Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Sony Telextender
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Oct 22, 2021 10:12:50   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
I'm well aware of the short comings of using a teleconverter with a zoom lens yet I'm drawn to it.

I've used Nikon's and Sigma's 1.4x...they gave very good results with their 300mm 2.8s but not so with other lenses...of course I didn't have their fast long professional lenses.

I'm appealing to Sony shooters that use the 1.4X with the 100-400 5.6. What is you opinion and will you post an image with this combination?

Reply
Oct 22, 2021 11:02:24   #
zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
 
I have the same question. I am about to purchase the Sony 100-400. The question is what to do if you need a longer reach? Is the 1.4x extender a good option, or am I better off with shooting with my Sony A7R III at 42MP and then crop? (I know that I also could shoot in crop mode, but I much rather do the cropping at the computer.)

Reply
Oct 22, 2021 12:04:48   #
User ID
 
joer wrote:
I'm well aware of the short comings of using a teleconverter with a zoom lens yet I'm drawn to it.

I've used Nikon's and Sigma's 1.4x...they gave very good results with their 300mm 2.8s but not so with other lenses...of course I didn't have their fast long professional lenses.

I'm appealing to Sony shooters that use the 1.4X with the 100-400 5.6. What is you opinion and will you post an image with this combination?

42MP compared to 24MP is equivalent to a 1.33X TC. That means that for sheer image size, the 1.4X TC is only a slightly better option than swapping to the higher MP body.

But a slight gain in sheer image size is not worth the accompanying losses. But if you didn’t have the 42MP option then you *would* hafta tolerate the TC.

I would not use a TC for such a slight difference considering all the deficits of the TC:
• 1. Half the light transmission.
• 2. No TC is optically perfect.
• 3. Added bulk and weight.
• 4. TC are seldom the full rated degree of magnification (so its slight image size advantage is even slighter).

I’d definitely use the 42MP body instead. If cropping from 42MP is insufficient for certain long distances, then it’s time to add the 1.4X TC to the 42MP body ... but with 42MP available, it’s never time to add the TC to the 24MP body.

Reply
 
 
Oct 22, 2021 13:07:06   #
a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
 
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the image quality only very slightly lower than without the TC. The loss of the stop from 5.6 to 8.0 is an interesting one because with that long a lens, F 8.0 is more desirable for DOF. I

After a lot of experimentation I have standardized on my Minolta 500/8 reflex lens for long shots of birds. But it's more because of size and weight that about image quality. The reflex lens is a lot harder to use for anything that's moving, but my physical issues limit my choices.

IMO, the IQ of that 100-400 lens plus that TC is very, very good and would give very large prints with no difficulty. YMMV. The IQ of my a6500 is a hair poorer than the a7R3 that I once rented on which I used the A70-100 lens plus mount converter (also rented). Size, weight and $$ were the factors that brought me to where I am with the crop-sensor camera.

Are there better gear choices for ultimate performance and IQ? Yes, of course. Is this combo good enough? It's a personal decision.


(Download)



Reply
Oct 22, 2021 16:55:22   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
a6k wrote:
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the image quality only very slightly lower than without the TC. The loss of the stop from 5.6 to 8.0 is an interesting one because with that long a lens, F 8.0 is more desirable for DOF. I

After a lot of experimentation I have standardized on my Minolta 500/8 reflex lens for long shots of birds. But it's more because of size and weight that about image quality. The reflex lens is a lot harder to use for anything that's moving, but my physical issues limit my choices.

IMO, the IQ of that 100-400 lens plus that TC is very, very good and would give very large prints with no difficulty. YMMV. The IQ of my a6500 is a hair poorer than the a7R3 that I once rented on which I used the A70-100 lens plus mount converter (also rented). Size, weight and $$ were the factors that brought me to where I am with the crop-sensor camera.

Are there better gear choices for ultimate performance and IQ? Yes, of course. Is this combo good enough? It's a personal decision.
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the i... (show quote)


A stupendous shot ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reply
Oct 22, 2021 18:51:53   #
User ID
 
a6k wrote:
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the image quality only very slightly lower than without the TC. The loss of the stop from 5.6 to 8.0 is an interesting one because with that long a lens, F 8.0 is more desirable for DOF. ............,,.
.

There’s no increase in DoF resulting from the slower f-number. It’s the same image that was projected at f/5.6 except it’s been magnified as it emerged from the main lens before it reaches the sensor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If there’s any DoF difference at all the TC DoF at f/8 could appear to be less than the original DoF was at f/5.6, simply cuz you’ve magnified all the deficiencies of the f/5.6 image (so the DoF looks worse even though it’s exactly the same).

