1.4 or 2.0 converter? (Page 2): 2x tele converters don't give 'maximum' distortion as the old 3x models are significantly worse! The quality of the TC definitely makes a difference...

petrochemist Loc: UK

billnikon wrote:

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.

2x tele converters don't give 'maximum' distortion as the old 3x models are significantly worse!
The quality of the TC definitely makes a difference too, my 1.7x TC is better than most of my 1.4x models.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I would suggest that historically there has been a tendency for folks to shy away from 2X converters due to the numerous reasons provided by other commenters. And the major reasons why they didn’t get as much use was because (as stated) degradation or loss of AF as well as comparative image degradation. But with improved AF systems and better sensors (and better glass), and better noise control, the limitations of 2X converters I believe has been significantly reduced. With my older DSLR gear, Canon, I was reticent to put on a 2X converter. Now, with my Sony system I never have a second thoughts about attaching a 2X converter to my long lenses.

rcarol

Bill_de wrote:

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.

---

You lose 1 stop with the 1.4 converter and 2 stops with the 2.9 conmerter.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

At this moment, I do not own any TCs, except the 1.4 which is built into my new 400 Z lens. While I have used a 2.0 TC before, it's only in extreme situations and I prefer not to for many reasons. YMMV. Best of luck.

pjarbit Loc: Detroit, Michigan

All taken with 1.4, 2.0 or stacked 1.4 and 2.0 on 24-70 2.8 IS II. All with autofocus. All canon glass. Some of the plane photos have a new sky dropped in with Luminar Neo.

gwilliams6

pjarbit wrote:

All taken with 1.4, 2.0 or stacked 1.4 and 2.0 on 24-70 2.8 IS II. All with autofocus. All canon glass. Some of the plane photos have a new sky dropped in with Luminar Neo.

Excellent shots, yes many 2.0X TC are excellent optical quality and produce very nice shots .

Cheers

gwilliams6

billnikon wrote:

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.

Wrong again BillNikon,

I know many top pros around the world and myself that will and do use 2.0X TC with excellent results. They were used extensively at the Summer Olympics in Tokyo and at the Winter Olympics in China, and I know that firsthand from many fellow pros who shot there. I wasn't there, but many of my fellow pros and fellow pro members of our Facebook pro sports shooters groups did shoot there and used their 2.0TC with great image quality.

It all comes down to the quality of the original lens and the quality of the TC. Sony Pros using the excellent $2000 USD 200-600mm lens, and the outstanding $3000 USD 70-200mm f2.8 GM II lens, and the incomparable $12K 400mm f2.8 GM, and $13K 600mm f4 GM lenses use both optically excellent Sony 1.4X and 2.0X TCs all the time. Just a fact.

And Nikon is incorporating them internally now in some new long lenses coming out. Know the new reality Bill.

In fact in the 400mm f2.8 GM and 600mm f4 GM kits that Sony is supplying to staff photographers of top news services that have moved to Sony in the past 20 months, most have been ordered to include both 1.4X and 2.0TC. That includes AP (Associated Press), UK Press, Canada Press, and all Gannett Media worldwide.

AFP (Agence France Press) is using Nikon Z9's and many of their shooters used 1.4X and 2.0 TC at the Winter Olympics also with excellent results.

Cheers and best to you.

James May

I have the NikonZ9 with the 100-400mm Z lens and the 2X converter on it. I got this photo handheld. Look good enough for me.!!

James May

On a Nikon Z9 with a 100-400mm Z lens with a 2X teleconverter handheld.

gwilliams6

James May wrote:

On a Nikon Z9 with a 100-400mm Z lens with a 2X teleconverter handheld.

Super, exactly my point. Good glass and good 2.0 TCs mean great IQ.

AFP (Agence France Press) is using Nikon Z9's for their staffers and many of their shooters used 1.4X and 2.0 TC at the Winter Olympics also with excellent results.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

jjanovy wrote:

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.)?

With 1.4X you lose one stop of light... for example a 300mm f/4 lens "becomes" a 420mm f/5.6 when the 1.4X is attached.

With a 2X you lose two stops of light... the same 300mm f/4 "becomes" a 600mm f/8 when the 2X teleconverter is attached.

Also, the higher magnification of the 2X does more "damage" to image quality. In other words, any shortcomings of the lens it's used upon will be more apparent than they are with a "weaker" 1.4X.

I use both 1.4X and 2X at times. They are high quality and matched well to my lenses.

However, I use the 1.4X a lot more and on many more lenses...

I use the 1.4X occasionally on 70-200mm (both f/2.8 and f/4 versions), on 300mm f/4, on 100-400mm, on 300mm f/2.8 and on 500mm f/1.4. I would estimate there is maybe 5% loss of image quality, using the 1.4X. That's negligible on high quality lenses.

I use it less and only use the 2X on 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 lenses. I will not use it on any zoom, in particular. I would estimate there's 15% loss of image quality with the 2X.

gwilliams6

Speaking for Sony, they only make their 1.4X and 2.0X TC to be compatible with their best quality long lens primes and best quality long zooms, therefore achieving the best image results.

An example for Sony: You can use both 1.4x and 2.0 X TC on Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM lenses, version one and the new even sharper version two. But you can not use the Sony TCs on the the Sony 70-200mm f4 G lens which is of lower optical quality.

Here just a simple shot of a squirrel eating a peanut candy given it by tourists on our National Mall in Washington D.C.
42mp Sony A7RIII camera, Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM lens (version one) with Sony 2.0X TC, 400mm f5.6, ISO 800, 1/1000 sec.

Modern TCs are NOT your grandfather's TCs, LOL

Cheers

(Download)

gwilliams6

1

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

pjarbit wrote:

All taken with 1.4, 2.0 or stacked 1.4 and 2.0 on 24-70 2.8 IS II. All with autofocus. All canon glass. Some of the plane photos have a new sky dropped in with Luminar Neo.

Neither of Canon's EF tele-extenders can be physically connected to the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. So, what are you talking about?

Canon has no EF versions with IS of the EF 24-70 models. So, what are you talking about?

Canon has no versions II of the RF 24-70 models. So, what are you talking about?

gwilliams6

1