wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

It seems to me that several themes have run thought the postings on the "hog" in the past:
1. Tele-extenders reduce the quality of the photo (usually 30% degradation is quoted)
2. That you must use a tripod when using a "long" lens to get sharp photos
3. That shooting from a boat will blur the photo due to engine vibrations
4. Traveling with photography gear requires a hard shell Pelican case, etc.

I would like to produce evidence that none of the above have to be true. Part of me wonders why I bother, because "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still", but I'll still try.

I just returned from South America & the Galapagos Islands which was a very disappointing trip. I did not see what I expected. The Park service controls where you go, so maybe it was just bad luck, but disappointing none the less. Most of the advice that I got for the Galapagos was that long lenses were not needed, as everything was so close. I hoped that was true, but took my 300mm and extenders just in case.

I travel extensively with my gear, and use think tank products which have proved very adequate. Normally I use two of their large roller bags, but this time I "went light" and took one roller bag and a large back pack. I have trucked this stuff to more than 80 countries with no damage. I do not check the bags, but place them overhead as carryons. I am 76 years old, and it is getting tough to lift them up, but I make it, so far.

All shots attached are with the 300mm f2.8 with the version III 2X tele-extender and all are hand held. The hawk shot was from a boat with the engine running, the others were walking. No tripod. Download the attached files and check them out. I think they are pretty darn sharp!

About tele-extenders: There are good ones and bad ones. I understand that many readers have limited budgets and try to save on gear; and I have been there. I am blessed that I now have the gear that I want, and high end tele-extenders are very good. Check out Art Morris's photos at birdsasart.com and see his results with tele-extenders. Don't lump all tele-extenders into the same group.

In stead of saying you can't do this or that; concentrate on learning better technique, learn how the pros do it, and get better with your photography.

Keep shooting!
Bill

Blue Footed Booby 300mm f2.8 Prime with 2X extender


Galapagos flycatcher 300mm f2.8 Prime with 2X extender

(Download)

road side hawk 300mm f2.8 Prime with 2X extender

(Download)

300mm f2.8 Prime with 2X extender

(Download)

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Very good photos Bill, lucky for you that you didn't listen to the naysayers.

agillot

there are 2 issues about tele extenders , one is the quality of the lens , and the other the extender .so 2 good optice together will work fine .

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Completely agree with you! I use 1.4x converter on my 300mm f4 prime and I am happy with that.My lens doesn't have VR, I don't have problem shooting on a speeding boat and hand held my camera, I always use high shutter speed. A lot of people don't understand that tele-converter is only good for fast prime because it's simply glass construction comparing to tele-zoom lens, in which there are so many group of glass element for the light going through, when adding a converter means adding more glasses.

Love all the images, thank you for sharing!

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

Beautiful shots and thanks for the discourse on use of gear.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Part of me wonders why I bother, because "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still", but I'll still try.
To that add "To Opine is divine" another, "But, what does reality have to do with it?"

To strike a painful blow to the "yes, but I know" people use a resolution card.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/photo-test/pics/lens-tests.html

Haydon

There are variables in all cases. First of all you're using a 300 2.8 which is one of the sharpest lenses out there and does exceptionally well with 1.4 & 2x whereas most people are destined to have variable apertures glass that can't compare with results when fitted with a teleconverter. You're also using a prime which is bested suited when a teleconverter is introduced.

Admittedly using blanket statements in incorrect but you're making assumptions that every piece of glass acts like your 300 2.8. There are only a handful of people sporting 300 2.8 400 F2.8/F4, 500 F4, 600 F4 or 800 5.6 which are the REAL candidates for very sharp with little degrading of IQ with teleconverters.

Handholding can in fact be rewarding and offer flexibility with very sharp images but keeper rates are generally increased with proper support. I can't even imagine handholding my v1 500 F4 and expecting sharp shots when the lens weighs over 8 lbs. let alone using a teleconverter a BG'ed body with a fresnel lens for fill light.

