50-140 w/ 2x converter vs 100-400 in overlapping range

Menedem · Dec 23, 2019

Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

JohnS59 · Dec 23, 2019

Menedem said:
Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

Interesting question! I do have both lenses but only the 1.4x TC unfortunately. Maybe some one has the 2x convertor and will share some experiences with it. With the 1.4 the 50-140mm still gives stellar results I can tell you and I doubt the 100-400mm will be clearly better. Just my feelings, I never tested it.

Not so sure about the 2x though. Maybe we find out soon.

John

Cliff59 · Dec 23, 2019

I seem to remember the same question coming up before and the answer being that the 100 - 400 was better than the 50 - 140 with 2x teleconverter. If you googled it with a few different key words you might find the thread. The result I recall is logical given that both lenses are red badge and the 2x teleconverter supposedly degrades the image a bit (I haven't got one - it's what I have read).

JohnS59 · Dec 23, 2019

Cliff59 said:
I seem to remember the same question coming up before and the answer being that the 100 - 400 was better than the 50 - 140 with 2x teleconverter. If you googled it with a few different key words you might find the thread. The result I recall is logical given that both lenses are red badge and the 2x teleconverter supposedly degrades the image a bit (I haven't got one - it's what I have read).

See also this: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2016/05/19/reach-out-fujifilm-2x-tele-converter-tc-wr-review/

Pure from a photographer approach, nothing technical as usual with this guy, but I like this (and his pictures!).

And his link to: https://www.bencherryphotos.com/Blog/2xteleconverter

John.

Jerry-astro · Dec 23, 2019

Menedem said:
Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

I can't speak to the 50-140, since I don't own one. But I can comment on the 2x TC, having taken one "out for a spin" a while back with my 100-400. TBH, I was sort of underwhelmed with it's performance (and admittedly, it may have been a copy specific issue). There was significantly more image degradation visible with the 2x TC vs. the 1.4x TC, which has really only a very small impact on overall IQ IMHO. Since everyone's "threshhold for pain" is different with respect to IQ, if you have the option to rent one before buying, I'd recommend it.

Personally, given my experience, no way would I consider replacing my 100-400 with a 50-140+TC. If you need the additional reach, better to go "native" IMHO and get the lens with the FL you need from the get go. I think you'll likely find the size and weight something that you'll get used to over time.

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

Jerry-astro said:
Menedem said:

Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the 50-140, since I don't own one. But I can comment on the 2x TC, having taken one "out for a spin" a while back with my 100-400. TBH, I was sort of underwhelmed with it's performance (and admittedly, it may have been a copy specific issue). There was significantly more image degradation visible with the 2x TC vs. the 1.4x TC, which has really only a very small impact on overall IQ IMHO. Since everyone's "threshhold for pain" is different with respect to IQ, if you have the option to rent one before buying, I'd recommend it.

Personally, given my experience, no way would I consider replacing my 100-400 with a 50-140+TC. If you need the additional reach, better to go "native" IMHO and get the lens with the FL you need from the get go. I think you'll likely find the size and weight something that you'll get used to over time.

Jerry, I tend to agree. I have the 50-140 & 2x TC, and it's certainly serviceable, but I find I need to stop it down to F8 (F4 on the lens ring) to get acceptable results. While the 100-400 seems to deliver good performance wide-open at 300 mm. At least according to Optical Limits. And then it goes to 400 mm, so...

I do think that if somebody wants the 50-140 as a primary lens, with the occasional need to go longer, that the 2x TC is a very good compliment and is worth buying. BUT if you shoot long commonly and/or need to maintain higher shutter speeds - such as wildlife - I'd go with the 100-400. In fact, I've been coveting one since I experienced the rut here in Colorado a few months back.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Morris0 · Dec 23, 2019

This is on a cloudy day resulting in crazy settings that worked as well as a bright sunny day as I was on a tripod and fused fill flash.

800mm, 1/120, f11, ISO 2500

An image like this can be published yet I'd love it to be a touch crisper.

