Reading mode: Light Dark

Why so many of you willing to use a TC

Go to last post
Thanks. Good examples.

I do see good examples from some people but my 2xii sucks despite everything I try...

Have however very recently purchased 1.4iii in hope of at least getting some sort of result without having to buy 400f2.8 or 500f4......

but do not want to risk wasting money on 2xiii.......
 
Montana500 said:
time20n said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If you never crop your images or use a TC, you're in a distinct and decided minority. Good for you! I'd love to be able to make that statement.
Montana500 said:
That doesn't work very well in bear country. ;)
Click to expand...
Amen, brother. Learning to approach as close as is ethical and safe is the first thing we have to do. After that, give me as much reach as is manageable. This argument goes round and round. Of course we all want to get as close as possible and some photographers are phenomenally good at, better than me for sure. I still want the new 800L IS f/5.6.
Montana500 said:
Montana500 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

--
Fred Lord
 
time20n said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about your health problems, and hope you feel better soon.

Don't buy your premise about getting close to wildlife, though. Maybe it works for you, but it certainly won't work for me.

Most of the wildlife I shoot consist of bears, whales and other marine mammals, and birds in flight. Unwise to try to sneak up on a bear--good way to get your face ripped off, or worse. Illegal to approach closer than 100 yards to whales or other marine mammals. And impractical to approach a flying bird--unless you've got wings yourself.

IMO, if you're going to shoot wildlife, you'll want all the reach you can get. The best solution is a high-quality long telephoto lens. Unfortunately, anything over 300-400mm tends to be quite expensive--prohibitively expensive for many of us who are just hobbyists. So the next best option (certainly better than cropping) is a good quality TC.

Photography is all about trade offs. And for many of us, the extra reach that a good quality TC can provide in combination with a good quality lens is well worth the slight degradation in IQ.
 
Peter 13 said:
Montana500 said:
It's the nature of the game. That's pretty dang crisp for a wide open 2x.
Click to expand...
It shows very bad artifacts. Either oversharpened or a defective sensor (maze artifacts). My remark has nothing to do with the lens.
Click to expand...
Peter: Ah, I see. Here is the original file cropped to 100%. This particular image file is without processing save for a bit of exposure correction. i.e. no sharpening or noise reduction was performed.

Subject distance was 6.8m.



--
Fred Lord
 
time20n said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yup. Using a TC is a compromise: cost vs. weight. vs. flexibility.

Personally I rather get the shot at the cost of image quality than not getting the shot at all. If the subject is so tiny that I can't manually focus or the AF has trouble locking on it, there's no image quality to be discussed.

The 400/5.6 is the cheapest, really sharp L telephoto you can buy. If you don't use a TC, what's your options if you want to go 500mm? I'm already taking into consideration cropping of a DSLR body (which is why I still have my 40D and look to borrow a 7D as needed). Glass gets really expensive after the 400/5.6.

Then there's weight. I can still hand hold a 400mm with TC or get by with a monopod in good light or when cranking up the ISO. Can't say the same for the various 500mm/600mm L glass out there. No point in maximum image quality if I can't get the shot due to excessive camera shake or can't bring that heavy tripod with gimbal mount.

Granted, if you are hand holding, you might not be looking at maximum image sharpness in the first place.

We're also not talking about cheap TCs either of course. And like filters, you have the option of not using one if the situation doesn't warrant it.
 
Peter: Very nice. Thank you for the sample. It looks great.
--
Fred Lord
 
Sorry I should of been more clear as I didn't mean it so general as it sounds, you are right of course about bears and some other kinds of wildlife, I meant wildlife that would not get people or wildlife harmed.

I also under stand getting closer is not for everyone in many cases, and I would love a 800mm f5.6L as well and it's on my dream list even, for me a big part of taking wildlife photos is getting out there being apart of it.

I do under stand all wildllife shooters can always use more reach, some would love so much reach they could take shots, from in their cars/trucks and what not, and that is fine with me as well.

It's just that I feel getting in there to get the shots is a big part of it, to me it's kind of like hunting only you take photos of the wildlife, in fact I use to hunt deer but stop some time back, after seeing how much pressure was put on them, in the hunting season.

I also know I must do things different then other wildlife shooters, if I want to get different kinds of wildlife shots then them as well, some even bait wildlife to get good shots, but I would never do that even though it works good.
bhollis said:
time20n said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about your health problems, and hope you feel better soon.

