Evidence to the contrary about tele-extenders (Page 2): Great shots. As they say, "One size doesn't fit all." You went against the recommendations and got great shots, anyway.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

wotsmith wrote:

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

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

Great shots. As they say, "One size doesn't fit all." You went against the recommendations and got great shots, anyway.

krmitchell55 Loc: Springdale, Arkansas

Beautiful shots from a great combination!

fourg1b2006 Loc: Long Island New York

Very nice set...love that last one. Good job.

Jim Bob

wotsmith wrote:

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

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

I'm sorry but the downloads do not appear especially sharp to my eye.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Very nice shots. Thanks for sharing. Tony Northrop does a video on a 2X extender and shows it is a good option.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Gene51 wrote:

30% is for 2x extenders. And while you are definit... (show quote)

He's also using the Canon EOS 1DX. Not a slouch of a camera, either.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Understood, but it is still a testimony to the 2X extender. :-)

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

wotsmith wrote:

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

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

Nicely summarized. I have the canon 100-400 L II with a 1.4 III extender and hand hold with spot focus and get super clarity. I do use a tripod for moon shots!!

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Great set of pictures and many thanks for both lessons (extenders and the Galapagos fiasco). As many have already commented, extenders work very well with primes. We must admit that the manufacturers know something when they produce these lenses. Nikon used to ship its 300mm, 2.8, with 1.4 extender in the box, meaning that they really believe in the combination.

Jim Bob

ssymeono wrote:

Great set of pictures and many thanks for both lessons (extenders and the Galapagos fiasco). As many have already commented, extenders work very well with primes. We must admit that the manufacturers know something when they produce these lenses. Nikon used to ship its 300mm, 2.8, with 1.4 extender in the box, meaning that they really believe in the combination.

Please enlighten me on what you find great about these images.

Winslowe

Jim Bob wrote:

Please enlighten me on what you find great about these images.

They prove that if one has a camera, one can take a picture - what more do you want??

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

wotsmith wrote:

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

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

Many are happy shooting with a 2X TC. Your images are very nice but if you did a side-by-side with out the TC there would be a significant difference. We all have differing tastes and opinions.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

wotsmith wrote:

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

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

I hope that photographers with less experience, and with cameras and lenses less capable than yours do not assume they will achieve the same results with an xxx-300mm lens and 2.0 TC on their cameras. 2.0 TCs work best on wide aperture prime lenses, not on the telephoto zoom lenses most of us can afford. Also, most of us can't afford the Canon EOS 1D-X. Also, it is difficult to tell the real quality of the photos you captured given you provided them highly downsampled. But I have the highest respect for your $9,000 to $12,000 camera/lens system and your skill.

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Jim Bob wrote:

Please enlighten me on what you find great about these images.

I magnified the hawk to 100% and it was still sharp. For hand held shooting with heavy equipment, it qualifies as great.

Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

I love proving people don't know what they are talking about