Avoid 2x TC on A7Riv. Too much "empty" magnification!

[dcstep]

...

And yes camera shake is a problem for the sharpest results... I find IBIS and the built in lens stabilization is really very good but by no means perfect.

At resulting focal lengths, with the 2.0x, you need high shutter speeds, OR a tripod, even with IBIS and OSS.

 

[dcstep]

I hand hold almost all my field shots at these focal lengths, but typically at 1/2000-sec and higher. For testing and making declarative statements, I think that a tripod is required to get repeatable, meaningful results. The pixel difference may cause some deterioration, but I doubt that it's near so large Reply with quote with these lenses and teleconverters.

For those photographing dollar bills handheld with long teles + 2xTC, fine, I guess...

I used a tripod, in case I wasn't clear.

I meant more that the results at short distances and longer ones are often different.

I long ago gave up testing longer lenses indoors, in order to get meaningful results (unless macro or close-up/portrait is the intended main use of said lenses).

That is what I have said a few times but dcstep seems disagreed. For such long lenses, really the result is only meaningful if you shoot from distance, ideally at least 50x of FL. So for a 600mm FL lens, you need to shoot at least 30m away, basically reflect your usage in real world. Ideally setup a tripod outdoor to shoot on a big building/architecture from a distance.

I personally don't believe testing on a currency bill is that meaningful as they all appear sharp (because of aliasing) that also related to on how you align tripod properly.

For the same reason I don't take DPR or IR or TDP studio tests too seriously as they all taken from close distance. DPR real-world scene from the roof of the their Seattle HQ is much more meaningful and revealing in my opinion.

I think that we only disagree to the extent that I think that both types of tests are valid. A lenses that's sharp at 15-ft is not going to suddenly be soft at 30m, unless there's an AF problem (not the case with the a9). The only potential misleading aspect of the 15-ft currency bill technique is that it tends to show performance in the middle of the lens and not test the corners; however, for bird photographers we don't tend to be too concerned out at those corners, because we're cropping them off 99% of the time. The standard lenshood on the EF 600mm f/4L IS III vignettes seriously, for example, but no one seems to care.

I was shooting egrets and small mammals yesterday and paid attention to my shooting distance. The keepers were within 10m and still cropped:





So, I think that my tests are valid, but so are yours, just different.

--
Dave

 

[PWPhotography]

I hand hold almost all my field shots at these focal lengths, but typically at 1/2000-sec and higher. For testing and making declarative statements, I think that a tripod is required to get repeatable, meaningful results. The pixel difference may cause some deterioration, but I doubt that it's near so large Reply with quotewith these lenses and teleconverters.

For those photographing dollar bills handheld with long teles + 2xTC, fine, I guess...

I used a tripod, in case I wasn't clear.

I meant more that the results at short distances and longer ones are often different.

I long ago gave up testing longer lenses indoors, in order to get meaningful results (unless macro or close-up/portrait is the intended main use of said lenses).

That is what I have said a few times but dcstep seems disagreed. For such long lenses, really the result is only meaningful if you shoot from distance, ideally at least 50x of FL. So for a 600mm FL lens, you need to shoot at least 30m away, basically reflect your usage in real world. Ideally setup a tripod outdoor to shoot on a big building/architecture from a distance.

I personally don't believe testing on a currency bill is that meaningful as they all appear sharp (because of aliasing) that also related to on how you align tripod properly.

For the same reason I don't take DPR or IR or TDP studio tests too seriously as they all taken from close distance. DPR real-world scene from the roof of the their Seattle HQ is much more meaningful and revealing in my opinion.

I think that we only disagree to the extent that I think that both types of tests are valid. A lenses that's sharp at 15-ft is not going to suddenly be soft at 30m, unless there's an AF problem (not the case with the a9). The only potential misleading aspect of the 15-ft currency bill technique is that it tends to show performance in the middle of the lens and not test the corners; however, for bird photographers we don't tend to be too concerned out at those corners, because we're cropping them off 99% of the time. The standard lenshood on the EF 600mm f/4L IS III vignettes seriously, for example, but no one seems to care.

I was shooting egrets and small mammals yesterday and paid attention to my shooting distance. The keepers were within 10m and still cropped:



So, I think that my tests are valid, but so are yours, just different.