Don't buy your premise about getting close to wildlife, though. Maybe it works for you, but it certainly won't work for me.

Most of the wildlife I shoot consist of bears, whales and other marine mammals, and birds in flight. Unwise to try to sneak up on a bear--good way to get your face ripped off, or worse. Illegal to approach closer than 100 yards to whales or other marine mammals. And impractical to approach a flying bird--unless you've got wings yourself.

IMO, if you're going to shoot wildlife, you'll want all the reach you can get. The best solution is a high-quality long telephoto lens. Unfortunately, anything over 300-400mm tends to be quite expensive--prohibitively expensive for many of us who are just hobbyists. So the next best option (certainly better than cropping) is a good quality TC.

Photography is all about trade offs. And for many of us, the extra reach that a good quality TC can provide in combination with a good quality lens is well worth the slight degradation in IQ.
Click to expand...
--
My psig photos at photosig http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
 
Montana500 said:
Beautiful bird, but is that a zoo shot?
Click to expand...
I hoped that nobody would ask. :) Yes.

BTW, I have some shots of those birds "in the wild". It was in Brazil, in a resort, and there were two of those that were hanging out (literally) around expecting some food. They would allow you to touch them and carry them around.
 
Peter 13 said:
Montana500 said:
Beautiful bird, but is that a zoo shot?
Click to expand...
I hoped that nobody would ask. :) Yes.

BTW, I have some shots of those birds "in the wild". It was in Brazil, in a resort, and there were two of those that were hanging out (literally) around expecting some food. They would allow you to touch them and carry them around.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. But it's incredibly easy to get sharp, 100% crops when you have all the time in the world and the subject is five feet from you. The 18-55 non-IS kit lens would make that bird shine.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm
 
Montana500 said:
Peter 13 said:
Montana500 said:
Beautiful bird, but is that a zoo shot?
Click to expand...
I hoped that nobody would ask. :) Yes.

BTW, I have some shots of those birds "in the wild". It was in Brazil, in a resort, and there were two of those that were hanging out (literally) around expecting some food. They would allow you to touch them and carry them around.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. But it's incredibly easy to get sharp, 100% crops when you have all the time in the world and the subject is five feet from you. The 18-55 non-IS kit lens would make that bird shine.
Click to expand...
At f/2.8? :) No, it would not. This is the 135L at f/2.8.

I am not disputing the usefulness of TCs. My experience with the 1.4II is that it is better than just cropping. I plan to get the III version at some point.
 
Peter 13 said:
I am not disputing the usefulness of TCs. My experience with the 1.4II is that it is better than just cropping. I plan to get the III version at some point.
Click to expand...
Despite my lack of expertise at sharpening properly, I have tried both a 1.4X TC II and a 1.4X TC III in tightly controlled resolution tests using 70-200L IS f/2.8 V.1, 70-200L IS f/2.8 II, 100-400L IS f/4.5-5.6, and 500L IS f/4. The acuity difference is insignificant between the old and new 1.4X TCs. Save your money for at least a while until we see them mounted on the lenses they are designed to be used with. The first of those new lenses is rumored to be shipping right now in the form of the 300L IS f/2.8 II.

That is not to say that the newer TCs aren't better in some aspects of usage. We'll probably find out just how good the new TCs can be when the MK II versions of all of the super-telephotos are available and being used in combination with them.

I do believe the new 2X TC III is somewhat better than the old 2X TC II. Unfortunately, the aperture and autofocus losses we take when using all the 2X TCs preclude their usage more often than the 1.4X TCs.

Fred Lord
 
ignore this
 
fredlord said:
Despite my lack of expertise at sharpening properly, I have tried both a 1.4X TC II and a 1.4X TC III in tightly controlled resolution tests using 70-200L IS f/2.8 V.1, 70-200L IS f/2.8 II, 100-400L IS f/4.5-5.6, and 500L IS f/4. The acuity difference is insignificant between the old and new 1.4X TCs. Save your money for at least a while until we see them mounted on the lenses they are designed to be used with. The first of those new lenses is rumored to be shipping right now in the form of the 300L IS f/2.8 II.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. I was about to ask Peter13 if he'd tried both. The 1.4 III's seem like a cash grab.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top