Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Evidence to the contrary about tele-extenders
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Jun 13, 2017 22:38:06   #
canonjohn922 Loc: Vineland,NJ
 
FYI the bird in the last photo is red-billed tropicbird. Sorry you weren't happy with your trip. Ours was almost a disaster due to the boat losing one of its engine for awhile and some rain. Fortunately we had a super guide who made the captain go back to places we missed so we got some good photos. Apparently the captain had to get permission to go back to the island and pay again so the owner lost a few bucks.
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)

Reply
Jun 14, 2017 22:59:55   #
wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN
 
mwsilvers wrote:
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.
There is nothing wrong with compromising quality w... (show quote)


Well, I can't see the loss of quality in the photos that I posted. I shoot a lot with out the tele extenders and compare them and if my technique is good they seem as sharp to me. Here is the point that I am trying to make, and I think I may have been miss understood. With high end prime lenses and the high end tele-extenders (my only experience is with both of them Canon products) you CAN get superb quality. Why do I think that? I started to learn about bird photography by looking at Art Morris's books and website. He commonly used tele-extenders to get fab photos, sometimes he even coupled two together! I have gone back and looked at some of my older photos with the older version of the Canon 600 f4.0 and the older 2X and they ARE a little softer. Still good, but not perfect.

I think the bad rap on Tele-extenders came from less expensive products on non-prime lenses and the result was a higher f stop that the cameras may not have focused well or just did not have the quality of the product. I guess what I hate is blanket statements that I know that in some cases are just not true. I'll post a few with the 600 and a 2X iii and you tell me if they have degraded quality. First two were handheld from a boat; the flamingos were on a tripod on a boat. The flamingos were using the 1.4X. The eagle was shot some years ago with the old 600 f4 and the old version of the Canon 2X; I think it is noticeably softer, and that has been by experience, that the new stuff is really good.

With that I'll leave this alone.
Bill


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.