DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0? Locked

Started Oct 16, 2020 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 26,688
Re: RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0?

PicPocket wrote:

For pretty much every generation of teleconverters, 1.4x is a lot more sharper than 2x. Mostly to and extent where 1.4x means not much visible impact and 2x means clearly visible impact

Having said that, I have no experience with RF adapters yet, so if the 2x is at par with 1.4x, go for it

This can happen in two independent ways, though.

It may be possible that a particular 2x actually adds more aberration of its own than the 1.4x from the same manufacturer and series.  I can confirm the fact that the Kenko Pro 300 DG 3x causes more global contrast loss than the 1.4 version, for example, and perhaps some 2x+ TCs put local halos that are stronger and wider on high-contrast edges, relative to subject size, perhaps more so for invisible wavelength contamination, if they are not optimized keep those wavelengths tight.

On the other hand, the lens itself runs out of sharpness as you magnify it more, and at some level of magnification, the maximum pixel level contrast drops fast, and sooner for smaller pixels.  The magnification itself, however, never causes a subject detail loss; the subject is just better sampled, as it should be, ideally, at the possible expense of a narrower FOV.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow