1.4x TC, worth it or not?

[Jianfei WANG]

Hi,

Since I enjoy very much my excellent XF70-300, I'm considering adding a TC to give it more reach. The 1.4x TC specifically since it gets many reputations that it balances quite well between IQ lost and reach gain, until yesterday after I watched this video:

I know this guy is overreacting sometimes, but when I saw his comparison of 1.4x TC and crop, I was quite shocked.



Is it true that the 1.4x TC is not better than a 1.4x crop with regard to IQ as he showed? Or there's some misunderstanding here?

I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences from you about the TC to make a decision, and much appreciated the direct comparison between the TC and the cropped result.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi,

Since I enjoy very much my excellent XF70-300, I'm considering adding a TC to give it more reach. The 1.4x TC specifically since it gets many reputations that it balances quite well between IQ lost and reach gain, until yesterday after I watched this video:

I know this guy is overreacting sometimes, but when I saw his comparison of 1.4x TC and crop, I was quite shocked.



Is it true that the 1.4x TC is not better than a 1.4x crop with regard to IQ as he showed? Or there's some misunderstanding here?

I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences from you about the TC to make a decision, and much appreciated the direct comparison between the TC and the cropped result.

I’ve found the 1.4 TC to be very usable, and with a pretty minor impact on overall IQ — in my own case used in concert with a 100-400 lens. I think it’s a superior approach vs. suffering the loss of resolution by trying to accomplish the same thing via cropping (plus a somewhat different resulting FOV as well). The 2.0 TC is a different story, with far more resulting image degradation. Overall, not something I’d recommend.

I’m not in a good position to provide examples at the moment, but may try to do so when I have more time. Hopefully, others can post a few for you to look at as well.

Bottom line: I’d have no issue recommending it. Just expect a bit of an IQ falloff, but generally still superior to cropping (which also yields a somewhat different FOV).

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[jhorse]

Hi,

Since I enjoy very much my excellent XF70-300, I'm considering adding a TC to give it more reach. The 1.4x TC specifically since it gets many reputations that it balances quite well between IQ lost and reach gain, until yesterday after I watched this video:

I know this guy is overreacting sometimes, but when I saw his comparison of 1.4x TC and crop, I was quite shocked.



Is it true that the 1.4x TC is not better than a 1.4x crop with regard to IQ as he showed? Or there's some misunderstanding here?

I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences from you about the TC to make a decision, and much appreciated the direct comparison between the TC and the cropped result.

I’ve found the 1.4 TC to be very usable, and with a pretty minor impact on overall IQ — in my own case used in concert with a 100-400 lens. I think it’s a superior approach vs. suffering the loss of resolution by trying to accomplish the same thing via cropping (plus a somewhat different resulting FOV as well). The 2.0 TC is a different story, with far more resulting image degradation. Overall, not something I’d recommend.

I’m not in a good position to provide examples at the moment, but may try to do so when I have more time. Hopefully, others can post a few for you to look at as well.

Bottom line: I’d have no issue recommending it. Just expect a bit of an IQ falloff, but generally still superior to cropping (which also yields a somewhat different FOV).

With the 100-400, pretty well my view too. That said, I have not done a controlled test of the same subject in the same lighting condition between a x1.4 image and a cropped image. The only other two points I would add are first I bought my x1.4 as part of the kit with the lens, which makes it better value. They are quite expensive new as an individual item, but seldom used a lot so a mint condition second hand one might be worth considering. Second, the additional focal length means one's standing, holding, breathing and rolling the shutter technique needs to be of a higher order. Hope that helps.

--
J.

Jules7

Jules' galleries; enjoy.

jules7.smugmug.com

 

[FujiJon]

Hi,

Since I enjoy very much my excellent XF70-300, I'm considering adding a TC to give it more reach. The 1.4x TC specifically since it gets many reputations that it balances quite well between IQ lost and reach gain, until yesterday after I watched this video:

I know this guy is overreacting sometimes, but when I saw his comparison of 1.4x TC and crop, I was quite shocked.