I didn't mean AF accuracy but mean sharpness accuracy if you want to show difference more clearly that if 2.0x TC actually that good or not (compared to crop out from 1.4x TC) on the tele lens? If you ever did such test from a 30m away on a building, it will show more accurate and more meaningful result than on a currency bill indoor.

I have a more coordinated one from close distance from that 'soft' FE 70-200 G/4.0 OSS

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[bob13bob]

OK, just to remove any doubt about my lens or TC not being good copies, I redid my previous tripod-based test. This time I used camera mounted flash (partially bounced, partially direct light - but identical for all images except power adjustments to match exposures). Flash range was around 1/16th to 1/8th power.

Distance to target was 12ft - a regularly-used range for small critters and birds (baited).

Well, I got a surprise - and a bit of egg on my face in the process. The 2x TC is capable of w-a-a-a-y sharper results than I thought, but still soft compared to no TC or the 1.4x (as we expect). It's actually quite good to confirm that with even *more* practice to improve my handheld technique I can squeeze even more performance out of this combo too. I love headroom :-D

nice tests. i assumed this was on a7r4.

imo, the 2x is inferior to either the 1x or 1.4x, and definitely contrast lost.

the 1.4x quite a bit sharper on sharper than the 1x to the same magnfication ( look at the green lettering beneath the money) . But imo, it looks like a tiny little bit of contrast lost with the 1.4x

Was your first post taken from the same distance? to be fair comparison, they need to be taken from same distance like you did here; so that effective angle of view or FL is the same. If you did walk closer to take the 1x shot, then it would definitely be better than TC used. If they were taken from same distance, i think these results are in line with your first post, 2x looks inferior to me in both.

if shooting the same effective FL, then handshake should effect both images the same. Unless the extra weight and length of TC makes it harder to shoot stable.

Also, i wouldn't be surprised if there differences in these differences depending on close focus distance vs Far focus distance, very common in lens.

--
my equipment: a7iii. NATIVE: sony 50 1.8. samyang 35 2.8. ADAPTED: sigma mc11 adapter. canon 85mm 1.8. sigma (canon) 12-24 4-5.6. canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is ii.

 

[randomguy]

I hand hold almost all my field shots at these focal lengths, but typically at 1/2000-sec and higher. For testing and making declarative statements, I think that a tripod is required to get repeatable, meaningful results. The pixel difference may cause some deterioration, but I doubt that it's near so large with these lenses and teleconverters.

For those photographing dollar bills handheld with long teles + 2xTC, fine, I guess...

I used a tripod, in case I wasn't clear.

I meant more that the results at short distances and longer ones are often different.

I long ago gave up testing longer lenses indoors, in order to get meaningful results (unless macro or close-up/portrait is the intended main use of said lenses).

That is what I have said a few times but dcstep seems disagreed. For such long lenses, really the result is only meaningful if you shoot from distance, ideally at least 50x of FL. So for a 600mm FL lens, you need to shoot at least 30m away, basically reflect your usage in real world. Ideally setup a tripod outdoor to shoot on a big building/architecture from a distance.

I personally don't believe testing on a currency bill is that meaningful as they all appear sharp (because of aliasing) that also related to on how you align tripod properly.

For the same reason I don't take DPR or IR or TDP studio tests too seriously as they all taken from close distance. DPR real-world scene from the roof of the their Seattle HQ is much more meaningful and revealing in my opinion.

I shoot this lens from MFD of 2.7m to infinity in real use so I disagree that only 30m+ is relevant. Also do you have any evidence that any of these super tele lenses are only sharp at close distances?

A long range test as from the roof of Seattle HQ sounds like exactly the kind of test one needs to be very careful about with long teles, because when you get to 50-100m range+ atmospherics usually kick in and can ruin your shots and make tests invalid.

 

[Colin Franks]

The A9 however takes converters without a noticeable performance loss (except for the loss of light in low light of course), except maybe the 2x on the 200-600, haven't tested that for BIF.

FWIW, I have seen some shockingly good, sharp images out of the a9/200-600/2X combo. Extenders are to be avoided on the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 200-500 lenses, so Sony is doing something right!

 

[bob13bob]

Nice comparison.

