2X Converters Good or Bad

[Dangermouse]

I am considering buying a 2X converter, but having had one about 9 years ago and found it made the images quite soft and noisy, are they worth it?

 

[Big Andy]

I have canon mkII 1.4x and a 2x I find the 1.4x is good but the 2x is a bit soft and I don't use it anymore. I may of had a bad copy as it was a well used 2nd hand one when I got it.

 

[Canon Bob]

Its acceptability really depends which lens you're planning to pair it with, Pete.

Bob

 

[meonshore]

Its acceptability really depends which lens you're planning to pair it with, Pete.

Bob

This, and of course if it enables you to get a shot you wouldn't be able to achieve without one, in which case absolute quality is tempered with need to get the image.

I'm not sure about the Canon extenders anymore - my MkII version back in 2008 was soft but then everything was I took with the 1DMkIII. Nikon's 2x MkIII extender which is more recent than 8 years is optically far better than the MkII version it replaced and so newer technology has helped.

Pairing my 2x MkIII with either the 200mm f/2 or the 400mm f2.8 gives very acceptable images printed up to 16x12" (which is as big as I have tried) - I tend not to pixel peep on them and judge them by the end result. I'm sure if compared to the 800mm f5.6 they would be softer but then I don't have the £17,500 to acquire it. At that point you are better off using a high MP camera like the D800/810 and cropping ;-)

 

[rob-nikon]

There are too many variables to answer your question as it's very lens dependant. On the nikon 300 f2.8 lens I found it to be very good. On a nikon 70-200 f2.8 not so good. I didn't even bother trying it on a 300 f4 as f8 is far too slow maximum aperture for me. On that lens the 1.4 TC and cropping would be easier. The new nikon mk3 TC works well if you have the right lens.

I am considering buying a 2X converter, but having had one about 9 years ago and found it made the images quite soft and noisy, are they worth it?

What lens are you planning to use it on?

 

[Icee]

On a Nikon 300mm f4 old model, I have used it at F8 and got good results. Whatever you are using it on it would pay to do micro focus adjustment on it as that made a big difference whit mine.

 

[Dangermouse]

Its going to be used with a Tamron 70-300VC lens or possibly the Tokina 70-200f4 for airfield use, so I need to know if its better to just buy a Sigma 50-500 instead

 

[BillN_33]

Its going to be used with a Tamron 70-300VC lens or possibly the Tokina 70-200f4 for airfield use, so I need to know if its better to just buy a Sigma 50-500 instead

will it work on the Tamron or even the Tokina

300mm f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 primes - you just have a chance of both acceptable IQ and AF speed .. in general that's all the x 2 is good for

and you have more of a chance with a prime than a zoom .. I would say and have found, that even with a good zoom, the 70 200mm f2.8 ... that the results are disappointing

 

[BillN_33]

from what you have described - ................ hand held - wanting 500mm, 600mm, with acceptable AF ..... the most cost effective solution would be a DX, (cropped) sensor body and a Sigma or Tamron 150mm to 600mm zoom

 

[gramps]

Its going to be used with a Tamron 70-300VC lens or possibly the Tokina 70-200f4 for airfield use, so I need to know if its better to just buy a Sigma 50-500 instead

2x is going to have you at f8 minimum, some cameras will have problems with AF at that point - surely the Sigma (or the 150-600 Sigma or Tamron) would be a better option?

 

[Dangermouse]

Well I have bought one, the Kenko teleplus MC7 to try, it does state it will work with any AF lens and still give full AF functions, the F8 doesn't really affect me as I do 99% of my shooting into a bright sky.....lets see how it pans out, for better or worse.

 

[Phiggys]

I have a Sigma 1.4 X for my Canon fit sigma lenses 70-200mm OS also works in mf with 150-500mm mf of course.
Also 1.4x 1.7x 2.0 X for my Nikon glass. I more than satisfied with the image quality !
But I had a couple of rubbishy ones back in the old film days

 

[Canon Bob]

Its going to be used with a Tamron 70-300VC lens or possibly the Tokina 70-200f4

Well I have bought one, the Kenko teleplus MC7 to try,

I suspect that it's not going to be worth ripping off the postman's hand as he walks up your drive, Pete.

