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

Wrong again gwilliams6, for award winning photography, no tele is needed, nor is it even necessary. You are just a TALKING HEAD with no proof. Here is mine, where is yours TALKING HEAD.

gwilliams6

1

Attached file:
(Download)

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

1.4 is1 stop light loss
2.0 is 2 stop light loss

Other considerations too (as posted).

gwilliams6

I didn't win over 150 Worldwide and National Photo Awards by NOT learning to use ALL the gear at my disposal. Of course I make most of my long shots without using a TC. But I also know when to take advantage of the extra reach and use them.

By now I thought you would have learned that also, maybe not. Maybe you can't teach an old dog any new tricks.

Anytime you wish to share and compare shots, taken around the world feel free. I admire and have commented on your fine work in the past. And I have shared many of my top award winning shots here in UHH in other discussions.

But this discussion IS NOT ABOUT whether or not YOU have made shots good shots without a TC, it is about if they are worth using. And a world of top pros and amateurs alike will tell you, YES they are worth using at times, end of discussion.

The kit of a top photojournalist friend of mine, who documents native cultures around the world showing both Sony 1.4X and 2.0 TCs in his kit. He loves using them with his 400mm f2.8 GM lens.

And before the recent Winter Olympics (in China) a shot of the gear taken by another veteran fellow top sports pro using Sony, you can see two sets of 1.4X and 2.0X TCs in his kit. He shows his old 1984 Winter Olympics cap. He did get a new one this time around in China.

Bill, you just cant seem to accept the reality that many top shooters around the world take advantage of both their 1.4X and 2.0X TCs. You need to look beyond your own individual experiences to see the new bigger reality for countless photographers worldwide.

Cheers and best to you Bill

(Download)

jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon

I find the 1.4 produces sharper images.

Jack

gwilliams6

Depending on the IQ of the primary lenses used and the IQ of the TCs used, yes. But with top glass, the difference is much smaller nowadays. Not like in the past, folks.

Cheers and best to you Jack

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

So, you have equipment, anyone can have that. Where are your images taken with a 2.0 that are just as sharp as my example TALKING HEAD.

gwilliams6

You are hopeless. You are totally missing all the facts and taking it all WAY too personal. Just look up Olympic and Major Sports events and top Wildlife images and look at the EXIF data and see how many were taken with top TCs.

I am finished debating the reality with you in this thread.

Keep doing it your way and be happy, and the rest of the world will shoot with and without TCs and continue to make sharp images, even if you cant seem to grasp the facts. Keep living in the past, Bill when there were no good choices for quality TCs .

Many UHHers are stubbornly entrenched in their own photo reality. I choose to be more open to new tech, new innovation and now opportunities to expand my visual options. Folks in the top Sports and Wildlife Photography groups in Facebook ( I administrate a few, moderate a few more and belong to several) have folks posting top shots all the time using the best of the TCs on the market . Bill you need to check it out.

No image posted here with UHH compression could show the difference anyway, so I wont get into a dueling image match with you here. LOL, LOL

Cheers, relax Bill, you dont need to change what works for you.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

With 2X or 1.4X on a matched lens there will be no perceptible difference and no perceptible difference if no converter is used on the lens.
Several Canon lenses including the 100-400mm L MII produce the same quality with no perceptible degradation of the image. I would guess if you zoomed in to 4 pixels on the screen you would see a difference. Just the action of shooting will degrade an image more than matched converters.
1.4X as others say allows old cameras to generally AF where a 2X you cannot.
With the better mirrorless this ceases to be an issue and 2X or 1.4X the cameras will AF. The last problem loss of light with converters which can be a problem.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I agree! I use a 2x canon extender with my 70-200 f/2.8 II with good results. Auto focus works just fine. I have also used it with the 300 f/2.8 with excellent results.

ychow8

What about TC that you mount in front of the lens, not between the camera and the lens? Canon makes a TCx1.4 which one can mount of a 67mm diameter objective.

petrochemist Loc: UK

The only one I've tried was worse than cropping on the ancient 6MP camera I was using at the time!
Front mounted converters will not usually effect the aperture/image brightness (having a larger front element to compensate for the extra focal length) but there are some VERY poor versions around far worse than even the cheapest vintage rear mounted models.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

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

Just as I expected, you can talk but you can't walk. Just another equipment geek who can talk a good game but can't back it up with images. Too bad, well, below is another winner from my Sony with no teleconverter. That's me two, you, the TALKING HEAD, 0.

petrochemist Loc: UK

Bill, the fact that you can take some nice pictures without a teleconverter is totally irrelevant on a thread discussing the relative merits of teleconverters. Other winning shots are taken with teleconverters & sometimes getting the shot requires the extra reach these give.

Teleconverters are used by professionals quite extensively in wildlife & sports shooting and they regularly get winning shots or they would be out of business.