Readers should understand that the 600mm f/4 is the primary tool of many bird-in-flight photographers. Even at 600mm, we're often cropping. A 50% to 80% crop is not unusual, so using a teleconverter to get more pixels on the subject is VERY useful. Taking a 1200mm shot and cropping it 10% (yes, you still might crop at that focal length) can be better than shooting at 600mm and cropping 90%, IF (that's a big "if") the teleconverter doesn't degrade the IQ too much.

My testing and Bob's further analysis shows that there is very little degradation with Sony's FE 2.0x teleconverter.

BTW, DPReview now has their set-up comparison shots up for the a7RIV. Look at those vs. the a9 and a7RIII. It's making me Jones of an a9II, with 30+mp, OR an a7x that'll match the a9's AF. The very best lens and teleconverter can't make up for OOF shots, with too low shutter speed.

for this use, i think the a6400 would be a better camera than the a7r3. more resolution than a7r3 crop mode. quite a bit better focus. the cheaper is just a side effect. in general I think crop cameras tend to be better for bif photographers, or at least more cost effective. It's seems to be easier for the manufactuers to optimize AF speed /budget for it with the crop cameras. eg, D500 focuses better than the d850.

--
my equipment: a7iii. NATIVE: sony 50 1.8. samyang 35 2.8. ADAPTED: sigma mc11 adapter. canon 85mm 1.8. sigma (canon) 12-24 4-5.6. canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is ii.

 

[bob13bob]

can you upload the full resolution files of dollar bills so i can eliminate the possibilty of difference being due to website compression.

When you click on "Original Size", doesn't it show full rez?

Send me an email address and I'll send you the files via Dropbox

sent.

it's "full size" TM, but many sites compress the files. when i download it, its less than 3mb unless i'm missing an option. obvious compression going on there.

It' interesting your restults of the 2x is much better than the OPs. I hope OP doesn't have a bad TC copy, or worse, lens copy.

 

[bob13bob]

I'd bet that the a9 works very well (I don't mean great) with the 200-600, plus 2.0x, BUT only in good light. It'll be okay for static shots in most light, but it'll get very sluggish and hunt too much in less than ideal light.

I shot a deer with my a9 and a bare 400/f2.8, AT ISO 64000. The focus was hunting like crazy, so I had to use the focus-lock buttons to hold focus while I took the shot. NO WAY I could have shot a BIF.

i think any current AF system will have a lot of trouble with iso64000 light levels. very nice shot in pretty extreme low light conditions.

 

[bob13bob]

Thanks for going the extra mile and correcting your original conclusion.

It's too easy to bash the FE 2.0x teleconverter and too many people pile on and repeat the "factoid". YES, it does degrade the original, but is that enough for critical photographers to exclude it from usage for all circumstances? I think not, particularly for bird and bird-in-flight photographers.

We're not trying to bash. we are collecitvely trying to find out the best way to spend money on our habits and finding out exactly what we're getting.

i think o the OP, and the followup, the results point that you should not use the 2x with the a7r4 or higher resolution cameras on at least his prime.

 

[bob13bob]

FWIW, I have seen some shockingly good, sharp images out of the a9/200-600/2X combo. Extenders are to be avoided on the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 200-500 lenses, so Sony is doing something right!

tamron sigmas are good lens, especially for the price. they aren't in the same league as sony's new glass generally in the super telephoto range. Canon glass is closer to sony glass. even old canon 400mm is better than tamron sigma cropped to 600. to be expected with prime imo.

Do you guys find the zoom range helpful? Or should I just get a 400 or 600 prime?

 

[Colin Franks]

Do you guys find the zoom range helpful? Or should I just get a 400 or 600 prime?

Having the zoom is very often helpful, it is inherently more versatile than a prime.

I'm presently selling all my Nikon gear (including a 500 f/4E), and will be getting the new a9II with 200-600, and will likely be content with that. The Sony 200-600 is basically flawless for what one can expect out of a zoom lens of this reach. It is sharp, light, internal zoom, with a short throw on the zoom ring. I can't find a fault with it. Priced well too.

 

[PWPhotography]

I hand hold almost all my field shots at these focal lengths, but typically at 1/2000-sec and higher. For testing and making declarative statements, I think that a tripod is required to get repeatable, meaningful results. The pixel difference may cause some deterioration, but I doubt that it's near so large with these lenses and teleconverters.

For those photographing dollar bills handheld with long teles + 2xTC, fine, I guess...

I used a tripod, in case I wasn't clear.

