Evidence to the contrary about tele-extenders (Page 3): Cannot provide examples because i use nikon but have heard from several sources that at times canon has actually employed...

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

ssymeono wrote:

... extenders work very well with primes. We must admit that the manufacturers know something when they produce these lenses. Nikon used to ship its 300mm, 2.8, with 1.4 extender in the box, meaning that they really believe in the combination.

Cannot provide examples because i use nikon but have heard from several sources that at times canon has actually employed telextender lens elements as a built in part of certain telephoto lenses with good performance.

Jim Bob

Winslowe wrote:

They prove that if one has a camera, one can take a picture - what more do you want??

But taking a picture does not in and of itself make the image "great" as you described. What I want is an explanation of how you arrived at the conclusion that the images were "great".

Jim Bob

ssymeono wrote:

I magnified the hawk to 100% and it was still sharp. For hand held shooting with heavy equipment, it qualifies as great.

I regret to inform you that you are absolutely wrong. Those downloads are all soft even without magnification. Perhaps you do not know what a sharp image looks like. Take a close look at the feathers. If you want to see some sharp images with a teleconverter, take a look at some of Regis' work in the gallery. Now that's sharp.

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

wotsmith wrote:

It seems to me that several themes have run thought the postings on the "hog" in the past:
1. Tele-extenders reduce the quality of the photo (usually 30% degradation is quoted)
2. That you must use a tripod when using a "long" lens to get sharp photos
3. That shooting from a boat will blur the photo due to engine vibrations
4. Traveling with photography gear requires a hard shell Pelican case, etc.

I would like to produce evidence that none of the above have to be true. Part of me wonders why I bother, because "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still", but I'll still try.

I just returned from South America & the Galapagos Islands which was a very disappointing trip. I did not see what I expected. The Park service controls where you go, so maybe it was just bad luck, but disappointing none the less. Most of the advice that I got for the Galapagos was that long lenses were not needed, as everything was so close. I hoped that was true, but took my 300mm and extenders just in case.

I travel extensively with my gear, and use think tank products which have proved very adequate. Normally I use two of their large roller bags, but this time I "went light" and took one roller bag and a large back pack. I have trucked this stuff to more than 80 countries with no damage. I do not check the bags, but place them overhead as carryons. I am 76 years old, and it is getting tough to lift them up, but I make it, so far.

All shots attached are with the 300mm f2.8 with the version III 2X tele-extender and all are hand held. The hawk shot was from a boat with the engine running, the others were walking. No tripod. Download the attached files and check them out. I think they are pretty darn sharp!

About tele-extenders: There are good ones and bad ones. I understand that many readers have limited budgets and try to save on gear; and I have been there. I am blessed that I now have the gear that I want, and high end tele-extenders are very good. Check out Art Morris's photos at birdsasart.com and see his results with tele-extenders. Don't lump all tele-extenders into the same group.

In stead of saying you can't do this or that; concentrate on learning better technique, learn how the pros do it, and get better with your photography.

Keep shooting!
Bill

It seems to me that several themes have run though... (show quote)

Excellent photos, "Young man." I'm 83, so that does make you young! I was told not to buy a tele-extender as it cuts down on the quality of the photos. Somehow you proved it wrong. What camera and lens?

Nikonman44

You are happy with your fotos, you were not happy with over regulations from park staffers

I like your end product.

Experimentation with a mix of equip usually provides what the foto author is seeking

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

I'm sorry but the downloads do not appear especially sharp to my eye.

While the images "may" have acceptable sharpness, the lens alone is capable of better. The main problem I'm having with this thread is the implication there is no degradation of the OPs images as a result of using the 2x III Extender. At best we should be discussing the "acceptable" image degradation of this otherwise exceptional lens and 2x Extender combination.

Jim Bob

mwsilvers wrote:

While the images "may" have acceptable sharpness, the lens alone is capable of better. The main problem I'm having with this thread is the implication there is no degradation of the OPs images as a result of using the 2x III Extender. At best we should be discussing the "acceptable" image degradation of this otherwise exceptional lens and 2x Extender combination.

