unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

Ever wonder what stacked "TC" would look like? I did. Knowing this setup will be manual focus and will need lots of light, I wondered if this setup could be used in the field, hand held. A week ago or so someone posted something about doing this, but there were no photo's included. This post includes a couple of pic's at 1200mm and one at 400mm cropped to match for comparison.

This setup is 400 5.6 + 2 tc + 12mm extension tube + 1.4 tc = 1200mm f11 or so the camera says (400 5.6 + 2x is f11 add another loss for the 1.4 resulting in f14 or there about). The camera data records this as 800mm f11. I tried to do this using my 100 - 400 mkll resulting in camera error (loss of contact with the lens). Conventional wisdom supports loss of IQ using a TC and noticeable loss of IQ using a 2X. Then there is the manual focus thing and the magnification of camera shake at 1200mm. None of these problems reared their ugly head, but the light meter missed its mark overexposing by enough to blow highlights. These images were captured Raw and after adjusting for exposure exported to jpeg using photoshop. It should be noted here, this is not a definitive comparison, only the result of my minimal effort.

A fun little experiment, but for me 400mm and crop. 1200mm is a very narrow field of view resulting difficulty in acquiring the subject and auto focus is sooo much faster.

the setup

(Download)

Western Blue Bird 1200mm hand held manual focus

(Download)

Western Blue Bird 400mm hand held autofocus and cropped to match

(Download)

Western Blue Bird in the shadow of a tree, 1200mm hand held manual focus

(Download)

Quixdraw Loc: x

I did some experimentation back in August at 1800mm (35mm equivalent) Nikkor 600mm 5.6 with a 2x extender on a D7200. Workable with good light, if a bit clumsy. The problem encountered using it at distance was the heat shimmer. I found the posts, added a shot of the camera all set up. I will undoubtedly revisit the experiment when weather improves.

Edit- Camera photo added

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

Thanks for replying quixdraw, and a bit clumsy I must agree. I must have missed your post last August. If I try again it will be from a tripod.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

The long telephotos are in our time less and less convenient for bird and sometimes even for animal photography - especially when we can use remote control cameras and much shorter focal lengths giving us a better quality images.
The heat shimmer, the weight of such big lenses on long hikes, difficulty to handle and properly focus make those expensive optics useable only for some special aplications.
However, they look awesome in a crowd! LOL.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Quixdraw, you are spot on about the anomalies of higher magnification with optics. Once-upon-a-time I shot long distance targets and using the ill-logic of bigger being better I invested in a 24X power scope. I quickly noticed that the heat shimmer was very annoying and distracting. Add to that the crosshair would bounce uncontrollably with the beat of my heart and even though I thought that I was holding dead-still...the slightest fraction of a millimeter movement on my end resulted in several feet out at 800-yards.

The same holds true be it a rifle scope or a camera lens....although they are both an enjoyable way to spend some time.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Actually, the old film era pro lenses like this 600 5.6 are a great deal more affordable than current equivalents. No particular difficulty focusing, as to hiking with one, just not on. Usage primarily to reach subjects that are on private property. As to remote control, a bit like kissing through a chain link fence - you get the general idea, but something is missing, photographically speaking.

bleirer

Do you lose infinity with a setup like that?

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

I did not. Heat shimmer was not a noticeable problem either (winter temps bring cool clear air here) Noise on the other hand is a problem. The strength of noise reduction required destroys the detail I look for with the 5DSR.

uhaas2009

👍👍👍

unlucky2 Loc: Hemet Ca.

I do not know of a remote control camera that can render better IQ than that which is shown. I do not see this set up as expensive. A 400mm f/5.6 costs less than $800, Yongnuo 2X tc less than $200, a Canon extension tube less than $60 and a Canon 1.4 less than $300 total $1360. Useful or practical not really, but 1200mm made from parts most have in their kit already. If you find yourself in a situation where more "reach" is required, don't be afraid of throwing it all together. Of course by the time you assemble all the parts, you will be searching for the location where your subject was. I just can't bring myself to part with $12K for an 800 5.6, and for some reason the wife thinks we need a new car more than a R5 with a RF 800 and a RF 2x.

hcmcdole

George Lepp did something similar years ago with a Canon 1D, a 600mm and two 2x TC and wrote his column in Outdoor Photography (or Popular Photography). But then he gets a lot of those goodies from Canon I believe to test out. Okay I was wrong. It was 500mm. Here is the article.

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/pro-perspectives/george-lepp/keeping-your-distance-claiming-your-space/

User ID

Two tripods !

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Heck just buy a Nikon 1200mm lens Last price I saw was only 125K

ELNikkor

If you start at 5.6, add a 2x + a 1.4x, you are down 3 stops = f16 wide open. Seems it would be hard to get fine focus, but your photo of the bluebird is very sharp, great photo!

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Astrophotographers feel your pain. Try using 4,000mm f10 mounted on a moving mount, slight wind, ground vibrations, turbulent atmosphere, sometimes exposures minutes long to get pinpoint stars and nebulae trillions of miles away in 20 degree weather. Then you wonder why we are such an odd bunch.