Optical study and experiment, prime, zoom, and tele extender: Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now I would like to ask any one who used TELE EXTENDER supplemental lenses.

ken.toda

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now I would like to ask any one who used TELE EXTENDER supplemental lenses. For over 5 decades, 2X tele extender was very cheap alternative for getting your SLR
camera system, i.e. made a normal lens 50mm/f=1.4 to 100mm/f-2.8. The image quality in center was acceptable but edges are terrible. So, it was used for only portrait photography? Yes, it was very good special artistic tool.
Meanwhile, as optical design and production have been making great progress, I start using two tele extenders for my EF 70-200/2,8. They are small and light weight, 1.4X extender make my lens 105 to 300mm f=4.0. Then, the 2X piece making my relatively heavy big lens 140 to 400mm 5.6. Realized, sensor ISO can be good and much higher than film time, so I had better handling to shoot sport photography EF 300mm f=2.8. Since I borrowed such fast prime lens, I did not have time to make comparison. Is any one there shooting with modern improved tele extender's?

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

Is this a question of money, weight, handling or light transmission (f stop)?

photoman43

Adding a teleconverter to a lens is just part of the issue of how one or more added tcs might affect the image captured in the camera. Your long lens technique also has a big impact on the image captured. Using the right tripod and ball head to improve stability has an impact as well as the optical issues involved. So do your exposure settings.

In my film days, I often used a 2x and a 1.4x tc at the same time on a 500mm f4 lens. But it was properly stabilized with a tripod and other supports. Using a rig like that hand held was not a viable solution.

Today I try and just use a 1.4x tc and only when I need the extra focal length.

MountainDave

I have an EF 1.4X III and RF 1.4X. I used the EF version on a 100-400L II and 300 2.8L II IS. It worked pretty well on the zoom and better on the 300. The RF version is used on a RF 100-500L. I also had an EF 2X III for a while but I found the results unsatisfactory. With any of them, you get some loss of AF performance and IQ, including some loss of color brightness. Counterintuitively, they work better when the subject is fairly close like on small birds. Any long shot will suffer from atmospheric haze and distortion anyway. I've seen pros generally don't like to use them except when really necessary. Jared Polin did a comparison with the 100-500 where he compared the 1.4X vs. cropping and proclaimed cropping is better. Some might disagree. I think the 1.4 is somewhat useful mostly on small birds. Anyone expecting miracles on long shots will be disappointed.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

I cannot speak for third party gear. My experience is with Canon T/Cs only. Bird photography is a prime subject for T/Cs, especially if one crops heavily. Two different philosophies: 1) Gets the image closer. 2) Gets the image wider. With modern technology there is much less image degradation than with T/Cs of 40 years ago. The biggest drawback might be they over extend the camera's A/F capabilities. They seem to be more commonly accepted in today's world.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

The lenses I have can only use one teleconverter at a time. But the lenses that allow the teleconverter's usage were originally designed for the usage of the teleconverter. Therefore, the image from the lens with the teleconverter is very sharp even in the corners. Yes, there will always be some image loss. But the image difference from a longer lens at that focal length compared to the lens plus teleconverter will be very minimal.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Sorry, but I can't find the link to the discussion thread "prime vs. zoom". I am thinking about several situations in the past and one coming up this spring where I want a good quality (IQ) photo that I will use for a large print and cannot imagine that I will be able to use a prime because of the difficulty of the terrain. I will be forced to use a zoom. This happens so often I question why I even have primes in my kit .... except for some rare low light situations.

btbg

wdross wrote:

The lenses I have can only use one teleconverter at a time. But the lenses that allow the teleconverter's usage were originally designed for the usage of the teleconverter. Therefore, the image from the lens with the teleconverter is very sharp even in the corners. Yes, there will always be some image loss. But the image difference from a longer lens at that focal length compared to the lens plus teleconverter will be very minimal.

I don't think that there will always be some image loss. I have the new Nikon 400f2.8 prime and it has a built in 1.4 converter and says in the documentation that there is no image loss at 560f4. Not only that, if I put my 2x converter on the camera and leave the 400 at 400, not using the 1.4 extender I can not tell a discernible difference and the lens becomes an 800 f5.6.

There is a slight image loss if you use the built in teleconverter and the 2x combined and use the lens at 1120 f8, but even then it is a fairly small loss of quality.

btbg

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

Yes I am shooting with a modern teleconverter. My 400 has a 1.4 built in and I also have a 2x converter to use on the lens as well. Can't tell any difference in quality with the built in converter, and even using both converters at the same time so that the lens becomes an 1120 f8, the image degradation is incredibly small.

Bill_de Loc: US

My most used extender is the Nikkor 1.25X

Occasionally I use the Nikkor 1.4X or 1.7X. More often than not I depend on cropping when using relatively high pixel count cameras.

---

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I use my Canon 70-200 f2.8 with my Canon 4x converter when shooting sports. I have had excellent results. I even took a portrait of my Granddaughter with that set up at a game and it's one of my favorite pictures I have taken of her.

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

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

Yes, and they still degrade, even a little, from the final result.
Ask any pro.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Maybe I am not a picky as some, but with my newer Sony teleconverters, I find no image degradation. And I have seen hundreds of extremely sharp images made with the same equipment. I can't say the same with older Canon converters. The Canon 1.4x was ok, but their 2x was problematic.

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

Nalu wrote:

Maybe I am not a picky as some, but with my newer Sony teleconverters, I find no image degradation. And I have seen hundreds of extremely sharp images made with the same equipment. I can't say the same with older Canon converters. The Canon 1.4x was ok, but their 2x was problematic.

Yes, and they still degrade, even a little, from the final result.
Ask any pro.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

ken.toda wrote:

Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now ... (show quote)

I have a 2x extender for my Sony 100-400 and it is absolutely brilliant, much better than my vintage teleconverter. That being said it cost a pretty penny...