Exactly. I find it very disheartening when posters, presumably in their effort to be nice, mislead someone into thinking that poorly focused and/or soft images are just "great". I want to learn to be better. That requires constructive criticism which I gratefully seek and accept.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

mwsilvers wrote:

While the images "may" have acceptable sharpness, the lens alone is capable of better. The main problem I'm having with this thread is the implication there is no degradation of the OPs images as a result of using the 2x III Extender. At best we should be discussing the "acceptable" image degradation of this otherwise exceptional lens and 2x Extender combination.

The honest approach is to start from the fact that many of us cannot afford a $$$$ lens, so we have to explore options to get as good an image as we can. In my case, when I was a Canon user I had a Kenko 2X. The images were not as sharp as they would be using the lens alone, but they were sharper than I got cropping away 75% of the pixels ... and the combination fit into my budget.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

willaim wrote:

Excellent photos, "Young man." I'm 83, so that does make you young! I was told not to buy a tele-extender as it cuts down on the quality of the photos. Somehow you proved it wrong. What camera and lens?

You're assuming the quality of the photos wouldn't be far superior without the extender. The fact that he got good results doesn't mean there wasn't any degradation. That lens is one of the sharpest that Canon makes. Other than the lack of reach, images would be far superior without the 2x III attached. I'm not suggesting he should stop using the combination, or that his images aren't good, but contrary to what's being suggested, there is degradation.

Jim Bob

rehess wrote:

The honest approach is to start from the fact that many of us cannot afford a $$$$ lens, so we have to explore options to get as good an image as we can. In my case, when I was a Canon user I had a Kenko 2X. The images were not as sharp as they would be using the lens alone, but they were sharper than I got cropping away 75% of the pixels.

Look. This is really not about who can afford what. It's about an honest appraisal of an image. Those who say these images are "great" are simply not being honest. Now whether the photographer is happy with them is a different question.

Jim Bob

mwsilvers wrote:

You're assuming the quality of the photos wouldn't be far superior without the extender. The fact that he got good results doesn't mean there wasn't any degradation. That lens is one of the sharpest that Canon makes. Other than the lack of reach, images would be far superior without the 2x III attached. I'm not suggesting he should stop using the combination, or that his images aren't good, but contrary to what's being suggested, there is degradation.

Obvious and significant degradation. I'm done. Like Gene Hackman's character said in one of his movies (perhaps Crimson Tide), "I can't abide kiss asses".

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Too bad about your trip to the Galapagos! Too much $$ invested to end up disappointed.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rehess wrote:

The honest approach is to start from the fact that many of us cannot afford a $$$$ lens, so we have to explore options to get as good an image as we can. In my case, when I was a Canon user I had a Kenko 2X. The images were not as sharp as they would be using the lens alone, but they were sharper than I got cropping away 75% of the pixels ... and the combination fit into my budget.

There is nothing wrong with compromising quality when it's the only option we have. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing some add on gadget will be a magic bullet. You took the route you did to get the best results you could within your budget. But you recognized the compromises and the limitations. The OPs lens is one of the sharpest Canon makes, and it's known to work very well with excellent results with both the Canon 1.4x and 2x Extender III. But that should not fool us into assuming that there is no image degradation from that combo.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

I am in total agreement with you and think I understand your reasons for posting. Bird Photography is difficult. Gear is but one component. Understanding photography and the gear is a part of the process. Just because you buy a scalpel you will not become a Brain surgeon. Buy good gear for the intended use, then learn how to use it is what I think the message is here.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

like with good looking women I cant let a post on tc's go by without notice. the point was about a good lens with a good tc. sometimes good results with an average lens and tc. I shoot with a 200mm f2.8 sony G lens and their 2x tc on my slt a-77. I shot ithand held at an air shot and got great fly by's. I question those who post percentages of IQ loss, where do I buy a gauge for that? as for adding more glass think of how much you add going from 400mm to 600mm's. I also shoot a pentax 645D with the 200mm and 400mm with their 2x tc. I swear by my results, and it's manual focus with their tc's. the point is that some like them, some don't. unless you are a pro or advanced amateur perfect is not on the table but better is. as some say many of us have shallow pockets and do the best with what we can afford. try not to discourage us.