Is it true that the 1.4x TC is not better than a 1.4x crop with regard to IQ as he showed? Or there's some misunderstanding here?

I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences from you about the TC to make a decision, and much appreciated the direct comparison between the TC and the cropped result.

Echoing the previous posts, really (especially your technique). They are around £420 in the UK but I picked up a used one (looks good as new) for £250 from a major dealer. Main downside for me is that the 100-400 becomes a F8 lens at the long end, so if you're doing action shots you need a high ISO or a nice sunny day (or both).

Here's some from yesterday. Handheld but resting on my knees. Sorry, I don't have the original JPGs.


Gadwall (male)


Cocker spaniel - she is a fast mover. The TC is still fitted (focal length as EXIF)

--
Don't complain about growing old, it's a privilege denied to many.

 

[Alan Hewitt Photo]

It depends on what you require / want for your end result.

Often, in publishing, megapixels are still required for submissions. A publisher may require images to be a minimum of XYZ pixels longest side, for example. If your image is cropped short of this, it isn't useable. For this reason I'm always very careful about cropping and I prefer to use a converter where possible / practical.

I don't know if this is a concern to you but I'm sure it probably isn't to many people. So, if you are happy with the output as a crop, and it meets you final needs then go with that.

Something else to add is that the 70-300mm is remarkably good at close focus distance. Adding a converter doesn't change this so it becomes a very good close up lens also.

 

[jhorse]

Cocker spaniel - she is a fast mover. The TC is still fitted (focal length as EXIF)

Well, if you can get images like this with a x1.4 - nothing to worry about! Wonderful image in its own right.

--
J.

Jules7

Jules' galleries; enjoy.

jules7.smugmug.com

 

[GMacF]

Cocker spaniel - she is a fast mover. The TC is still fitted (focal length as EXIF)

Well, if you can get images like this with a x1.4 - nothing to worry about! Wonderful image in its own right.

Very true, if it works it works.
But I think the point is, that image would have been perfectly obtainable without the TC as well.

I have actually been testing this very thing this week - both on my 50-140 and 70-300. The TL;DR: the 1.4x TC makes practically no difference vs cropping in post.
You can take that both ways, as in, it doesn't impact IQ which is good but also, if the same image can obtained just by cropping then is there really a need for the added weight/size along with losing a stop of light?





As I say, I'm not going to proclaim one is better than the other - just that in my experience I've found the difference negligible.

My motive for the testing (aside from being spurred by the video in the OP) is that the 50-140+1.4TC was my 'go-to' outdoors sports setup. For a football match last night I took the 50-140 (no TC) along with the 70-300 and the images captured were significantly improved. So now I'm thinking of adding the 100-400 to my collection - GAS...

 

[baobob]

I second input and comments same experience here both with 100-400 and 70-300 samples with the last one to come

 

[FujiJon]

Cocker spaniel - she is a fast mover. The TC is still fitted (focal length as EXIF)

Well, if you can get images like this with a x1.4 - nothing to worry about! Wonderful image in its own right.

--
J.
http://jules7.smugmug.com/

Thanks. They weren't all as good...maybe 75% acceptable of the spaniel? For me the knack seems to be to make sure the first image has the focus locked on (half press or BBF), then the rest will be good. Mostly.

--
Don't complain about growing old, it's a privilege denied to many.

 

[baobob]

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 

[baobob]

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 

[baobob]

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 

[Yawlen Z]

...Often, in publishing, megapixels are still required for submissions. A publisher may require images to be a minimum of XYZ pixels longest side, for example. If your imag is cropped short of this, it isn't useable...

Could this publisher's prerequisite not be easily met by enlarging the crop then? I had always understood that good fractal image resizing software – by ON1 or Topaz, like – is meant to do this for you, at a better than acceptable level.