I meant more that the results at short distances and longer ones are often different.

I long ago gave up testing longer lenses indoors, in order to get meaningful results (unless macro or close-up/portrait is the intended main use of said lenses).

That is what I have said a few times but dcstep seems disagreed. For such long lenses, really the result is only meaningful if you shoot from distance, ideally at least 50x of FL. So for a 600mm FL lens, you need to shoot at least 30m away, basically reflect your usage in real world. Ideally setup a tripod outdoor to shoot on a big building/architecture from a distance.

I personally don't believe testing on a currency bill is that meaningful as they all appear sharp (because of aliasing) that also related to on how you align tripod properly.

For the same reason I don't take DPR or IR or TDP studio tests too seriously as they all taken from close distance. DPR real-world scene from the roof of the their Seattle HQ is much more meaningful and revealing in my opinion.

I shoot this lens from MFD of 2.7m to infinity in real use so I disagree that only 30m+ is relevant. Also do you have any evidence that any of these super tele lenses are only sharp at close distances?

I didn't say only relevant, but more meaningful and more accurate. I used to shoot a dollar bill as many do indoor with all lenses including EF 500L/4.0 IS. But later I found it's more meaningful when I shoot outdoor from a distance to test the true sharpness especially with TCs.

Otherwise why Canon is suggesting to adjust AF accuracy from 50x of len's focal length? The AF accuracy or sharpness in 2m is certainly different from 30m away with such long lens.

A long range test as from the roof of Seattle HQ sounds like exactly the kind of test one needs to be very careful about with long teles, because when you get to 50-100m range+ atmospherics usually kick in and can ruin your shots and make tests invalid.

Technically possible but costly if you want to test in an indoor stadium with close roof. 30m away is different from 1K away that should not subject to much atmospherics.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Beatsy]

i think o the OP, and the followup, the results point that you should not use the 2x with the a7r4 or higher resolution cameras on at least his prime.

Thanks for this. That's exactly what I was trying to convey - though my latest test has proven me wrong - to a degree.

There *is* extra detail to be scraped out with the 2x TC, albeit not necessarily with extra sharpness to match.

My conclusion (now) is that If your handheld technique is sketchy, the 2x TC is not for you. Otherwise - it might be...

 

[dcstep]

...

...If you ever did such test from a 30m away on a building, it will show more accurate and more meaningful result than on a currency bill indoor.E 70-200 G/4.0 OSS

How and why? I didn't see any real additional information in the examples that you posted in another thread.

Nice squirrel. ;-)

 

[dcstep]

Do you guys find the zoom range helpful? Or should I just get a 400 or 600 prime?

I have that combo and I'm having second thoughts about $25,000 invested in two primes. The reason that I even thought about keeping the 400mm was to shoot large mammals in low light. I'm thinking today, that doesn't make sense for the small amount of usage I'd get.

I carry the 600mm on my a9 and the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC on the a7RIII. (The wide zooms are in a sling bag on my back).

 

[dcstep]

Nice comparison.

Readers should understand that the 600mm f/4 is the primary tool of many bird-in-flight photographers. Even at 600mm, we're often cropping. A 50% to 80% crop is not unusual, so using a teleconverter to get more pixels on the subject is VERY useful. Taking a 1200mm shot and cropping it 10% (yes, you still might crop at that focal length) can be better than shooting at 600mm and cropping 90%, IF (that's a big "if") the teleconverter doesn't degrade the IQ too much.

My testing and Bob's further analysis shows that there is very little degradation with Sony's FE 2.0x teleconverter.

BTW, DPReview now has their set-up comparison shots up for the a7RIV. Look at those vs. the a9 and a7RIII. It's making me Jones of an a9II, with 30+mp, OR an a7x that'll match the a9's AF. The very best lens and teleconverter can't make up for OOF shots, with too low shutter speed.

for this use, i think the a6400 would be a better camera than the a7r3. more resolution than a7r3 crop mode. quite a bit better focus. the cheaper is just a side effect. in general I think crop cameras tend to be better for bif photographers, or at least more cost effective. It's seems to be easier for the manufactuers to optimize AF speed /budget for it with the crop cameras. eg, D500 focuses better than the d850.

I concur, that the 6400 has better AF than the a7RIII; however, it's EVF, in comparison lacks resolution, which I find problematic when trying to track birds. If I take a shot with the a7RIII, I never use the crop mode. With the a7RIV, I probably would, but only for the file size savings.

