100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!

micksh6 wrote:

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

Did you read the follow ups?? The user pic is an OOC JPG, heavily processed by Oly, so completely different processing.

If you can't get such sharp photos it means there is something wrong either with your gear or with your technics, and you need to address that. It's that simple.

I have extremely sharp images from the 50-200 with both TC's, you just have to process them correctly instead of flat for testing. This shot was taken with the same 50-200 copy, but with the "quite soft" 2.0TC:

Best,

Images shot at F11 aperture can't prove anything since sharpness is already compromised by diffraction

Gosh! It was just an example. These are wide open of a recent trip, very same 50-200 + TC1.4 combo:

Nothing wrong with my lens, my original post showed FLAT, UNPROCESSED PICTURES. Just that.

PS. If you do more noise tests as you promised to Anders W, please be kind and share raw files so interested people could look at them in RawDigger. There are many free sites that can store and share large files - Dropbox, Rapidshare, Onedrive, Google drive, etc. You don't have to delete your test images like you did, even if you are limited in disk space.

I deleted the ORFs because I considered them irrelevant, not because of space.

L.