canon.

I haven't even thought about using a 1.4x with the 100-400 (v1).  Maybe for still subjects but definitely not for flying birds or fast moving animals especially with a combo of IS.  

I plan to keep the 100-400 (v1) whenever I upgrade to the R series cameras.

This thread wasn't intended as a critique of the 100-400 version 1, but just FYI I have never had my 100-400 v1 serviced and mine is excellent. I was asking about using it with the 1.4x on the R6 for still shots. I know that combo is worthless for flight shooting

Well, you are one of the few exceptions.  Based on the few feedback above, great results with the v1 and a 1.4x is not expected.