Bob

 

[rob-nikon]

This is the thing with teleconverters, they sound such a great idea to add extra focal length but really only properly work with the f2.8 and f4 prime lens they are designed for.

Its going to be used with a Tamron 70-300VC lens or possibly the Tokina 70-200f4 for airfield use, so I need to know if its better to just buy a Sigma 50-500 instead

Now I know the lens you plan to use it with I've altered my vote. I would save your money and use it towards a sigma 50/150 to 500 lens instead.

 

[rob-nikon]

Well I have bought one, the Kenko teleplus MC7 to try, it does state it will work with any AF lens and still give full AF functions, the F8 doesn't really affect me as I do 99% of my shooting into a bright sky.....lets see how it pans out, for better or worse.

That's a bold statement from whoever you purchased it from. A f5.6 lens would be around f11 with the 2x teleconverters, I doubt many if any camera would accurately AF at that value and still retain good useable IQ.

The description on Amazon says:

Full AF operation with Teleplus MC7 is possible with camera lenses with open aperture of F2.8 or brighter. Please be aware that AF will work properly only if there is enough light and contrast on the subject to activate the camera's AF sensors. (Manual focusing is recommended when using lenses with smaller open f-stop value than those given above.)

I would expect it to work using manual focusing but I'm not sure how good the IQ will be. I expect a sigma 50-500 would give you better performance.

Teleconverter threads come up often, whichever manufacturer it is they all work on the same principles so it's the same whether it's canon, Nikon or other camera manufacturer.

 

[snerkler]

I used the latest Nikon 2x TC on my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and wasn't impressed with the results at the long end.

 

[Dangermouse]

Its only going to be a trial so I wont get upset with the results, if as I suspect the results are rubbish then I will move it on or wait till I can afford a lens it works with.

 

[StewartR]

I suspect that it's not going to be worth ripping off the postman's hand as he walks up your drive, Pete.

I don't think I'd even bother waiting in for the postman. With those particular lenses, you'd be better off cropping and magnifying your images than using a 2x teleconverter. Sorry.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

considering buying a 2X converter, but having had one about 9 years ago and found it made the images quite soft and noisy,

•
Things have changed since 9 years!
As for the softness, yes I know… but there too some new things.
Like AF Fine Tuning on higher bodies and alone that saves the bet.
For the noise, the same thing; cameras have higher native ISO if
you don't use a too dark lens to start with.

 

[Dangermouse]

Got the lens about 10 mins ago, done a very quick test to check if it works on the converter and it does, AF was a bit oof but I put that down to our lighting in the living room, will do a proper test when I finish work tomorrow, but it does work and AF works too.............watch this space

 

[Winkyphoto]

I did some tests a couple of years ago with my old Nikkor TC20E(?) and my Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (which is a very sharp lens). Assuming that you use the 2X because you can't get closer, I compared the effect of the using converter with simply cropping the image shot with the prime lens by itself (so half the linear pixel count Vs using the converter). I found that it was generally better to use the converter than to crop to get the same effective zoom. Better still would be to just get closer, but that's not always possible. So I use mine when required. That's with a 24Mp D610. If I had a D810, I guess I might find that the crop was better than the converter.

(AF works just fine with the 2.8 lens and the 2X converter - an advantage of fast lenses.)

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•
So if your lens is say a ƒ4. the 2x will cost you about 2 stops taking
at f8 your real aperture, the question being: "can your combo confirm
AF at such low minimum aperturet. If yes, cool! …but your test will
reveal the so obtained sharpness.