Morris

toktik · Dec 23, 2019

georgehudetz said:
Jerry-astro said:

Menedem said:

Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the 50-140, since I don't own one. But I can comment on the 2x TC, having taken one "out for a spin" a while back with my 100-400. TBH, I was sort of underwhelmed with it's performance (and admittedly, it may have been a copy specific issue). There was significantly more image degradation visible with the 2x TC vs. the 1.4x TC, which has really only a very small impact on overall IQ IMHO. Since everyone's "threshhold for pain" is different with respect to IQ, if you have the option to rent one before buying, I'd recommend it.

Personally, given my experience, no way would I consider replacing my 100-400 with a 50-140+TC. If you need the additional reach, better to go "native" IMHO and get the lens with the FL you need from the get go. I think you'll likely find the size and weight something that you'll get used to over time.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I tend to agree. I have the 50-140 & 2x TC, and it's certainly serviceable, but I find I need to stop it down to F8 (F4 on the lens ring) to get acceptable results. While the 100-400 seems to deliver good performance wide-open at 300 mm. At least according to Optical Limits. And then it goes to 400 mm, so...

I do think that if somebody wants the 50-140 as a primary lens, with the occasional need to go longer, that the 2x TC is a very good compliment and is worth buying. BUT if you shoot long commonly and/or need to maintain higher shutter speeds - such as wildlife - I'd go with the 100-400. In fact, I've been coveting one since I experienced the rut here in Colorado a few months back.

I got the 50-140 a couple of months ago and was also able to pick up the 2x TC for about $250 new. I don't need the extra reach that often, so it's a good solution for me. I'm getting more used to the weight of the 50-140, so I don't bring my 50-230 much anymore. When I take the 50-140 I also carry the TC in a padded case (Hazard 4 Medium Jelly Roll). Carrying both the lens and the TC are not too difficult and the image quality is fine for me.

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

Morris0 said:
This is on a cloudy day resulting in crazy settings that worked as well as a bright sunny day as I was on a tripod and fused fill flash.

800mm, 1/120, f11, ISO 2500

An image like this can be published yet I'd love it to be a touch crisper.

Morris

Indeed - it's very good considering all that glass you had going on.

And here is my best 50-140 + 2x TC shot. You can get some good compression at this focal length, for sure.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

sshapiro said:
georgehudetz said:

Jerry-astro said:

Menedem said:

Hello,

This is an oddball question, so I apologize in advance if its oddballness puts someone off.

100-400 is an awesome lens, but it is a beast to haul.

50-140, on the other hand, is stellar, a bit smaller, fixed length, and a bit lighter, by about 450 grams (about 1 pound). Also brighter in native form, w/o converters.

Does anyone have any idea of the difference in image quality in overlapping range of 100-400 and 50-140 with 2xTC? That is, 50-140 f2.8 turned by the converter into 100-280 f5.6?

I know about the aperture and the loss of reach, but what about the image quality?

Just looking for some extra versatility and lower weight when traveling, and to see if the 2x converter is worth-while.

Thank you in advance,

Dmitry.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to the 50-140, since I don't own one. But I can comment on the 2x TC, having taken one "out for a spin" a while back with my 100-400. TBH, I was sort of underwhelmed with it's performance (and admittedly, it may have been a copy specific issue). There was significantly more image degradation visible with the 2x TC vs. the 1.4x TC, which has really only a very small impact on overall IQ IMHO. Since everyone's "threshhold for pain" is different with respect to IQ, if you have the option to rent one before buying, I'd recommend it.

Personally, given my experience, no way would I consider replacing my 100-400 with a 50-140+TC. If you need the additional reach, better to go "native" IMHO and get the lens with the FL you need from the get go. I think you'll likely find the size and weight something that you'll get used to over time.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I tend to agree. I have the 50-140 & 2x TC, and it's certainly serviceable, but I find I need to stop it down to F8 (F4 on the lens ring) to get acceptable results. While the 100-400 seems to deliver good performance wide-open at 300 mm. At least according to Optical Limits. And then it goes to 400 mm, so...

I do think that if somebody wants the 50-140 as a primary lens, with the occasional need to go longer, that the 2x TC is a very good compliment and is worth buying. BUT if you shoot long commonly and/or need to maintain higher shutter speeds - such as wildlife - I'd go with the 100-400. In fact, I've been coveting one since I experienced the rut here in Colorado a few months back.

Click to expand...

