2X Converters Good or Bad

Would you buy one.

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
Hold on, just done it again and there is difference, must have uploaded two without converter last time.....
 
With converter
IMG_0922_zpsna0soo7j.jpg


Without converter
IMG_0918_zpslshgfirf.jpg
 
Lol thats more like it!
 
rob-nikon said:
What's the difference at the long end as that why you are really using a teleconverter (also focus on a subject further away than a few metres). There should be a clear difference in framing. If you set the lens to minimum aperture the teleconverter should automatically compensate for the loss of light ie f4 to f8 if it's a 2x teleconverter.

What were the settings that both were taken with?
Click to expand...

Once I get used to using it I will be taking it down to airfields, our local one only has a viewing area at one end of the runway so it may come in handy Rob
 
I even did a test for you!

Without (50mm)
TC test 1 by Jim, on Flickr

With (ignore focus, had to use manual as the 50mm oddly didn't like the TC!)
TC test 2 by Jim, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
not sure what you are all testing........ IQ .......... or just showing (poor) illustrations of focal length
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Once I get used to using it I will be taking it down to airfields, our local one only has a viewing area at one end of the runway so it may come in handy Rob
Click to expand...
As long as you are happy with performance thats all that matters. I find I always want accurate, fast AF and great IQ so I rarely use teleconverters now. A few years ago I did a test of using a teleconverter compared to cropping to the same size, it was done with a 1.4TC on a 300 f4 lens. I found there was not much difference other than file size and loss of light. You can read the blog entry on my website here.
 
BillN_33 said:
not sure what you are all testing........ IQ .......... or just showing (poor) illustrations of focal length
Click to expand...
We were trying to show how the teleconverter would alters the Field of View at different focal lengths as previous images were the same framing as that was the OP's issue earlier.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
not sure what you are all testing........ IQ .......... or just showing (poor) illustrations of focal length
Click to expand...
Showing the focal length differences as the OP thought he was getting the same FL with the TC. My test was done before the OP realised he's shared the same image twice!

Out of interest why do you say "poor illustrations" of FL? I used a 50mm to keep it simple.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Out of interest why do you say "poor illustrations" of FL? I used a 50mm to keep it simple.
Click to expand...

Post #42 = a post from the OP =who is asking the question "good or bad"

plus to show the illustrations better you need to be some distance away from the subject

TC's are usually used for shots at the longer end ... why would you use a x 2 TC in any of the illustrations, #45, #47, #42
 
Last edited:
I see what you mean.

No these were tests simply to illustrate the difference you should see re the OP's post when he said he couldn't see any magnification.
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Just done a very quick comparison, the image is only slightly darker when the 2x converter is used and only slightly larger by mm, the only difference in settings is the converter, why is the shot not closer cropped?
or is it because it was shot at min focus.

With converter
IMG_0907_zpslt8ejl8t.jpg


Without converter
IMG_0905_zpsbj2o4fpm.jpg
Click to expand...
The op posted these two shots that were same FoV yet were supposed to be taken with and without the Teleconverter, the question was why the FoV hadn't changed, turns out both were taken without the TC.

I agree it's not the best way to test a Teleconverter at close focus distances but my test done in a similar way of the OP to show them there should be a difference. It wasn't a scientific test to show performance of the Teleconverter.
 
Last edited:
Well I am ok to use it for a while to see if I can get used to it, the AF doesn't seem to want to work with the Tamron, so MF it is, as far as losing 2 stops is concerned, I reckon I can just about get away with it on airfields but low light may prove hard, thanks for all the tips and help fellas, this does look like trial and error for me.
 
Gawwd.... more confused lol. Prob xmas eve. But it is a 1.4 or x2 Im going for... Stupid statement on its own but the x2 seems to get dissed where as the 1.4 will give 560mm
 
Last edited:
Glyn Carnell said:
Gawwd.... more confused lol. Prob xmas eve. But it is a 1.4 or x2 Im going for... Stupid statement on its own but the x2 seems to get dissed where as the 1.4 will give 560mm
Click to expand...
What lens are you using it with as this is the most important factor. The easiest way to explain it is the 1.4 TC will give the best performance (AF and IQ) but at the cost a smaller increase in focal length, whereas the 2x gives the greater focal length increase but at the cost of greater loss in performance (AF and IQ). On a 300m f2.8 lens I was happy using both the 1.4 and 2x TC, on a 200-400 f4 or 70-200 f2.8/f4 I only use the 1.4 TC.
 
I don't wish to be overly critical, but I'm not sure that posting gloomy pictures of anything, is especially helpful in illustrating the performance of teleconverters.

These were both taken with 50D, 300mm f/2.8 with 2.0x converter in place.





This one with the bare 300mm



Having the 2.0x converter gave a nice option for the long shots, but both needed a contrast bump in post and the bare lens was sharper. Nevertheless under the right circumstances, TCs can deliver decent results IMHO. Don't have these lenses now though, got a 100-400 MkII instead.
 
Last edited:
GeeJay57 said:
I don't wish to be overly critical, but I'm not sure that posting gloomy pictures of anything, is especially helpful in illustrating the performance of teleconverters.
Click to expand...

The photos I posted were not to illustrate teleconverter performance but in response to the OP's issue in post 33. The OP had posted images with and without the teleconverter that had no difference in field of view and asked if there was a problem and why it had happened. The easiest way to explain was to post images taken of a similar subject and framing to show the OP there should be clear difference. Showing teleconverter performance such as image quality or AF accuracy in this way wouldn't be very helpful and would be pretty pointless.

I do agree with you 2x teleconverters work well with 300 f2.8 lens and the images you posted show the real world performance of the teleconverter better than any dim indoor images. I think it's been said many times in this thread they are designed for f2.8/f4 long prime lenses rather than variable aperture (f4.5-f5.6) zoom lenses. The poll also is quite irrelevant as answers are dependant on if you answer in relation to the OP's question in post 1 (the lenses they are planning on using it on wasn't known until post 7) or the poll question (no lens specified). My answers would be different once specifics such as lens type are known. If they were using it on a 300mm f2.8 or 400 f2.8 I would recommend it but I wouldn't recommend it on variable aperture zooms like f4.5-56 lenses.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough Rob....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top