Reading mode: Light Dark

Why so many of you willing to use a TC

Go to last post
T

time20n

Leading Member
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
Location
PA, US
Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
time20n said:
I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I don't own a TC at the moment. But from the comparison pictures I have seen, if you can't fill the frame with your subject at whatever maximum focal length you have without the TC, you can often get better results using a 1.4 TC than you can by cropping.

--
  • Bill
 
I use a 100-400L and a 500 f/4 for my wild life shots. Sometimes I use a Canon 1.4 behind my 500. I have found that on most shots it effects the IQ very little. Any extra glass is going to effect it some, but to get a shot that I couldn't have got without it, well then it's worth the small lost in IQ.

Below is an example, I couldn't have got this without the extender. This isn't cropped.



Bob
 
Canon 7D + 400 2.8 L IS + stacked Canon 2x and Sigma 2x TCs , 1600 mm, f/16, ISO 100, 1/25 sec, contrast detect focus in Live View, 475B/3421 support, remote switch



--
Romy



PHILIPPINE WILD BIRDS (Over 260 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
http://www.romyocon.net
 
TCs, especially those designed by the lens manufacturer for their lens line, provide an acceptable compromise at a reasonable price. For example, the Canon 500mm f/4 with a 1.4TC will give you a 700mm at f/5.6. While the AF may be a tad slower and some image quality may be affected, it is significantly cheaper (US 300-500 depending on TC version) than purchasing an equivalent prime at that focal length.

As an example, this was shot using the EF 500mm with canon 1.4 TC at f/5.6.



.

Unfortunately, the downsizing through the net doesn't do it justice.

--dennis
 
Simple...even if a 700 f/5.6 existed, it would be way out of my financial reach. The loss in IQ isn't bad at all with a 1.4x on the 500 f/4.
time20n said:
Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
Click to expand...
 
"I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it."...............

I'm not sure why you have one, and don't use it?

I have a 400L and a Kenko 1.4TC and use it, aware of any compromises.
 
time20n said:
Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.
Click to expand...
There's a major difference. There is a significant benefit to using a teleconverter. There is no benefit in using a UV filter. If the benefit outweighs the problems caused by the teleconverter, it makes sense to use it. Same with other filters, such as polarizers.
time20n said:
I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.
Click to expand...
Do you just like the extra weight in your camera bag? If you don't use it, why else would you have it?
--

 
The 2X III plus the 70-200 gives me a very good 140-400 at 5.6 - good enough so I can wait till they upgrade the 100-400 .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25
 
the image is with the 1D2 500/4 and the 2x111
 


I also have the 400 f5.6, and the 1.4 II. It's a little tricky but you can focus manually or use live view. Still experimenting with this combo but am sure there will be times when I'll be happy I used the TC.

Cheers Patrick
 
I agree with op.

Though 1.4x is just acceptable and 2x is only acceptable for emergencies and in perfect light.

Others appear to be happy using when closing down to f8 minimum and looks ok if there is no background... like planes, some bird shots etc.

Also some lenses like 100-400 are so old that people prefer to suffer with 2x and wait hopefully...for a modern version....
 
I put a 1.4tc on my lens (500 F4) simply because the increase in focal length captures more detail in situations where i can't move closer to the subject. If you do a test at say the moon, you will find that the photo taken with the tc added has captured more details of the moon than the non-tc.

With most telephoto primes, adding a tc only slightly reduces image quality. For instance my 500 F4 is still sharper WITH a tc than my 100-400.

Why would i NOT put a tc on my 500 F4 to get the subject bigger in the frame when i'm happy with the sharpness of my 100-400? :)
time20n said:
Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
Click to expand...
 
In practice, the theories aren't always accurate.

Canon 1D MK IV, Canon EF 500mm L IS f/4 lens with Canon 2X TC III (1000mm), Gitzo 1325 tripod with Wimberley 101 gimbal head.

1/1000 second @ f/8 (wide open), ISO 320, Santa Clara Ranch, McCook, TX

Approximately a 35% crop.



100% crop.



I like my TCs and they're both very sharp.
--
Fred Lord
 
When I joined DP, I would not use them! Well .... they were dead wrong!

The biggest problems with converters is they magnify any problems you may have with your lens. If it is front or back focusing it will look bad. Now that we have MA that helps a lot! I Just heard .... "you will never recognize what your shooting let alone have a decent picture" when I first asked about converters 8 years ago. I never heard anything myself about front or back focusing before MA. Been using converters stacked & unstacked ever since. Before, they thought it was just bad optics coming from the converter. Converters if used properly are by far better than cropping! You have to whatch your shutter speed more closely & shoot more pictures, but it's worth it. I cannot afford the 600mm f4, so I have a 600mm f5.6 that incorporates my Sigma 120-300mm OS + Canon EF 2xII converter. It's lighter, gives me the option of zoom & f2.8 options I wouldn't get other wise.

Hope this helps, Cheers :)

--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 
I just started to read this & said to myself Romy does not seem to be too concerned about TC's. and low & behold here you are.

The 400 2.8 really responds nicely with stacked TC's Eh?
--
Warren
 
Now, a 2x TC is commonly used with big whites, producing still very good IQ when shot well. And this is notwithstanding the much smaller pixels in DSLRs today.

Seems long lens shooting has moved forward a bit in the last 7 years, warren. :)
WT Jones said:
I just started to read this & said to myself Romy does not seem to be too concerned about TC's. and low & behold here you are.

The 400 2.8 really responds nicely with stacked TC's Eh?
--
Warren
Click to expand...
--
Romy



PHILIPPINE WILD BIRDS (Over 260 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
http://www.romyocon.net
 
expro said:
Though 1.4x is just acceptable and 2x is only acceptable for emergencies and in perfect light.
Click to expand...
Depends on what lens you are using. Here's a full-res 5D2 shot with a 400 2.8 + 2x TC, EXIF intact.



--
Romy



PHILIPPINE WILD BIRDS (Over 260 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
http://www.romyocon.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top