Why so many of you willing to use a TC

[netgarden]

the big guns are so heavy, hard to lug them around on hikes. We forsake a little clarity when needed, now that PP is so good.

And also, usually it's the autofocus that is tweaked when a teleconverter is on the lens. Manual focusing makes for full sharpness!

Less keepers with BIFs, so I don't use it often for that now that I have the 500mm. But I did shoot with teleconverters for years and learned how to use them.

I have a friend that keeps a 1.4x on his 500mm ALL the time. That, I can't figure out. There are times to use them and times to take them off. It depends on available light, and available subjects.

--



http://www.OCwildlife.com
There is no other photography like Wildlife

 

[bronxbombers]

A 300 2.8 IS with 1.4x TC and 2X TC costs a LOT less than a 300 2.8 + 400 f/4 + 600 f/5.6 and weighs a ton less too

a 70-200 and 1.4x tc costs less than a 70-200 plus 300 f/4 and is a lot more compact, etc.

Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

 

[fredlord]

Romy: Thank you. I'm starting to realize the newfound sharpness is a product of both the new convertor and the new camera. Even the bare 500 is improved on the 1D MK IV. I've been searching through the archives and although the bare 500 on the 1D2 and 1D3 was quite nice, it was never ever as good as it is now on the 1D4. With the MA capability of the present cameras, there're few excuses left for me to use when I mess up.
--
Fred Lord

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Now, a 2x TC is commonly used with big whites, producing still very good IQ when shot well. And this is notwithstanding the much smaller pixels in DSLRs today.

I think a lot of that has to do with the advent of liveview and online discussions that have brought somewhat of a consensus to "better to TC than to crop." I personally stack an old Kenko 2x and 1.4x Kenko Pro on my 300/4 non-IS when I need the reach (on my 550D no less) shooting seals on the coast... and stopped down to f13 or so, the results are fine, slightly cropped, even at A4. With the 1.4x, even A1 results are pretty fantastic at f7.1 (seems to be the sweet spot with that combo). Not bad for a $600 lens and a couple extenders I wouldn't dare attempt stacked TCs without a good pod and 10x liveview though. The focus throw on the old L's was clearly not designed with this level of magnification in mind!

--
-CW

 

[harry cannoli]

I like getting close..



Cheers
Rich

 

[Tinu_ch]

Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses,

The main reasons not to use protective or UV-filters are reflections, flare and veiling.

TCs are most often used to extend the reach of long lenses. Of course they come with a penalty to image quality. But this penalty is related to the quality of the lens and to pixel density.

Not long ago I thought a 2x to be too much to be used with good effect. When I fiddled with the 500L and 2xII last year I found it not worthwhile with a 7D but quite acceptable with a 5DII (wider pixel pitch).

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

Nowadays, I often use the 500L with 2xIII on a 1DIV. It is a combination that works quite well. Even wide open it delivers more detail than the 1.4x, and one stop down I often can't tell which TC was on without looking up the EXIFs. On a 7D there is more of a difference between 1.4x and 2x, partly because even in the best light ISO 400 or 800 are needed.

The 5.6/400L seems to be a good lens, but not good enough to deliver with TCs, at least not on cameras with high pixel density.

Tinu

--
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation
Some of my pictures: http://www.pbase.com/tinu

 

[Keith Reeder]

Though 1.4x is just acceptable and 2x is only acceptable for emergencies and in perfect light.

Rubbish.

This from a current pro, Nigel Blake: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelblake/3386359491/

Larger version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelblake/3386359491/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Nigel was kind enough to send me the full-res. of this image and it's extraordinarily sharp.

 

[carlk]

There is no cost of IQ long as you're reach limited and needed to crop the image. Crop magnifies the lens defects too. Plus it magnifies the (lack of) sensor resolution. I haven't read all the replies but I'm sure some will have answered this already. My 1.4x tc is glued to my 300/4 when I shoot wildlife. I definitely will not be able to get the same results if I was using the lens bare.

Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

 

[carlk]

Yes I agree. MFA is great for getting that critical sharpness for shooting fast primes or super long lenses.

 

[mevbo]

I agree with op.

Though 1.4x is just acceptable and 2x is only acceptable for emergencies and in perfect light.

Others appear to be happy using when closing down to f8 minimum and looks ok if there is no background... like planes, some bird shots etc.

Also some lenses like 100-400 are so old that people prefer to suffer with 2x and wait hopefully...for a modern version....

