Evidence to the contrary about tele-extenders (Page 4): I'll reserve judgement on how sharp the images are, because they are so downsized and compressed it is hard to tell. But I find...

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

I'll reserve judgement on how sharp the images are, because they are so downsized and compressed it is hard to tell. But I find the hawk and the flying bird, whatever it is , to be pleasing compositions, and well exposed. That's more than half of the equation right there. Not all great images are perfect in every regard.

Next time, the OP should submit a larger file--pixel-wise--and save it as highest quality jpeg. Then this site has something better to work with when it downrezzes it and downsamples it.

If the OP says the original is sharp at 100%, I'll take his word for it, though he could easily enough upload a 100% crop to make his point, if he so chooses.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Obvious and significant degradation. I'm done. Like Gene Hackman's character said in one of his movies (perhaps Crimson Tide), "I can't abide kiss asses".

Understand I used the word "good" when what I really meant was "good enough" for the OP.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

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 really have never heard above quotes that way. That tele converters do reduce the image quality is just a known fact, but I never heard of 30%. Using a tripod with longer lenses is not a bad idea, but certainly it is not a must and most frequently people are talking about certain long lenses that are really almost made for handheld shooting. People do also post remedies/suggestions for shooting on boats, because it is also a fact that the vibrations of the motor can produce blur. And nowhere did I ever hear that traveling with gear requires a hard-shell-Pelican case, but it is recommended to put your gear in a save case!

Jim Bob

mwsilvers wrote:

Understand I used the word "good" when what I really meant was "good enough" for the OP.

Knowing the way you approach advice in this forum, I took that as your original meaning.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Knowing the way you approach advice in this forum, I took that as your original meaning.

My bottom line is thst his images, although somewhat soft as a result of the teleconverter, are IMHO still superior to much of what's posted here. We can only wonder exactly how much better they would have been had he used a native 600mm lens.

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Jim Bob wrote:

I regret to inform you that you are absolutely wrong. Those downloads are all soft even without magnification. Perhaps you do not know what a sharp image looks like. Take a close look at the feathers. If you want to see some sharp images with a teleconverter, take a look at some of Regis' work in the gallery. Now that's sharp.

Regis is exceptional, but there is a difference between circumstances. Instead of being negative, maybe you can teach us all how to take perfect pictures while on a brief and restrictive visit at the Galapagos without access to tripod and other equipment, and perhaps even peace of mind.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I've stacked extenders and gotten good results. However, I would have been far better off with a longer lens without the extender. This is a simple matter of physics and optics. Also, there have been many tests showing the effects of extenders by people with the proper lab equipment. It's sort of like people that come up to me with a cell phone and tell me that it was as good as my gear. They have that conclusion because their picture looks great on a small cell phone screen. Extenders do a very good job but it's not the same of have a lens with that focal length.

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

So much of life is about perspective and attitude. How we see it and what we decide to do with it. I guess I don't know enough to know that a lot of those things aren't supposed to work... and if I did, it wouldn't stop me from trying. T he biggest failure of all is never trying....

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Jim Bob wrote:

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

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Jer wrote:

I've stacked extenders and gotten good results. H... (show quote)

cthahn

Shoot the way you want to. No one tells you how to shoot, but if something goes wrong, there is only one to blame.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Wotsmith,

It would seem that some people don't know what they are talking about or listened to the wrong people about teleconverters. I've learned that teleconverters that are used on lenses that aren't high quality will magnify the problems with that lens. For instance, my older 100-400 canon lens was a little soft and by putting a 1.4x teleconverter on it made the images even softer with magnification. But my new 100-400 Mark II is very high quality and sharp and therefore the teleconverter works great.

I used the same setup as you did in the Galapagos Islands in 2014 except my camera was a 1D Mark IV. I have the same 300mm f/2.8 and the 1.4x and 2x mark III teleconverters. Coupled with the 300mm f/2.8 or my 70-200 f/2.8 these extenders work great. I even use them on my 500mm f/4 lens with great success. But I had the older Mark II teleconverters and they were not quite as good as the new teleconverters.

What didn't you like about the Galapagos? I had a wonderful time there. Yes, they are very restrictive on where you go and they must be in sight of all their charges at all times. This keeps the place from being FUBARed by people that do what they do best - which is to trample and disrespect wildlife and beauty. The guides used to be even more restrictive 10 years ago. They use to make you wash your feet before you get back on the ship or yacht so you don't bring anything from the islands with you to the mainland Ecuador.

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)

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

"It depends" governs almost all photographic activity except the one caution: "Your lens cap is on." If ignored, that always provides the same results!

jojo Smith Loc: Northern Michigan

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)

yes they are clear and fantastic shots

RRS Loc: Not sure

tyedyetommy wrote:

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

And if you would please check "Quote Reply" we'd all know to whom you were referring to.