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 07:06:00   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
joer wrote:
I'm well aware of the short comings of using a teleconverter with a zoom lens yet I'm drawn to it.

I've used Nikon's and Sigma's 1.4x...they gave very good results with their 300mm 2.8s but not so with other lenses...of course I didn't have their fast long professional lenses.

I'm appealing to Sony shooters that use the 1.4X with the 100-400 5.6. What is you opinion and will you post an image with this combination?


1. No teleconverter made will increase image quality.
2. The 1.4 is the least destructive teleconverter to image quality.
3. The best results from a 1.4 are from a prime lens.
4. The next best results from a 1.4 is on a fast zoom lens, like the 200-400 f4 Nikon zoom.
5. The worst results from a 1.4 are from a slow zoom lens Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens. Focusing will suffer, you will need more light, and image quality will be compromised.
PS. I have seen good images from this combination, but I do not use teleconverters under any circumstances. The Sony 100-400 is an excellent lens and produces very sharp images on it's own.
I wish you luck, the only way for you to really figure this out is to buy it and see for yourself the results. Then it will be, in the final analysis, your decision.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2021 09:04:10   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
billnikon wrote:
1. No teleconverter made will increase image quality.

I wish you luck, the only way for you to really figure this out is to buy it and see for yourself the results. Then it will be, in the final analysis, your decision.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.


Of course you are correct.

I am too frugal to rent and don't think it is fair to a supplier to purchase an item for trial purposes, in all likelihood.

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 09:30:25   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
a6k wrote:
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the image quality only very slightly lower than without the TC. The loss of the stop from 5.6 to 8.0 is an interesting one because with that long a lens, F 8.0 is more desirable for DOF. I

After a lot of experimentation I have standardized on my Minolta 500/8 reflex lens for long shots of birds. But it's more because of size and weight that about image quality. The reflex lens is a lot harder to use for anything that's moving, but my physical issues limit my choices.

IMO, the IQ of that 100-400 lens plus that TC is very, very good and would give very large prints with no difficulty. YMMV. The IQ of my a6500 is a hair poorer than the a7R3 that I once rented on which I used the A70-100 lens plus mount converter (also rented). Size, weight and $$ were the factors that brought me to where I am with the crop-sensor camera.

Are there better gear choices for ultimate performance and IQ? Yes, of course. Is this combo good enough? It's a personal decision.
I once rented that lens and that TC. I found the i... (show quote)


Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. I think it is a very good image...the bright light helped...I'm sure.

Be sure that in no way I am belittling the image by my comments below.

Viewing on a 4K monitor I find sharpness lacking to what I prefer.

Opened and sharpened manually in C1 improved it somewhat but still below expectations. Removing the C1 sharpening and running it through Topaz Sharpening AI resulted in a slight further improvement but still not what I am willing to accept.

I expect starting with a raw file may yield better results but maybe not enough.

Thanks again for you efforts...G.A.S. averted.

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 09:57:37   #
a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
 
joer wrote:
Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. I think it is a very good image...the bright light helped...I'm sure.

Be sure that in no way I am belittling the image by my comments below.

Viewing on a 4K monitor I find sharpness lacking to what I prefer.

Opened and sharpened manually in C1 improved it somewhat but still below expectations. Removing the C1 sharpening and running it through Topaz Sharpening AI resulted in a slight further improvement but still not what I am willing to accept.

I expect starting with a raw file may yield better results but maybe not enough.

Thanks again for you efforts...G.A.S. averted.
Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. I t... (show quote)


Just FYI, it started with a raw file and the JPG was made with C1. Happy to help.

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 09:58:42   #
zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
 
billnikon wrote:
1. No teleconverter made will increase image quality.
2. The 1.4 is the least destructive teleconverter to image quality.
3. The best results from a 1.4 are from a prime lens.
4. The next best results from a 1.4 is on a fast zoom lens, like the 200-400 f4 Nikon zoom.
5. The worst results from a 1.4 are from a slow zoom lens Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens. Focusing will suffer, you will need more light, and image quality will be compromised.
PS. I have seen good images from this combination, but I do not use teleconverters under any circumstances. The Sony 100-400 is an excellent lens and produces very sharp images on it's own.
I wish you luck, the only way for you to really figure this out is to buy it and see for yourself the results. Then it will be, in the final analysis, your decision.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
1. No teleconverter made will increase image quali... (show quote)


Points 1-3 are well-known general points; they do not address the more nuanced questions we would like to explore here. On point four: the Nikon Nikkor 200-400mm reminds me why so many of us switched to mirrorless: it is large and heavy and definitely does not fit into anyone's travel bag--which is where the very portable Sony 100-400mm comes in. If the Nikon 200-400 is so good why doesn't B&H sell it?