 

[Morris0]

My experience with the 70-300 + 1.4x TC is that the IQ is almost indistinguishable from the 70-300 alone. A crop will not be as good. The downsides to the combination is a stop loss of light and very pore AF tracking when I do birds in flight. For flight photography I keep the TC off and get much better results by cropping.

Morris

 

[Jerry-astro]

Very true, if it works it works.
But I think the point is, that image would have been perfectly obtainable without the TC as well.

I have actually been testing this very thing this week - both on my 50-140 and 70-300. The TL;DR: the 1.4x TC makes practically no difference vs cropping in post.
You can take that both ways, as in, it doesn't impact IQ which is good but also, if the same image can obtained just by cropping then is there really a need for the added weight/size along with losing a stop of light?





As I say, I'm not going to proclaim one is better than the other - just that in my experience I've found the difference negligible.

My motive for the testing (aside from being spurred by the video in the OP) is that the 50-140+1.4TC was my 'go-to' outdoors sports setup. For a football match last night I took the 50-140 (no TC) along with the 70-300 and the images captured were significantly improved. So now I'm thinking of adding the 100-400 to my collection - GAS...

I think you're missing one important point. A cropped image will have reduced resolution, where an uncropped image will be at full resolution. When you crop, you're tossing away pixels and resolution. If you plan to only display that image on a monitor or print small, then you're quite right, it won't matter. However, if you do print your images, particularly at larger sizes, that difference may absolutely matter. Your argument, taken to an extreme, would suggest that long lenses are basically a waste of money, since any shot can be cropped. However, that's not entirely true, both from the standpoint of the ultimate resolution (important for larger prints) as well as the different FOV that you get from additional magnification vs. cropping. I realize that wasn't really your point, however, there's a good reason why TCs exist, and it's not simply to drain photographer's pocketbooks. When shooting at a good distance, the additional reach can absolutely make a difference. That same logic applies to any long lens.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[GMacF]

Very true, if it works it works.
But I think the point is, that image would have been perfectly obtainable without the TC as well.

I have actually been testing this very thing this week - both on my 50-140 and 70-300. The TL;DR: the 1.4x TC makes practically no difference vs cropping in post.
You can take that both ways, as in, it doesn't impact IQ which is good but also, if the same image can obtained just by cropping then is there really a need for the added weight/size along with losing a stop of light?





As I say, I'm not going to proclaim one is better than the other - just that in my experience I've found the difference negligible.

My motive for the testing (aside from being spurred by the video in the OP) is that the 50-140+1.4TC was my 'go-to' outdoors sports setup. For a football match last night I took the 50-140 (no TC) along with the 70-300 and the images captured were significantly improved. So now I'm thinking of adding the 100-400 to my collection - GAS...

I think you're missing one important point. A cropped image will have reduced resolution, where an uncropped image will be at full resolution. When you crop, you're tossing away pixels and resolution. If you plan to only display that image on a monitor or print small, then you're quite right, it won't matter. However, if you do print your images, particularly at larger sizes, that difference may absolutely matter. Your argument, taken to an extreme, would suggest that long lenses are basically a waste of money, since any shot can be cropped. However, that's not entirely true, both from the standpoint of the ultimate resolution (important for larger prints) as well as the different FOV that you get from additional magnification vs. cropping. I realize that wasn't really your point, however, there's a good reason why TCs exist, and it's not simply to drain photographer's pocketbooks. When shooting at a good distance, the additional reach can absolutely make a difference. That same logic applies to any long lens.

I do understand what you're getting at Jerry and totally agree the logic makes sense. However, I can produce a much sharper and more detailed image with the 70-300 @ ~196mm than the 50-140+1.4TC @ ~196mm so in that sense no TC is going to be a substitute for actually having a longer lens.
This is partly why I said in my first post that I'm seriously considering picking up a 100-400mm now because it will give me far better results (even at just 200mm) than the 50-140+1.4TC combo.