I love my 2.0iii on the 70-200 2.8 ii. In my opinion, this setup is the exception to any belief that the iq is not good enough to use. These are all withmy 50d, the 5dii shots are even better.

 

[carlk]

Hmmm.... looks no one has mentioned this. I'll repeat it one more time. Next time when someone says tc magnifies all the defects of the lens just tell him cropping will magnify them the same way and then some.

There is no cost of IQ long as you're reach limited and needed to crop the image. Crop magnifies the lens defects too. Plus it magnifies the (lack of) sensor resolution. I haven't read all the replies but I'm sure some will have answered this already. My 1.4x tc is glued to my 300/4 when I shoot wildlife. I definitely will not be able to get the same results if I was using the lens bare.

Hello Everyone.........

I hear so many people saying how bad using a filter is because, it's put more glass out front of high price lenses, but yet there is just as many that will put a TC, with all it's glass behind that high price lens.

So I'm wondering why you would do that, to high price lenses ???

I have a canon 50D and canon 400mm f5.6 prime I use for wildlife, I could use that 1.4 TC reach but I will not at the cost of image IQ, my TC lets me even AF in good light but I don't use it.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

 

[expro]

sorry I'm talking from my experience on 5d2 and my 2x is rubbish on all my lenses....

and that includes a stellar copy of 300f2.8is...

as they say your mileage may vary...

I am very happy with my alternative though...the 7d....

 

[Peter 13]

100% crop.

This does not look good.

 

[mevbo]

sorry I'm talking from my experience on 5d2 and my 2x is rubbish on all my lenses....

and that includes a stellar copy of 300f2.8is...

as they say your mileage may vary...

I am very happy with my alternative though...the 7d....

What version do you have? I II or III? I am quite happy with mine on my 5DmkII
Here are a few on it:

 

[Greg Lavaty]

Here’s a question for you. With your 50D and 400, what looks better; a shot taken with the teleconverter or a shot without the teleconverter that is uprezed to the size that it would have been with the TC?

Greg

 

[time20n]

Well I don't crop my images and I don't use the 1.4 TC, I try getting as close as I can for the shots, I have already missed a few shots because I was to close.

Getting up close takes skills other then taking photos, and the rewards are much more then getting that great shot for it as well, although I have medical problems I'm trying to come back from now.

I hope to get out there and take some mind blowing 100% crop wildlife shots again, I went on a month long photo opts camping trip last year, but was in to bad of shape to get many great shots.

Two months after the trip in oct I had to get a spine operation in my neck, disc levels C5-7 was choking off my spinal cord, they removed them put bone in their place, then put a plate with screws and wire to hold it together.

I also got 2 lower back disc all the way out to where bone is rubbing bone, I hope to start getting out and taking photos though, I wanted to go on another month long camping trip this year, but it seem like it was to late way to fast this year.

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

 

[Montana500]

Well I don't crop my images and I don't use the 1.4 TC, I try getting as close as I can for the shots.

That doesn't work very well in bear country.

Getting up close takes skills other then taking photos, and the rewards are much more then getting that great shot for it as well, although I have medical problems I'm trying to come back from now.

Get the longest lens you can afford. Pushing on animals and changing their behavior causes many problems, including abandonment of nests, attacks on the photographers, animals running onto a road, etc. There's not much skill involved and it's bad for the wildlife.

--

Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Montana500]

It's the nature of the game. That's pretty dang crisp for a wide open 2x.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[time20n]

I would never put wildlife in harms way for a photo, or my self for that matter, you can get pretty close to some wildlife with out any harm to them, or your self if done right.

Well I don't crop my images and I don't use the 1.4 TC, I try getting as close as I can for the shots.

That doesn't work very well in bear country.

Getting up close takes skills other then taking photos, and the rewards are much more then getting that great shot for it as well, although I have medical problems I'm trying to come back from now.

Get the longest lens you can afford. Pushing on animals and changing their behavior causes many problems, including abandonment of nests, attacks on the photographers, animals running onto a road, etc. There's not much skill involved and it's bad for the wildlife.

--

Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695

 

[jedinstvo]

One of the camera clubbers put three Spiratone 2X converters on his 200 f4.5 cheapo lens....instant 1600mm f45 lens! The idea being to take sneaky shots of the cheerleaders.....meanwhile, one of the cheerleaders was begging me to photograph her naked. Too bad I was chicken! But seriously kids, a slightly less than optimum image is better than no image at all. Carrying a 2X around in the bag is not a bad idea. Look at some of the greatest photos of all time and you'll see many are not sharp.