Why 1.4 instead of 2x extender?
Apr 4, 2019 13:58:19 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
gwilliams6 wrote:
As a longtime pro I strongly disagree. The best of the latest 2X extenders on the best lenses can yield excellent image quality. I have absolutely NO loss of focus speed, autofocus , fps, IBIS or lens stability. Cropping IS NOT always a better option. If the trade off of loss in stops of aperture is not a problem, your image capture can be excellent with the added reach for better framing,especially with BIF, Sports, other wildlife. Cheers
Well said. If you see a 70-200mm f2.8 in my equipment bag, you will also see 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, which are smaller and lighter than 300mm to 400mm lenses.
Apr 4, 2019 14:01:24 #
Regis wrote:
I agree with you, gwilliams6. I have used my Canon 5Dsr with my Canon 300 2.8 II prime lens and my Canon 2x III extender for thousands of detailed photos with no apparent loss of quality.
Apr 4, 2019 14:01:54 #
Strodav wrote:
Well said. If you see a 70-200mm f2.8 in my equipment bag, you will also see 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, which are smaller and lighter than 300mm to 400mm lenses.
Apr 4, 2019 14:03:47 #
Apr 4, 2019 14:14:07 #
bleirer wrote:
Can you explain why one would choose a 1.4x extender instead of a 2x extender? Especially if it is a zoom being extended. Is there a huge cost in image quality between the two or are there other reasons?
I've found a 1.4x TC is about the most magnification even a reasonable lens will take and still give acceptable image quality. However, upsizing by 140% in Affinity Photo or PhotoZoom will give at least the equivalent result.
Moving to a 2x TC is a step too far for almost any lens! Upsizing by 200% will normally give better results.
Also, seriously consider the impact on aperture when using a TC. Unless you've got really good light, a TC is going to require a bump in ISO or longer exposures; both of which can be significant.
bwa
Apr 4, 2019 14:26:26 #
Haydon wrote:
There is a loss of focus speed williams. I own a Canon 500 F4 and subject acquisition is noticeably slower even with a Canon 1.4x. It's not terrible by any means but a native mount makes a big difference with longer lenses.
Images can indeed be amazing but simple physics dictate there are losses usually minimal with a 1.4x. It's suggested 5% on a 1.4x and up to 20% on a 2x. Although post processing, weather conditions and lighting can minimize some of the effects.
Images can indeed be amazing but simple physics dictate there are losses usually minimal with a 1.4x. It's suggested 5% on a 1.4x and up to 20% on a 2x. Although post processing, weather conditions and lighting can minimize some of the effects.
There is no photo degradation using my Canon 2x III with my Canon 5Dsr and my Canon 300 2.8 II prime lens.
Picture below using my above photo equipment. The Bald Eagle was about 125-150 feet away.
Apr 4, 2019 14:34:42 #
Regis and I have provided relevant and actual results in comments to this thread. Do you want to read a lot of discussion, or simply use your eyes to determine the quality of the results? You can check-in with Art Morris too on actual usage and actual results of Nikon teleconverters: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2018/03/01/nikon-af-s-teleconverter-tc-20es-suck-or-do-they/
Apr 4, 2019 14:35:07 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
1.4X teleconverters "cost" one stop of light loss. 2X TCs cost two stops. That additional stop makes the stronger teleconverter a non-starter with many more lenses, but it depends upon the camera being used.
Many cameras are "f/5.6 limited", which means they cannot autofocus a lens/TC combo that has an effective aperture less than f/5.6. So an f/4 lens with a 1.4X will be able to autofocus, but with a 2X the same lens will be manual focus only. To compound the problem, a DSLR's optical viewfinder also will be dimmed down, making manual focus more difficult. So to use a 2X on that camera you would need an f/2.8 lens (effective f/5.6 when the two are combined).
Some cameras are "f/8 capable", giving more possible combinations. An f/4 lens and 2X might be usable and still able to autofocus, though AF may be more likely to slow and/or hunt at times. A 2X would not be usable on an f/5.6 lens on that camera, though. The maximum TC usable with f/5.6 would still be a 1.4X. Very few cameras are able to AF smaller than f/8 effective aperture (and f/11 or smaller makes for extremely dim viewfinders).
There's ALSO loss of image quality. A TC is essentially a magnifying glass.... and it will magnify any short-comings of the lens it's used upon. The better the image quality to start with, the higher quality the lens alone, the more it will tolerate adding a TC before "too much" image quality it lost. In general TCs work best with prime lenses, rather than zooms.There are exceptions, but the greater complexity of zooms don't lend themselves to use with a TC, as much as the simpler optics of prime lenses. How much loss of image quality varies widely, depends upon the exact TC and lens combination but there are myriad possible combos. I think it fair to say that a 1.4X might "cost" around 5% loss of image quality, while a stronger 2X is likely to cost at least 15%.
