Mitch35 Loc: Arkansas

Great discussion. Thank you all. I have been on the verge of buying a TE now I will work with cropping.

Wayne'spictures Loc: Souderton, Pa. 18964

If you want to see some of the best photos I've seen taken with a long lens and an extender, look up "snooker2009" (Larry Keller). You can't ask for better

Wayne'spictures Loc: Souderton, Pa. 18964

Look at my response made earlier today. CHECK OUT THIS GUY'S site (snooker2009-Larry Keller). You WILL change your mind !

RRS Loc: Not sure

You always need to do PP! We try to fill as much as the frame as possible but you hardly ever do. Another thing, we as a group do buy the fastest lenses we can so that we can stop down and we do use a very fast shutter speed of 1/2000 or faster and sometimes we do have to up the ISO too. That being said I would always rather have a sharp picture with some noise then an OOF shot. I can do a lot to eliminate the noise with Topaz DeNoise. As for "less shake" I shoot off a tripod with a gimbal head and pan and even with that the keeper rate is very low. A side note for anyone that is still here, go to UUH 4/10/2014 and read "Tack Sharp Photos" by miller2110 and maybe you will rethink what you have read here. A lot of people talk about BIF and so on but if you haven't really done it you are out of your element. The 800 may be a good studio camera but it won't cut it in the field of wildlife and BIF. It all depends on what you shoot, FPS being essential.

RRS Loc: Not sure

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Trabor

Let us return to the original question which was (to paraphrase)
"will adding a TC to a given lens improve the ability to resolve small items such as BIF"

it was NOT

"will a long lens with TC provide better ability to resolve small items such as BIF compared to using a different short lens without TC, when said pictures are cropped to equivalent FOV in PP"

That someone would propose such a comparison speaks volumes

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

A lot has been said here, but I just want to add, that when Canon designed the new 1dx, it was meant to replace their two flagship cameras with one.
I have looked into a used 1dmklV(1.3x crop) to use for both sports and wildlife, since they are starting to get more affordable. And in several conversations with Canon tech have been told that the 5dmklll will out shot the 1dlV, in spite of the crop factor and the faster fps, because of the superior focus, and the higher mp allows for cropping. And the 1dlV is no slouch!
And indeed, many pro wildlife shooters have traded in their 1dlV's for the 1dx, and just crop, because of the slightly higher mp.
Of course cropping will never replace native resolution and focul length.
I've given thought to an experiment comparison of the lenses and a 1.4x. I will start it as a tread when I do, as there never seems to be enough said about that. ;-)
SS

RRS Loc: Not sure

Well let's see, adding a TC to a given lens will improve the ability to resolve a small object such as a BIF. I've been there and done that. I was shooting a 5D MKII with the 70/200mm f/2.8 series II and after trying to enlarge enough to be able to see a large enough image it fell apart so to say. By adding a 2x TC I was able to capture an image large enough that I didn't have to crop so much and have a better finished image. I shoot everything in RAW.

When you talk about using a "long" lens are you talking 300/400/500/600or even 800mm because that's what most BIF and wildlife photographers use as to say a kit lens of 105mm. If you use a 1.4 TC and I prefer using that over the 2x because of quality and now the 600mm becomes a 840mm f/5.6 lens there's no way that you will or can come up with an image anywhere as good with a 105mm lens if you have to crop it to size unless you are shooting a 2 1/4 digital back with a very good lens.

I will be the first to admit that I wish I could afford the very long and fast lenses and not have to use a TC at all but if you look at the photographers out there with the long lenses they still add TC for that longer reach. I'm not a pixel counter but try to do the best I can with what I have and can afford. True, TC'S are a compromise.

It all depends on what you do. The 800 in a studio may be great but with all those pixels it seems to be soft. Please read UUH 04/10/2014 "Tack Sharp Photos", Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thanks SS, I read you like a good book and look forward to your upcoming post. :thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

RRS, I will agree with all you say. I'm surprised you have not tried the 100-400, as it's a very nice lens, and relatively inexpensive. Getting close, is always key to getting great shots.

BUT, even though I feel the d800 is pretty over-rated, even I would certainly never say it is soft.
Because one beginner that can't shoot, and can't get a sharp shot, doesn't mean the camera is soft. There are lots of potential problems there, but probably, none are the camera. I'll admit, I have not looked at that post since about the first 1/2 page, so if I'm all wet, I'll use my towel. :lol:
SS

RRS Loc: Not sure

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the 800 have a problem with with the focus when it first came out. I have a friend that bought a a return from B&H. I'm also not saying it's not a great camera for studio work or for the serious artist but it wouldn't work for what I shoot most of the time. There are many different tools out there for the photographers to choose from. I shot Nikon 's for decades and to tell the truth I think it would be hard to buy a bad camera of any brand today.

As for the 100/400mm, I had the 70/200mm f/2.8 series II and opted for the 300mmf/2.8 series II. The 100/400 is a very good lens. My next long lens will be the 500 or 600mm f/4.0. Did weddings for over 25 years and now spend most of my time doing wildlife and traveling to Europe shooting what I want. It was a real rat race chasing the $$'s.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Unless you are a body builder, why would you want a 500 or 600 ?? ......

RRS Loc: Not sure

Very good question! I do a lot of photography in Yellowstone and I like to photograph the bears and I do respect them. I'm leaning more to the new 500mm f/4.0 because of the reduced weight. A critter that I fear is the Bison but not the wolves and I do a lot of BIF and the longer reach does help a lot. If you are free I'll see if you want to go and shoot with me, I can always use the help.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Have you used the 2X with the 300 ? ......are you on full frame ? .....

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

Somehow this has become emotional when that was not my intent.

My intent was and is only to point out what a tele-extender is doing, and that it has applicability, (from a technical/physical perspective), if and only if, the lens out resolves the camera.

Whether the use of it has artistic validity is a different matter entirely, and that really is about the mindset and skillset of the photographer.

Other issues, such as FPS, while relevant to one's choice of camera do not pertain to the logic and truth of my observations. Those observations should stand or fall on their own without regard to whether I do or do not shoot wildlife or BIF.

I am disappointed by the ad hominem and red herring fallacies in your comment. As stated, my intent was to inform, not to criticize your choice of tools from an artistic perspective. The art always speaks for itself, and that is far and away more important than tool choice.