I got the 50-140 a couple of months ago and was also able to pick up the 2x TC for about $250 new. I don't need the extra reach that often, so it's a good solution for me. I'm getting more used to the weight of the 50-140, so I don't bring my 50-230 much anymore. When I take the 50-140 I also carry the TC in a padded case (Hazard 4 Medium Jelly Roll). Carrying both the lens and the TC are not too difficult and the image quality is fine for me.

Yes, that's exactly how I use it. Big advantage there is the incredible sharpness of the unmagnified 50-140 - particularly in the center. It's an amazing lens.

Morris0 · Dec 23, 2019

georgehudetz said:
Morris0 said:

This is on a cloudy day resulting in crazy settings that worked as well as a bright sunny day as I was on a tripod and fused fill flash.

800mm, 1/120, f11, ISO 2500

An image like this can be published yet I'd love it to be a touch crisper.

Morris

Click to expand...

Indeed - it's very good considering all that glass you had going on.

And here is my best 50-140 + 2x TC shot. You can get some good compression at this focal length, for sure.

That's lovely. The 100-400 is crisp like at without a TC, even at 400mm wide open.

For someone that owns the 50-140 and does not need 400mm or more, the 2x seems like a great option.

Morris

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

Morris0 said:
georgehudetz said:

Morris0 said:

This is on a cloudy day resulting in crazy settings that worked as well as a bright sunny day as I was on a tripod and fused fill flash.

800mm, 1/120, f11, ISO 2500

An image like this can be published yet I'd love it to be a touch crisper.

Morris

Click to expand...

Indeed - it's very good considering all that glass you had going on.

And here is my best 50-140 + 2x TC shot. You can get some good compression at this focal length, for sure.

Click to expand...

That's lovely. The 100-400 is crisp like at without a TC, even at 400mm wide open.

For someone that owns the 50-140 and does not need 400mm or more, the 2x seems like a great option.

Morris

Thanks!

Keep in mind, this is heavily down-sampled. I'll see if I can find some 100% crops of the 50-140/TC combo. This shot wouldn't be good for that given atmospherics, etc.

--

George Hudetz Photography

Powered by SmugMug

georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com

My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

Here's two full size wildlife shots. One with stronger lighting, and one with more cloud cover.

Processed in Capture One

--

George Hudetz Photography

Powered by SmugMug

georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com

My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

atalwar · Dec 23, 2019

2x with 50-140 is decent enough for large subjects, with smaller subjects at a distance the resolution/detail suffers.

I primarily use 2x with the 80mm Macro.

I am inclining towards getting a 100-400 myself.

Here are 2 shots taken about 20 mins back. Basic lightroom adjustments as light was not that good.

georgehudetz · Dec 24, 2019

So, this isn't exactly what was asked for, but here are two 100% crops from the center of the image of a distant mountain top. Both were processed from raw with the exact same settings (largely: C1's default, with the exception that I removed distortion correction).

Both at 200mm F8. Shot on a tripod with OIS/IBIS disabled and a 2 sec delay.

Note that the 55-200 is a bit soft at the long end (like most zooms).

Also note the slower shutter speed for the 50-140/TC - this is at least partially cased by the reduction in transmissibility due to the presence of the TC.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Menedem · Dec 24, 2019

I would like to thank all of you who responded and the wonderful images that you posted.

It looks like the 2x converter is definitely a compromise, but I need to think some more whether it is worth while for me.

On a number of occasions, I've been lugging both lenses on my trips. Usually it works out OK, especially once I get to the destination and get settled in. If I'm in a car, I usually take both lenses. If I'm on long hikes, more often than not I err towards the 100-400, even though it is heavier. For cities, crowded areas and/or aerials, I take the 50-140, with or without the 1.4x.

Looks like I will stick to that arrangement for the time being, and hold off on getting the 2x.

The attached photos were shot with 50-140+1.4x, through the plexiglass window.

Search

50-140 w/ 2x converter vs 100-400 in overlapping range

Menedem

Forum Enthusiast

toktik

JohnS59

Leading Member

Cliff59

Well-known member

JohnS59

Leading Member

Jerry-astro

Forum Pro

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

Morris0

Forum Pro

toktik

Senior Member

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

Morris0

Forum Pro

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

George Hudetz Photography

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

George Hudetz Photography

atalwar

Leading Member

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

Menedem

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts