I can't speak to what the 2.0 TC can do wide open. I definitely can, however, with respect to the 1.4 TC combined with the 100-400. I am constantly shooting with that combo wide open, given the loss of aperture that you get when employing the TC. So far, at least, I've seen no obvious issues and I've found the sharpness and overall IQ of the lens, even with the TC, to be fantastic.
You should be able to below 300mm for sure where the lens is around 5.2 wide open and much sharper, so a click to f11 or even more will certainly help and not cause any issues imo, but it does depend on light for sure at these apertures otherwise the iso will be very very high and might not be worth it!
Yes.
It would be interesting to do the comparison, I'm not disputing what you are saying except logically, especially where birds and wildlife is concerned, you are putting more contrast/detail and pixels per sq inch on the subject with a tc than you would be by cropping! Also it allows you to focus on the optimum part of the lens, 100-300. If you were shooting at iso 800 vs 400 to get the shutter speed required then that's a decision you have to calculate in to, but providing you stick below iso6400 in daylight the impact is surprisingly low.
Can you post some more examples with the 2x at the 200-300 range?, ideally at whatever f5 equates to and f4.8 too at their longest? Is the above ooc jpg or raw, if raw what did you use out of interest. Good example btw what's the shading at the left side though?
I’m very happy with the 2.0 on 100-400 Still easily hand held on XH1
Really makes the 50-140 more useful too.
I would also buy a long teleprime from Fuji. Not really interested in the 200 F2 but a 500 or 600 with reasonable speed would be awesome.
The comparison has already been done with DSLRs years ago. The conclusion was that its better to use a x1,4 TC and crop than using a x2 TC. Yes, you are putting more contrast/detail and pixels per sq inch on the subject with a x2 TC, but you are also reducing the sharpness/contrast of your lens, magnifying lens faults even more.
Yes, agreed, but the thing is the 100-400 Fuji lens is better, much, in the 100-300 range, so the question is this would 200-600 f9-10 be a better proposition than 140-840 6.3-8? You do need to be stopped down a tad between 300-400 anyway in that range without the tc so reality is they are very similar all things taken into account, surprising as it may sound I am putting my money on better results with the 100-400 used between 100-300 and the 2x tc to extend to 400-600 rather than the 100-400 and the 1.4x tc to extend 400-560! In the real world I think you'll get more reach with a small compromise but better overall results.
That was just a jpeg quickie. Probably started with the 3mb wireless transfer file.Can you post some more examples with the 2x at the 200-300 range?, ideally at whatever f5 equates to and f4.8 too at their longest? Is the above ooc jpg or raw, if raw what did you use out of interest. Good example btw what's the shading at the left side though?
I’m very happy with the 2.0 on 100-400 Still easily hand held on XH1
Really makes the 50-140 more useful too.
I would also buy a long teleprime from Fuji. Not really interested in the 200 F2 but a 500 or 600 with reasonable speed would be awesome.
Cool, thanksThat was just a jpeg quickie. Probably started with the 3mb wireless transfer file.Can you post some more examples with the 2x at the 200-300 range?, ideally at whatever f5 equates to and f4.8 too at their longest? Is the above ooc jpg or raw, if raw what did you use out of interest. Good example btw what's the shading at the left side though?
I’m very happy with the 2.0 on 100-400 Still easily hand held on XH1
Really makes the 50-140 more useful too.
I would also buy a long teleprime from Fuji. Not really interested in the 200 F2 but a 500 or 600 with reasonable speed would be awesome.
That shading is just sloppy heavy handed editing in Snapseed.
Ill see if I can come up with something with the 2x at 300ish. I seem to recall the conventional wisdom being the 1.4 is supposedly better at 400 than the 2.0 but I’ve never really seen any solid proof one way or another.
Possible, but at this point, it's basically pure guesswork without a real test and some images to inspect. And, BTW, the image degradation of the 1.4x between 300 and 400mm is minimal.
I agree Jerry but the minimal degradation of a weaker lens compared to slightly more degradation of a better lens, with more reach is as compelling/interesting. But proof will be in the eating as they say, need to get my hands on a 2x tc first
Excellent! I would be very happy to see some results from an "early adopter" or two before plunking down some of my fairly paltry equipment budget largely driven by guesswork. A really interesting (and simple) test would be to do a side-by-side test of both TCs at the 1.4x max FL, which is 560mm. If the 2x TC renders a similar IQ image at that FL, then it would clearly be a better proposition for me, particularly offering addition flexibility for those few times when you really need to go long. I have my doubts though.I agree Jerry but the minimal degradation of a weaker lens compared to slightly more degradation of a better lens, with more reach is as compelling/interesting. But proof will be in the eating as they say, need to get my hands on a 2x tc first
Awesome! I suspect I'm not the only one that would love to see a side-by-side test like this. That might make be a bit more comfortable about the possibility of adding the 2.0 TC to my kit, depending on how your tests turn out.
I definitely want the 2x Jerry anyway as I have now off-loaded my 55-200 and like the idea of the 50-140 with the 2x as a lighter option to the 100-400 when applicable too and the 100-300 range this would provide. I get my X-h1 Thrs, so will try and get one later this, early next week.Excellent! I would be very happy to see some results from an "early adopter" or two before plunking down some of my fairly paltry equipment budget largely driven by guesswork. A really interesting (and simple) test would be to do a side-by-side test of both TCs at the 1.4x max FL, which is 560mm. If the 2x TC renders a similar IQ image at that FL, then it would clearly be a better proposition for me, particularly offering addition flexibility for those few times when you really need to go long. I have my doubts though.I agree Jerry but the minimal degradation of a weaker lens compared to slightly more degradation of a better lens, with more reach is as compelling/interesting. But proof will be in the eating as they say, need to get my hands on a 2x tc first
OK, looks like ooc jpg, processed but interesting at 320mm with 2x wide open.I definitely want the 2x Jerry anyway as I have now off-loaded my 55-200 and like the idea of the 50-140 with the 2x as a lighter option to the 100-400 when applicable too and the 100-300 range this would provide. I get my X-h1 Thrs, so will try and get one later this, early next week.Excellent! I would be very happy to see some results from an "early adopter" or two before plunking down some of my fairly paltry equipment budget largely driven by guesswork. A really interesting (and simple) test would be to do a side-by-side test of both TCs at the 1.4x max FL, which is 560mm. If the 2x TC renders a similar IQ image at that FL, then it would clearly be a better proposition for me, particularly offering addition flexibility for those few times when you really need to go long. I have my doubts though.I agree Jerry but the minimal degradation of a weaker lens compared to slightly more degradation of a better lens, with more reach is as compelling/interesting. But proof will be in the eating as they say, need to get my hands on a 2x tc first