 

[sk66]

Got the lens about 10 mins ago, done a very quick test to check if it works on the converter and it does, AF was a bit oof but I put that down to our lighting in the living room, will do a proper test when I finish work tomorrow, but it does work and AF works too.............watch this space

"Works" is a very loose statement in this case. With most Nikons the camera will attempt to AF regardless, but the results/accuracy/consistency will be garbage. Most cameras cannot AF with a max aperture less (smaller) than f/5.6. And even the best cameras are significantly limited in the number of AF points that work at f/8 max. That's because the AF points are being cut off/vignetted by the small apertures and you just can't place very many sensors that close together on the AF module. (The aperture setting you choose/use is irrelevant)

The question as to using a TC vs Crop/Crop Factor can be a wash. Smaller sensors/pixels/cropping are more demanding of lens IQ so you typically need to stop down a bit more for equal IQ... but they also go into diffraction limiting earlier and require more light (perform worse at higher ISO required by the stopping down)... basically, you're making a bunch of compromises that reduce IQ overall.

A TC reduces light and IQ, so again you end up at a higher ISO with a lower overall IQ. But the sensor/larger pixels are less demanding of IQ and you get an image that requires less enlargement (and therefore may show it less).

But cropping/CF limits the used area to the sharpest section of the lens' FOV... maybe you don't need a very large display size....and around it goes...

The best answer is always to get closer. The next best is to use a longer lens that is sharp at a wider aperture. After that, do whatever works and is the most convenient because it doesn't really matter much.

 

[sk66]

FWIW, I use TC's (primarily a 2x) with a 400/2.8... an 800/5.6 would give somewhat better IQ with a size/weight penalty, and it can't do f/2.8 or go wider than 800mm. Everything is a compromise...

 

[Dangermouse]

I had a play this morning before work and all seemed fine for a minute or two, got one shot of a box that showed lots of camera shake and then the lens refused to work with the converter, ah well I did try but looks like I wont be using the converter in the real world

 

[Byker28i]

I have the canon 1.4x and 2x tc. 1,4x works great with the 100-400 and 5D mk3 as I can autofocus at f8, 2x means I can carry my 70-200 and 2x for that extra reach if needed for lightness. 2x on the 100-400 is handheld, tripod stuff but I've shot static kingfishers etc with this combo at f11.

 

[GeeJay57]

I use to have Sigma 1.4x and 2.0x TCs to use with Sigma 300mm f/2.8 prime and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on my 50d and 20d.

The 1.4x was almost invisible as far as focusing speed and image quality.

In good light, the 2.0x converter produced some very good results, though images tended to be lower contrast than with the lens on its own. In poor light focusing slowed, with more hunting and image quality suffered though some of this was due to higher ISO needed in lower light conditions.

Don't have them or the lenses now.

 

[Byker28i]

70-200 f2.8 with 2x convertor

Was published in Big Issue, North edition
Daily commute across the river in Bangkok

 

[BillN_33]

70-200 f2.8 with 2x convertor

Was published in Big Issue, North edition
Daily commute across the river in Bangkok

Technically, (which is what is being discussed here) .....I can find you 2 or 3 "good" shots that I have taken with that combo - but my keeper rate is very low

I thought that the combo would make a great walk around birding lens - zoom, f5.6 and VR and up to 600mm with a DX sensor- but it isn't

Your image maybe a "good" image but how do you rate the IQ etc.,

 

[Glyn Carnell]

I have the canon 1.4x and 2x tc. 1,4x works great with the 100-400 and 5D mk3 as I can autofocus at f8, 2x means I can carry my 70-200 and 2x for that extra reach if needed for lightness. 2x on the 100-400 is handheld, tripod stuff but I've shot static kingfishers etc with this combo at f11.

I'm pondering on this thought.... I have recently got the 100-200 F4/5.6 IS II and want one of the coverters for that extra reach. Are you saying that the x2 works OK? I know it would have to be in good light Etc. 800mm sounds cool.... or would you suggest sticking to the x1.4?