I'm waiting on the next iteration of the a9 before I decide on buying an a7RIV. I'm pretty darn happy with my a7RIII, but extra resolution and slightly more DR are tempting for landscape and travel photography that I do.

 

[dcstep]

I hand hold almost all my field shots at these focal lengths, but typically at 1/2000-sec and higher. For testing and making declarative statements, I think that a tripod is required to get repeatable, meaningful results. The pixel difference may cause some deterioration, but I doubt that it's near so large with these lenses and teleconverters.

For those photographing dollar bills handheld with long teles + 2xTC, fine, I guess...

I used a tripod, in case I wasn't clear.

I meant more that the results at short distances and longer ones are often different.

I long ago gave up testing longer lenses indoors, in order to get meaningful results (unless macro or close-up/portrait is the intended main use of said lenses).

That is what I have said a few times but dcstep seems disagreed. For such long lenses, really the result is only meaningful if you shoot from distance, ideally at least 50x of FL. So for a 600mm FL lens, you need to shoot at least 30m away, basically reflect your usage in real world. Ideally setup a tripod outdoor to shoot on a big building/architecture from a distance.

I personally don't believe testing on a currency bill is that meaningful as they all appear sharp (because of aliasing) that also related to on how you align tripod properly.

For the same reason I don't take DPR or IR or TDP studio tests too seriously as they all taken from close distance. DPR real-world scene from the roof of the their Seattle HQ is much more meaningful and revealing in my opinion.

I shoot this lens from MFD of 2.7m to infinity in real use so I disagree that only 30m+ is relevant. Also do you have any evidence that any of these super tele lenses are only sharp at close distances?

I didn't say only relevant, but more meaningful and more accurate. I used to shoot a dollar bill as many do indoor with all lenses including EF 500L/4.0 IS. But later I found it's more meaningful when I shoot outdoor from a distance to test the true sharpness especially with TCs.

Otherwise why Canon is suggesting to adjust AF accuracy from 50x of len's focal length? The AF accuracy or sharpness in 2m is certainly different from 30m away with such long lens.

A long range test as from the roof of Seattle HQ sounds like exactly the kind of test one needs to be very careful about with long teles, because when you get to 50-100m range+ atmospherics usually kick in and can ruin your shots and make tests invalid.

Technically possible but costly if you want to test in an indoor stadium with close roof. 30m away is different from 1K away that should not subject to much atmospherics.

Canon's AF issues and Sony lenses IQ are two unrelated events. If you're going to micro-adjust your Canon's lens AF accuracy, then do it closer to where you actually shoot.

You still haven't answered or pointed to what is "more meaningful and more accurate" about a 30m test. You keep saying it, but I can't see it. I DO think that it's a valid test, that does a better job of showing corner performance, but I don't see any other difference.

Remember, we're not talking about old timey DSLRs here and their problems with AF and micro-adjusting of lens. That may be an old wive's tail from the DSLR days.

 

[dcstep]

i think o the OP, and the followup, the results point that you should not use the 2x with the a7r4 or higher resolution cameras on at least his prime.

Thanks for this. That's exactly what I was trying to convey - though my latest test has proven me wrong - to a degree.

There *is* extra detail to be scraped out with the 2x TC, albeit not necessarily with extra sharpness to match.

My conclusion (now) is that If your handheld technique is sketchy, the 2x TC is not for you. Otherwise - it might be...

Beatsy, I saw what you saw. I'll continue using my FE 2.0x teleconverter, when the situation warrants. Maybe I can get a moon shot in the morning, or later tonight...I'll put 1200mm on the ole a7RIII, hand hold it and see what happens. ;-)

 

[dcstep]

With my Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II, with the EF 1.4x and 2.0x TC-IIIs, Chromatic Aberration grew noticeably and progressively with each TC. When conditions are right, CA can be right and really had to remove in post.

I don't think that I save the file, but I took a shot a while back, of a heron or egret landing, in low light, with the FE 2.0x on the FE 400/2.8. The CA was horrible. I couldn't figure out exactly what caused it but I couldn't come close to correcting to a useable file.

So far, on my FE 600/f4, with the teleconverters, CA has not been an issue; however, I've mainly been shooting with the bare lens.