The point where I disagree is the old assumption that faster lenses are always better. There are many fast high-end lenses that are optically outstanding. These lenses also tend to be large, heavy, and expensive. There also are fast lenses by third-party providers that are optically questionable. Many optically outstanding lenses may not be very fast but are smaller and more portable in return. A good example is the Zeiss Batis line of lenses. The argument that the autofocus in a slower lens does not work as well is outdated as well. The Sony 100-400mm in conjunction with current Sony mirrorless body has an outstanding autofocus system.

Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2021 10:04:02   #
zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
 
User ID wrote:
42MP compared to 24MP is equivalent to a 1.33X TC. That means that for sheer image size, the 1.4X TC is only a slightly better option than swapping to the higher MP body.

But a slight gain in sheer image size is not worth the accompanying losses. But if you didn’t have the 42MP option then you *would* hafta tolerate the TC.

I would not use a TC for such a slight difference considering all the deficits of the TC:
• 1. Half the light transmission.
• 2. No TC is optically perfect.
• 3. Added bulk and weight.
• 4. TC are seldom the full rated degree of magnification (so its slight image size advantage is even slighter).

I’d definitely use the 42MP body instead. If cropping from 42MP is insufficient for certain long distances, then it’s time to add the 1.4X TC to the 42MP body ... but with 42MP available, it’s never time to add the TC to the 24MP body.
42MP compared to 24MP is equivalent to a 1.33X TC.... (show quote)


Thanks for a thoughtful response. I was already leaning in this direction, and your clearly confirm this. I will give the Sony A7R3 and Sony 100-400mm lens combo a try.

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 10:48:39   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
zug55 wrote:
Points 1-3 are well-known general points; they do not address the more nuanced questions we would like to explore here. On point four: the Nikon Nikkor 200-400mm reminds me why so many of us switched to mirrorless: it is large and heavy and definitely does not fit into anyone's travel bag--which is where the very portable Sony 100-400mm comes in. If the Nikon 200-400 is so good why doesn't B&H sell it?

The point where I disagree is the old assumption that faster lenses are always better. There are many fast high-end lenses that are optically outstanding. These lenses also tend to be large, heavy, and expensive. There also are fast lenses by third-party providers that are optically questionable. Many optically outstanding lenses may not be very fast but are smaller and more portable in return. A good example is the Zeiss Batis line of lenses. The argument that the autofocus in a slower lens does not work as well is outdated as well. The Sony 100-400mm in conjunction with current Sony mirrorless body has an outstanding autofocus system.
Points 1-3 are well-known general points; they do ... (show quote)


The reason B&H does not sell the Nikon 200-400 f4 lens is because it has been updated by the Nikon 180-400 mm f4. And it comes with the 1.4 teleconverter built in.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e_tc_1_4.html?sts=pi&pim=Y
And by the way, auto focus is slower with any teleconverter.
And by the way, my Sony 600mm f4 is only 6 lbs. is center weighted and feels lighter in the hands than with either the 100-400 or the 200-600, and is sharpest wide open, as all fast telephoto primes are. That's why everyone makes them.
And by the way, the 100-400 is sharpest without the teleconverter, and unlike others on this site, I will offer proof. In the image of the dog below, you can enlarge and read every number on the circular tag on his collar. No teleconverter needed. And the dog was coming at me, usually very hard for a focusing system to get it right, congratulations Sony a9 focusing system.
If you need any help learning more about photography, I offer free guide services to Florida Wetlands. I would be happy to teach you.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.



Reply
Oct 23, 2021 11:51:20   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
joer wrote:
I'm well aware of the short comings of using a teleconverter with a zoom lens yet I'm drawn to it.

I've used Nikon's and Sigma's 1.4x...they gave very good results with their 300mm 2.8s but not so with other lenses...of course I didn't have their fast long professional lenses.

I'm appealing to Sony shooters that use the 1.4X with the 100-400 5.6. What is you opinion and will you post an image with this combination?


I'm curious to know if you've used Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) and what your assessment of it is in a pinch? I'd expect you would be averse to shooting .jpg, but in a pinch with the camera setup optimized for SOOC with .jpg in lieu of using a TC? Care to share your experience with that idea?

Reply
Oct 23, 2021 11:58:47   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
gessman wrote:
I'm curious to know if you've used Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) and what your assessment of it is in a pinch? I'd expect you would be averse to shooting .jpg, but in a pinch with the camera setup optimized for SOOC with .jpg in lieu of using a TC? Care to share your experience with that idea?


I seldom shoot jpg and may have used CIZ in the past but not with my current Sony Cameras.

Thanks for reminding me and I will try it.

What is your experience with it?

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.