 

[Byker28i]

Technically, (which is what is being discussed here) .....I can find you 2 or 3 "good" shots that I have taken with that combo - but my keeper rate is very low
I thought that the combo would make a great walk around birding lens - zoom, f5.6 and VR and up to 600mm with a DX sensor- but it isn't
Your image maybe a "good" image but how do you rate the IQ etc.,

70-200 f2.8IS and the 2x tc is my traveling light combination when I think there may be somewhere I need some reach. IQ works ok for me and I find it comparible to the 100-400 (and I have a sharp copy).
Generally when travelling I stick to the 14mm wide, 24-105 for walkabout, 70-200 f2.8 and 2x for combinations of length. It's rare I ever use it (compared to all the other shots) and I've thought of just travelling with the 24-105 and 14mm only but then take a few shots everytrip with the longer lenses that wouldn't be possible without. I could take just the 100-400 but like the versitility of the 70-200 (and the low light).

I'm pondering on this thought.... I have recently got the 100-200 F4/5.6 IS II and want one of the coverters for that extra reach. Are you saying that the x2 works OK? I know it would have to be in good light Etc. 800mm sounds cool.... or would you suggest sticking to the x1.4?

1.4x works fine with the 100-400 and 5D mk3, still get autofocus, but you're at f8 at the longer end. With the 2x you're on manual focus, and it's a little critical even at f11, so I tend to pop on live view, zoom in and use that for critical focus. Really good for long shots on a solid tripod. I have some great shots of the moon, and some wildlife using this combo, but at no point is it as good as the equivilent prime. I find it cost effective though for the few times I need this range and it's a light enough addition for both to be in my full camera bag at all times.

Just to clarify I have two backpacks - a small one I use for travelling and my full one.
Full one has 5dmk3 with 24-105, Samyung 14mm, canon 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f2.8is, 100-400, 1.4xtc and 2x tc, 580ex2 flash, plus all the other odds and sods one carries. Full weight is something like 10-11kg
Travel one is smaller and generally in it I have 5dmk3 with 24-105,Samyung 14mm,70-200 f2.8is, 2x tc. Sometimes the flash, weight is generally around 5-6kg

Travel tripod is the manfrotto befree which goes in the suitcase.

 

[BillN_33]

I believe that the Canon TC's are technically better than the Nikon ones, but I only ever used Nikon

I use the x 1.4 most of the time but only use the x 2 when pushed and then only with the 300mm f2.8VR or 300mm f4, (now the PF)
I only use TC's with my long primes

 

[Dangermouse]

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

Without converter

 

[Byker28i]

wouldn't the comparison be between the lens set at the same focal length, but one image would appear to be twice magnified?

Any difference in the f stop?

 

[odd jim]

Well I have bought one, the Kenko teleplus MC7 to try, it does state it will work with any AF lens and still give full AF functions, the F8 doesn't really affect me as I do 99% of my shooting into a bright sky.....lets see how it pans out, for better or worse.

I have this TC still which I used to good effect with a cropped body and a 70-200 f/2.8 shooting motorsport and a few other things.

Ferrari Alonso 2 by -Odd Jim-

Lotus Trulli by -Odd Jim-

McLaren by -Odd Jim-

However, it *wont* AF with any lens, anything slower than f/4 or variable will not AF.

 

[Dangermouse]

wouldn't the comparison be between the lens set at the same focal length, but one image would appear to be twice magnified?

Any difference in the f stop?

That's what I thought it would do, same f number and both at 70mm and very little difference, I really don't get this at all.

 

[odd jim]

That's what I thought it would do, same f number and both at 70mm and very little difference, I really don't get this at all.

It should be the equivalent of 140mm save for a bit of focus breathing.

 

[Dangermouse]

It should be the equivalent of 140mm save for a bit of focus breathing.

That's what I thought too Jim I have left exif on if you want to have a look, but to my untrained eye there is very little difference

 

[odd jim]

That's what I thought too Jim I have left exif on if you want to have a look, but to my untrained eye there is very little difference

Ok, where's the link I'll have a gander?

Edit, ignore me I've seen it above. Very odd! That makes no sense at all'

 

[rob-nikon]

That's what I thought too Jim I have left exif on if you want to have a look, but to my untrained eye there is very little difference

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?