I have high quality 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. I use the 1.4X on a LOT more lenses. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 that works "okay" with 1.4X, but I won't use with the 2X because the image quality hit is just too much for my liking. On the other hand, I have 300mm f/2.8 that works very well with the 2X, where there's almost no loss of IQ. But that's usually the only lens I use it upon. In comparison, I use the 1.4X on 300mm f/4, 500mm f/4, 100-400mm zoom... even occasionally on a 135mm f/2 lens.
There also can be other limitations. The type of TCs I use have a protruding front lens element that needs to fit inside the rear barrel of any lens it's used upon. Lenses with too small diameter or with elements near the rear of the lens cannot be used with either teleconverter.
Finally, there's also practicality. Having a longer focal length with a lens/TC combo will be more difficult to hold steady, more likely to require some sort of sturdy tripod support. Plus, with longer focal length you'll very likely be shooting greater distances and through more atmosphere, which also can effect image quality noticeably. And, really long focal lengths can be difficult to get "on target" and harder to use to track moving subjects. It might be a lot easier and give much better results to simply figure out a way to get closer to your subject... or to get your subject to come closer to you. No matter how much effective focal length you have, some subjects will always be just out of reach, guaranteed!
Many cameras are "f/5.6 limited", which means they cannot autofocus a lens/TC combo that has an effective aperture less than f/5.6. So an f/4 lens with a 1.4X will be able to autofocus, but with a 2X the same lens will be manual focus only. To compound the problem, a DSLR's optical viewfinder also will be dimmed down, making manual focus more difficult. So to use a 2X on that camera you would need an f/2.8 lens (effective f/5.6 when the two are combined).
Some cameras are "f/8 capable", giving more possible combinations. An f/4 lens and 2X might be usable and still able to autofocus, though AF may be more likely to slow and/or hunt at times. A 2X would not be usable on an f/5.6 lens on that camera, though. The maximum TC usable with f/5.6 would still be a 1.4X. Very few cameras are able to AF smaller than f/8 effective aperture (and f/11 or smaller makes for extremely dim viewfinders).
There's ALSO loss of image quality. A TC is essentially a magnifying glass.... and it will magnify any short-comings of the lens it's used upon. The better the image quality to start with, the higher quality the lens alone, the more it will tolerate adding a TC before "too much" image quality it lost. In general TCs work best with prime lenses, rather than zooms.There are exceptions, but the greater complexity of zooms don't lend themselves to use with a TC, as much as the simpler optics of prime lenses. How much loss of image quality varies widely, depends upon the exact TC and lens combination but there are myriad possible combos. I think it fair to say that a 1.4X might "cost" around 5% loss of image quality, while a stronger 2X is likely to cost at least 15%.
I have high quality 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. I use the 1.4X on a LOT more lenses. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 that works "okay" with 1.4X, but I won't use with the 2X because the image quality hit is just too much for my liking. On the other hand, I have 300mm f/2.8 that works very well with the 2X, where there's almost no loss of IQ. But that's usually the only lens I use it upon. In comparison, I use the 1.4X on 300mm f/4, 500mm f/4, 100-400mm zoom... even occasionally on a 135mm f/2 lens.
There also can be other limitations. The type of TCs I use have a protruding front lens element that needs to fit inside the rear barrel of any lens it's used upon. Lenses with too small diameter or with elements near the rear of the lens cannot be used with either teleconverter.
Finally, there's also practicality. Having a longer focal length with a lens/TC combo will be more difficult to hold steady, more likely to require some sort of sturdy tripod support. Plus, with longer focal length you'll very likely be shooting greater distances and through more atmosphere, which also can effect image quality noticeably. And, really long focal lengths can be difficult to get "on target" and harder to use to track moving subjects. It might be a lot easier and give much better results to simply figure out a way to get closer to your subject... or to get your subject to come closer to you. No matter how much effective focal length you have, some subjects will always be just out of reach, guaranteed!
Apr 4, 2019 14:51:23 #
Not really a image quality issue. When you use an extender or magnifier you lose f-stop. This can be significant when using a long zoom at night.
Apr 4, 2019 14:53:12 #
Regis wrote:
There is no photo degradation using my Canon 2x III with my Canon 5Dsr and my Canon 300 2.8 II prime lens.
Picture below using my above photo equipment. The Bald Eagle was about 125-150 feet away.
Picture below using my above photo equipment. The Bald Eagle was about 125-150 feet away.