The other point I'd query is (and I'll accept this is lack of experience with regards prints talking) if you have to crop to such an extent that the MP end up being too few, is a 1.4TC going to make a significant difference?

 

[Jerry-astro]

I do understand what you're getting at Jerry and totally agree the logic makes sense. However, I can produce a much sharper and more detailed image with the 70-300 @ ~196mm than the 50-140+1.4TC @ ~196mm so in that sense no TC is going to be a substitute for actually having a longer lens.
This is partly why I said in my first post that I'm seriously considering picking up a 100-400mm now because it will give me far better results (even at just 200mm) than the 50-140+1.4TC combo.

The other point I'd query is (and I'll accept this is lack of experience with regards prints talking) if you have to crop to such an extent that the MP end up being too few, is a 1.4TC going to make a significant difference?

Assuming relatively comparable IQ, then you’ll almost always benefit from shooting at the right FL needed to get the composition you’re looking for. Cropping will always rob you of resolution. Now whether that is relevant to your own shot depends on what you plan to do with it and whether you will really need to take advantage of the increased resolution. If all you’re doing is sharing or viewing the images online, then none of this will matter. If you plan to possibly print the image at a moderate to large size, then that loss of resolution might start to become relevant and could have an impact on your ability to get a good quality print. If your prints will be fairly small, then none of this is likely to matter much.

And, yes, if I were wanting to shoot long on a regular basis (rather than opportunistically), I’d be going for a longer lens, as you mentioned. If your use case doesn’t really require higher resolution, then the resolution you might sacrifice will probably not matter. It’s very situational. Frankly, I try to avoid using the 1.4 TC unless it’s necessary as there is a noticeable (but not huge) reduction in IQ attributable to it. The 2.0 TC is another matter, however. TBH and IMHO, pretty well a waste of money, to be blunt.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[jaberg]

I sometimes enjoy Camera Conspiracies for the entertainment but don’t take his “reviews” very seriously. My own experience with the 1.4TC on the 70-300 has been largely positive. I have to agree with Morris — it slows down AF for BIF. If that’s your primary purpose you might want to reconsider. For my purposes, of which BIF is only a minor concern, the TC is a compact addition to my kit. Can’t wait to “get out there” this summer and really put this combination to work.






Mountain Lion — Through the Fence — Como Park Zoo

 

[OrigamiCactus]

Hi,

Since I enjoy very much my excellent XF70-300, I'm considering adding a TC to give it more reach. The 1.4x TC specifically since it gets many reputations that it balances quite well between IQ lost and reach gain, until yesterday after I watched this video:

I know this guy is overreacting sometimes, but when I saw his comparison of 1.4x TC and crop, I was quite shocked.

Is it true that the 1.4x TC is not better than a 1.4x crop with regard to IQ as he showed? Or there's some misunderstanding here?

I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences from you about the TC to make a decision, and much appreciated the direct comparison between the TC and the cropped result.

The answer is actually really really easy. You infact, can crop the TC image too, so you will always have more reach with a TC, really that simple.

You can check out my thread, where I showcase a photo that would simply be possible without the 2x TC. I get a total reach of 1800m, using only 2xTC and a 70-300mm.

Without the TC being used, the image resolution would be 1.6Mpix, which is way too little, but with TC the result was an usable 6Mpix. You have to understand that a 2x crop is 4x less megapixels, because image gets smaller on both axis.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4645859

 

[Alan Hewitt Photo]

...Often, in publishing, megapixels are still required for submissions. A publisher may require images to be a minimum of XYZ pixels longest side, for example. If your imag is cropped short of this, it isn't useable...

Could this publisher's prerequisite not be easily met by enlarging the crop then? I had always understood that good fractal image resizing software – by ON1 or Topaz, like – is meant to do this for you, at a better than acceptable level.

In some cases it would, yes. All depends on your source quality.