I admire those that can shoot shorter and lighter focal lengths but for myself I'm restricted because of weight factor. Also those that are aged find difficulty with technique with longer focal lengths.

I find little degradation of IQ with my 500 F4 and a 1.4x but I won't use a 2.0. That takes plenty of technique and as stated putting a teleconverter can change IQ in degrading from 5% to 25%. Comparing others to the experience and technique to Arthur Morris isn't certainly realistic for most of us. It takes plenty of effort, troubleshooting patience and an indefinite amount of time. Most of us will never reach Arthur Morris's abilities.

Keep in mind I do respect your work and your opinion is valued but our mileages vary

digitalexplr Loc: Central Missouri

Beautiful shots! Not sure I am that steady any more to hand-hold and get those results.

So much for the naysayers!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The Canon 300mm f/2.8 and Canon 2x Extender III are a great combination as has been indicated many times before in this and other forums. Of course to make this combo work well requires excellent skills.

However, your comments are far too general and don't take into account that not all Canon lenses that are physically capable of being used with the 2X III Extender will result in images of similar quality. Further you only make a passing reference to the results of teleconverters from other manufacturerers and the lenses they are used with. The resulting quality of your specific lens and 2X teleconverter is not typical of most other lenses and 2x converters. Additionally, you are using a fast telephoto lens so that your maximum aperture becomes f/5.6. Many attempt to use teles with f/4 and f/5.6 lenses. With f/4 the resulting aperture is f/8 and a camera with f/8 maximum aperture support for autofocus is needed. For f/5.6 lenses the maximum aperture will be f/11 and manual focus will be required regardless of the body used. So, in the end, for many users of teleconverters the problems you mentioned are real.

I had for a short while the 2xIII to use with my otherwise superb Canon f/4 L IS USM on my Canon 7D Mark II. This was a poor combination which was unable to achieve acceptable sharpness with either AF or manual focus, hand held or on a tripod. The 1.4x Extender, on the other hand works quite well with this lens. You are blessed that you have the perfect lens for the 2X Extender.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

You are right, the f2.8 allows good focus performance; I did acknowledge that many of the "hogs" do not have the resources to apply to photo gear, not their fault, not mine. the 2X does give equally good performance with the 600mm f4 as well in my experience. I am not criticizing any one for their gear or resources. I am trying to get across that excellent results can be obtained using tele-converters. I also know how lucky I am to have a couple of great prime lenses and the ability to travel to neat places to use them. On this trip I went light and did not take the 600.
Thanks for your reply,
Bill

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

30% is for 2x extenders. And while you are definitely losing sharpness with your 2x, you are also using an extremely sharp lens, so 30% sharpness loss just puts it in the realm of a good lens. A 1.4X will only cost about 5% loss.

If you try and put this on a 70-300 F5.6, or a Sigma C 150-600 F6.3 - I don't think you'd be happy with the results - in any case they would look nothing like what you have posted.

Some long lenses can in fact be hand-held - I hand hold a Sigma Sport 150-600 without any problems. I can't do that with my 600mm F4 though.

I travel with a LowePro Pro Trekker 450 AW, which fits in an overhead compartment, so I am with you on everything so far.

I have no experience shooting hand held from a boat, but I can see that your results are evidence that it's not a problem.

Can you post a couple of images with "store original" checked?

This woman shoots with a Canon 300mm /f2.8 and a Canon 2X TC on a 5D Mk III

https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurameyers/with/34115772975/

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

The only thing I really disagree with is the tripod. Yes you can get great pics hand holding. but most times it will be better with a tripod.
( of course there are days when I kick the tripod and get really nasty shots)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

30% reduction is BS and those who don't shoot Canon only equipment yet spread this BS every time the EF 2.0x III is discussed only prove their ignorance every time they repeat it ...

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

THE single correct answer to almost ALL questions in life is: "It Depends"....

recb

Another way of looking at it: at a 600 mm focal length there are very few options that will give better results than the 300mm 2.8 with the 2x III extender