Telecoverters (Page 2): That is why I posted some will like it others will not. I have read where some thing the 2x is very good so like they say what is meat and potatoes for some is...

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

orrie smith wrote:

please do not misunderstand my intent, the photo is a great shot. but, that said, the teleconverter at 1.4 has softened the photo, and if you had used a 2.0 converter, which is what the OP is looking at, it would have been much softer. the teleconverter will work fine as long as you have no need to do any major cropping afterwards and have no interest in making anything larger than a 5x7 print.

That is why I posted some will like it others will not.
I have read where some thing the 2x is very good so like they say what is meat and potatoes for some is only applesauce for another.

This photo also has a heavy crop eagle was about 300 feet away.
You can talk all day a photo of what he is talking about will allow him to see and decide if he can live with it.

Since I do not plan on selling any photos and given the choice of using a TC or passing it up I will use the TC because what I get is better than nothing at all.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

orrie smith wrote:

please do not misunderstand my intent, the photo is a great shot. but, that said, the teleconverter at 1.4 has softened the photo, and if you had used a 2.0 converter, which is what the OP is looking at, it would have been much softer. the teleconverter will work fine as long as you have no need to do any major cropping afterwards and have no interest in making anything larger than a 5x7 print.

I think additionally this is not the best sample photo. You used a 600mm lens plus 1.4 TC equals 840mm. Add the Canon crop factor and you're at 1313mm angle of view. That's all okay, but you used ISO 1250 at 1/6000 sec, giving a lot of noise. Then the image is cropped down to 2 MP. A lot of this can be cleaned up but still too soft for me and not a good example for judging the TC.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I just read your response to Orrie, and, yes, it's all about what's good enough for the individual. :)

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

OddJobber wrote:

I think additionally this is not the best sample photo. You used a 600mm lens plus 1.4 TC equals 840mm. Add the Canon crop factor and you're at 1313mm angle of view. That's all okay, but you used ISO 1250 at 1/6000 sec, giving a lot of noise. Then the image is cropped down to 2 MP. A lot of this can be cleaned up but still too soft for me and not a good example for judging the TC.

All true but if I had used my 400mm you know what that bird would look like.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Black Bart wrote:

That is why I posted some will like it others will... (show quote)

Like i stated, please do not understand my intent, the photo is good for personal use and bragging rights, but would not be useful for commercial use. It is all about the final use and the individuals criteria. Once again, nice photo and you have every right to show it and feel proud of your shot.

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

orrie smith wrote:

Like i stated, please do not understand my intent, the photo is good for personal use and bragging rights, but would not be useful for commercial use. It is all about the final use and the individuals criteria. Once again, nice photo and you have every right to show it and feel proud of your shot.

My reason for posting is to show the OP what he can expect but some things posted here makes me think they have not tried shooting wild life.
You can not walk up close so when you use a 15 pound camera lens combination with a 35 mm equivalent of 1313mm when you raise it up at arms length are you going to risk noise or use ISO 100 and have it look like an earthquake is going on.
You do not shoot eagles from a studio with controlled lighting and a tripod compromises must be made so what I posted is very much like what one will expect in a real live situation.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

GoofyNewfie wrote:

The lens you plan to use it with is probably more important than knowing what camera.

Gene51 wrote:

...typically a 2x TC will take away 25% - 30% of your resolution and sharpness.

It's a matter of which TC with which lens. I have the Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2X TC's but no experience with Canon. I bought a Sigma 1.4TC but returned it because it was noticeably soft on all the lenses I tried it on.

On some Nikon lenses the 2X is good on others not so good. Typically the 1.4 and 1.7 are good on all my lenses that will accept them.

wilsondl2 wrote:

Teleconverters work best on prime lenses,....

My opinion, not always. E.g., the 2X noticeably softens shots with the 400mm f/2.8 (when viewed at 100% or higher), but not so much with the 70-200mm 2.8 and loses auto focus on the the 200-500mm.

All I can really recommend is to pick your poison and try it. Then only you can decide if it's "sharp enough".

Haydon

orrie smith wrote:

please do not misunderstand my intent, the photo is a great shot. but, that said, the teleconverter at 1.4 has softened the photo, and if you had used a 2.0 converter, which is what the OP is looking at, it would have been much softer. the teleconverter will work fine as long as you have no need to do any major cropping afterwards and have no interest in making anything larger than a 5x7 print.

It depends on the conditions, the camera and the lens. I shoot frequently with a 1.4x and the small amount of loss (5%) can mostly be recovered in post. With the 2x I believe you get hit with 25%. I've heard people get fine results with a 70-200 2.8L with a 2x.

Rbode Loc: Ft lauderdale, Fla

DavidGreen wrote:

Hi I'm looking for a good telleconverter what do u recommend.
I was looking at the kenko Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 2x AF Teleconverter
and the tamron 2x SP AF Pro Teleconverter for Canon EOS
I'm using a canon eos 7D thanks for your help

http://www.kenkoglobal.com/pdf/TELEPLUS_DGX_series_CompatibilityList.pdf

DavidGreen

Ok that you everyone for your information

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

What lens were you using, and what was the final focal length?

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Black Bart wrote:

My reason for posting is to show the OP what he ca... (show quote)

okay, I was trying to be polite and considerate, but since you insist on making rude and insistent comments, I will tell you that your approach is all wrong. any professional or enthusiast beginner should know is that because you cannot walk up on wildlife and birds you need to plan, schedule, set up a blind, and wait for your subject to come close enough to gain a usable photo. if you just walk around in the woods looking for opportunities you will fail every time.

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

orrie smith wrote:

okay, I was trying to be polite and considerate, but since you insist on making rude and insistent comments, I will tell you that your approach is all wrong. any professional or enthusiast beginner should know is that because you cannot walk up on wildlife and birds you need to plan, schedule, set up a blind, and wait for your subject to come close enough to gain a usable photo. if you just walk around in the woods looking for opportunities you will fail every time.

Please show us photos of these eagles that have landed at your blind.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

DavidGreen wrote:

Hi I'm looking for a good telleconverter what do u recommend.
I was looking at the kenko Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 2x AF Teleconverter
and the tamron 2x SP AF Pro Teleconverter for Canon EOS
I'm using a canon eos 7D thanks for your help

Avoid 2X altogether regardless of brand, unless you are not fussy about image quality.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Black Bart wrote:

Please show us photos of these eagles that have landed at your blind.

the area I live does not give me an opportunity to do any eagles, but birds are birds when it comes to preparing and photographing.

(Download)