Apr 4, 2019 15:01:47 #
Gene51 wrote:
The answer is in your question:
"huge cost in image quality between the two"
And add the impact on autofocus performance requiring manual assist or full manual AF, and the need for higher ISO. Unless you are using a 2X extender with a fast (an F2 or F2.8 200, 300, or 400mm) prime telephoto lens, you are not going to be happy with the results.
"huge cost in image quality between the two"
And add the impact on autofocus performance requiring manual assist or full manual AF, and the need for higher ISO. Unless you are using a 2X extender with a fast (an F2 or F2.8 200, 300, or 400mm) prime telephoto lens, you are not going to be happy with the results.
There is NO perceptible image quality difference with Canon converters and Canon lenses matched to them.
Unless you are a mega pixel peeper one cannot in any way tell the 2x or 1.4x was used.
Other brands might have the quality failure but with the proper Canon setups there is NONE
Apr 4, 2019 15:03:40 #
I am using a 2X on a f2.8 lens as many shooters do. Modern cameras and lenses are fine shooting and autofocusing at f5.6 in all but the lowest light scenarios. I can only speak for my Sony gear now, since I have switched from Nikon and Canon (the Nikon and Canon folks can admirably speak for themselves) , but I find NO loss in focus speed at all, NO loss in autofocus acquisition either using my 2X. And NO lose in the 20 fps I get with my A9, and the 10fps I get with my A7RIII and A7III.
Some may steadfastly and vehemently argue otherwise, but the right "quality" 2X used with "quality" glass can be a difference maker when you are out shooting in the field, in a stadium or on the track. And the reduction in weight from carrying a bigger telephoto can give you more hours with less back pain on the shoot (I speak from loads of personal and professional experience here). Cheers
Some may steadfastly and vehemently argue otherwise, but the right "quality" 2X used with "quality" glass can be a difference maker when you are out shooting in the field, in a stadium or on the track. And the reduction in weight from carrying a bigger telephoto can give you more hours with less back pain on the shoot (I speak from loads of personal and professional experience here). Cheers
Apr 4, 2019 15:12:39 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Regis and I have provided relevant and actual results in comments to this thread. Do you want to read a lot of discussion, or simply use your eyes to determine the quality of the results? You can check-in with Art Morris too on actual usage and actual results of Nikon teleconverters: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2018/03/01/nikon-af-s-teleconverter-tc-20es-suck-or-do-they/
As mentioned there is minimal perceptual differences with a 1.4x and Morris has had great success with 2x converters but to say their isn't a loss is fallacy. I have followed Morris up until his switch to Nikon. Regis and I engaged once about teleconverters and I'm not diminishing his quality images but he negates science as a principle.
I've worked with many birders using long prime expensive lenses. Only a handful here say different. I am in no way dismissing the use. My 1.4x resides almost exclusively with the 500F4 when birding.
Apr 4, 2019 15:44:24 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Architect1776 wrote:
There is NO perceptible image quality difference with Canon converters and Canon lenses matched to them.
Unless you are a mega pixel peeper one cannot in any way tell the 2x or 1.4x was used.
Other brands might have the quality failure but with the proper Canon setups there is NONE
Unless you are a mega pixel peeper one cannot in any way tell the 2x or 1.4x was used.
Other brands might have the quality failure but with the proper Canon setups there is NONE
It really depends on the lens you use one with. I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM Version I. With the Canon Extender 1.4 III attached, and mounted to my Canon 7D Mark II, there is no significant difference in IQ to my eyes, even when zoomed in on my 28in 4k monitor. However, using the Canon Extender 2x III with the same lens and camera, the reduction in sharpness is noticeable even when zoomed in on the camera's LCD screen. My tests were performed with my camera mounted on a tripod. I even tried micro adjusting the lens/extender combination and was only able to improve the results marginally. The point is that some Canon L lenses perform better than others with the Canon Extender 2X III. As an example, it s my understanding that Canon's EF 70-200 f/2.8L Version II is a particularly good match to the Extender 2X III, as are some of Canons longer prime lenses.
Apr 4, 2019 15:50:52 #
Haydon wrote:
As mentioned there is minimal perceptual differenc... (show quote)
The latest 2X have virtually NO perceptible IQ difference than their brand's 1.4X. Only if you pixel peep could you tell, whether online or in a blowup,especially if shooting raw. I have used both Sony's 1.4X and 2X and after testing them both, I kept the 2X. Much more versatile in reach and weigh savings over a comparable prime of the same max focal length. I still shoot telephoto primes, but find I am always taking along my 2X extender to give me more.. BTW I have never had a client ,or a gallery, or a photo contest judge tell me they wished I had used a 1.4X extender instead of the 2X extender I did use. Cheers
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.