1.4 Extender: does it increase sharpness? I would appreciate observations, perhaps advice too on this one. I used a Canon 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 Extender and had plenty of success...

clansman Loc: wendover,england

I would appreciate observations, perhaps advice too on this one. I used a Canon 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 Extender and had plenty of success, often in cloudy conditions, keeping low ISO and high shutter of 1250 or so. This meant the aperture would be kept mainly to it's max of 3.2. Recently I have tried same without the extender but seem to think there is slightly less clarity. Could this be because the aperture is staying down at 2.8?...and also because I am having to enlarge/crop more ? Maybe it is a no-brainer but keen to hear.First attached is with the Extender, the second without. Both have been cropped.

Extender used

No extender used

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Whatever else is going on, an extender will not increase sharpness.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

Kmgw9v wrote:

Whatever else is going on, an extender will not increase sharpness.

Many thanks : that is why I wondered if extra cropping and /or reducing the aperture was the reason. It shows up at A3+, my usual print size. i had thought that maybe the extender increased the number of relevant pixels, but maybe I am imagining!

Laura72568 Loc: Anderson TX

The lighting that was happening in the first shot makes it appear sharper...although the extender is not the reason. Nice shots!

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I think that anything and everything that gets between the sensor and subject is going to degrade IQ.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

Laura72568 wrote:

The lighting that was happening in the first shot makes it appear sharper...although the extender is not the reason. Nice shots!

Many thanks : the second shot was taken against the sun, although cloudy. You are right : it is so basic to have the light coming from behind you, so the opposite must have a negative effect. Sometimes with these shots it is impossible to get the perfect posn and hope comes into play! Thankyou again.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

tradio wrote:

I think that anything and everything that gets between the sensor and subject is going to degrade IQ.

I somewhat agree with you tradio. Although with the extra reach and the loss of 1 stop I personally haven't noticed a profound degree of degradation, and my shots with a Canon 1.4x extender are still quite good to my amateur eyes. I would love to be able to afford a 600mm f/4 L Canon lens, but that is not realistic for me, so I use what I have and it does seem to work well for me.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

clansman wrote:

I would appreciate observations, perhaps advice to... (show quote)

Usually any additional elements adversely affect IQ. This experiment just shows your combination of camera, sensor, and lenses is so good that you have a hard time telling the difference in your prints. This is good.
By the way, great shots.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

tradio wrote:

I think that anything and everything that gets between the sensor and subject is going to degrade IQ.

Agree 100% ;)

:thumbup:

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

tradio wrote:

I think that anything and everything that gets between the sensor and subject is going to degrade IQ.

Yes and no. All the tests I've seen show that TC's cause some loss of quality. But I have to factor in the offsetting increase in magnification (less cropping) which puts more pixels on target. Result, more detail, clearer image. My 1.7 Nikon TC lives permanently on my 70-200mm 2.8. :-D

Not all TC's are created equal. I tried a 1.4 extender on a Sigma 150-500 and returned it (the TC) because the results were worse. Maybe just a bad copy but it didn't work for me.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

OddJobber wrote:

Yes and no. All the tests I've seen show that TC's cause some loss of quality. But I have to factor in the offsetting increase in magnification (less cropping) which puts more pixels on target. Result, more detail, clearer image. My 1.7 Nikon TC lives permanently on my 70-200mm 2.8. :-D

Not all TC's are created equal. I tried a 1.4 extender on a Sigma 150-500 and returned it (the TC) because the results were worse. Maybe just a bad copy but it didn't work for me.

Thankyou, really helps to read this.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

Architect1776 wrote:

Usually any additional elements adversely affect IQ. This experiment just shows your combination of camera, sensor, and lenses is so good that you have a hard time telling the difference in your prints. This is good.
By the way, great shots.

Many thanks: there are plenty of good points being made and just the agree-er following yours is just as valuable.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Kmgw9v wrote:

Whatever else is going on, an extender will not increase sharpness.

I notice that you are often ON THE UHH forum. I've also noticed that your comments always seem to be to-the-point and brief, but usually very SAGE advice or remarks. What would you suggest as the best way to ues rear extenders? I recently bought a pentax 1.4 rear extender, but I don't know which lenses(prime, Macro, telephoto, or zoom) this exspensive device would work best on. Ya got any thoughts on this (sage, of course)

rbfanman

From what I have heard, over the years, Extenders tend to DEcrease sharpness.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

rbfanman wrote:

From what I have heard, over the years, Extenders tend to DEcrease sharpness.

Thanks for this and that was my understanding. I suppose the answer is a test of both under identical conditions. Truth will out. Thankyou for taking the time to say this, though.