jjanovy Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I know several excellent photographers who take great pics and do serious post-processing. They all seem to use 1.4 teleconverters, when they use them. I use 2.0 converters, but wonder if there is some reason these other folks use 1.4 (maybe better focusing, less distortion, etc.)?

Bill_de Loc: US

With the 2.0 you are losing a stop of light. Of course if your style/type of shooting can spare that extra stop, no harm, no foul. You are probably losing some sharpness as well. But, IMHO, too many things are over sharpened, just because we can.

---

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Less distortion, less aberrations, and less degradation of image quality usually with a 1.4X teleconverter. Some lenses do better than others because of lens's design. One has to check and/or test to see how well a 2X teleconverter will do with a certain lens.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It probably depends on the manufacturer.....

Here's a review for Sony:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQoOzXtpf5AhWjpIkEHUuQDZ8QFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffstoppers.com%2Fgear%2Fcomparing-sony-14x-and-20x-teleconverters-271659&usg=AOvVaw27Jw28-KK1H8XIN7pEEtJC

Canon:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/1459192

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Higher optical IQ (image quality), less light loss, less magnification - so easier to stabilize - less chance of blurring from camera shake.
.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I hardly ever use my 2.0 vs. my 1.4.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

You noticed the different shooters who use the 1.4 extender but not the 2.0x. Experience teaches why they do that.
Something to consider is auto focus, and how extenders effect it. The f/2.0 will almost always put the rig out of A/F reach while the 1.4 will still allow it. As an example consider Canon's 100-400mm vII. It will A/F using the 1.4 when the lens goes to F/8.0. Using the 2.0 puts you high above the F/8.0 mark rendering A/F useless. A/F has become a very important component of today's photography and the proliferation of long range lenses has gone through the roof. A lens such as Canon's 300mm f/3.2L works well with a 2x extender as does the 135mm f/2.0L.

BebuLamar

2.0x converter loses 2 stops of light. 1.4x converter loses 1 stop of light.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

a 2x also magnifies any issues with the underlying optic more than the 1.4x does

Bill_de Loc: US

Of course

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As others have noted, the specific details probably determine what / why one of two extenders are used.

If the 2x with lens and camera model can't autofocus, that kind of the ends the 2x discussion for that lens and camera combo.

If the 2x with an f/4 lens and camera model provides AF only with the center AF, the photographer might find that too limiting.

gwilliams6

Sony A9 with 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters and the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 lens.

Using both excellent optical quality Sony teleconverters, the 1.4X maybe loses 5-10% of image quality, not all that noticeable with the excellent Sony lenses that are compatible with the teleconverters.

Using the Sony 2.0X maybe loses another 10-15% of additional image quality, still very useable. The autofocus on my best Sony bodies remains excellent with either TC.

The current Sony lenses that are compatible with the Sony 1.4X and 2.0 X TC are:
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM I ; 70-200mm f2.8 GM II; 100-400mm; 200-600mm; 400mm f2.8 GM; 600mm f4 GM. Currently no third-party E-mount lenses can use either the Sony 1.4X or 2.0X TC.

1) A9, 200-600mm, 1.4X TC, 840mm. Kids getting pulled by fast speedboat on Brookings Lake, Manistee National Forest, Michigan. ISO 400, f9, 1/2000 sec.

2) A9, 200-600mm, 2.0 TC, 1200mm jetskiers on same lake. ISO 800, f13, 1/2000 sec.

As a longtime Pro Nikon and Canon SLR and DSLR user (40+ years both brands) that moved over to Sony Mirrorless in January 2017, I find the Sony 1.4X and 2.0X TCs are some of the best optically that I have ever used from any top brand, and they are priced accordingly at $548 USD each. I keep both in my kit.

Cheers
https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

(Download)


(Download)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

ANY converter degrades the final image somewhat. The greater the magnification, the worse the denigration.
So, it goes something like this.
1.4 minimum denigration
1.7 more denigration
2.0 maximum denigration
I hope this example helps you understand why most professionals only use a 1.4 converter, and then, only when it is absolutely necessary.
Anyone here who tells you they get sharp images with a 2.0 converter also has a bridge in Brooklyn that they would like to sell you.

pjarbit Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Uh..... I have both the 1.4 and 2.0 on Canon. Both autofocus. I use each one depending on the situation and how much extra reach and light needed/available. I have also stacked them and maybe it's just my luck - but that autofocus works well also. They are inexpensive if purchased used, and I would try them out before you take advice from incorrect sources. Used, on canon 70-200 IS 2.8, and canon 300 2.8.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I went with 1.4 because I'm starting with a 200-600. Even though 1200 sounds nice, the smaller f stop and the fact that trying to find and hold on a subject at 1200 is a pain. What distortion/lens fault you do have is also amplified.