Tele converters

M

Mossberg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
200
Name
M
Edit My Images
Yes
So I have my new Canon R6ii and took it out the other day and realised my lack of lenses was a limiting factor. I considered a tele converter after seeing one for sale on here. My thoughts were of the 2x to really ad to my range.

I will be using it with an adaptor ring so I can use the older lenses (can't afford the R lenses yet).

So, could you guys give me advice on their uses and pitfalls. It's no point getting one if they really gain very little, but would open things up if they are OK.

Many thanks.

Mick
 
My view is that they help very little. There's always a loss of IQ, especially with the cheap ones. There's also the effective loss of wide aperture, which may mean increasing the ISO and potentially increasing noise, and which may also affect focussing when the light conditions aren't great. Basically the x1.4 reduces the aperture by 1 stop, x2 by 2 stops and x3 by 4 stops.

I believe that they were useful back in the days of film and especially 35mm, when image quality was poor and the benefits of not having to enlarge as much could more than offset the disadvantages, but with the high image quality of modern digital cameras I think it's much better to crop more.
 
Thanks Garry, as always you are an absolute star. It's pointless putting money into something with little gain, I may aswell save the money towards a more suitable lens.

Thanks again!
 
Just to add to what Garry has said, the one case where Teleconverters can be useful is with big Telephoto Primes (eg 300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) - where you have an exceptionally high quality lens to start with, and the combined focal length lens either doesn't exist, or is prohibitively large and expensive,
So as an example 600 f/4 + 1.4x TC gives you the option of 600 f/4 and 840 f/5.6
The reduction in IQ is greater with the higher multipliers (IE you will see greater loss in IQ using a 2x than a 1.4x)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Never used one with digital, but used them a lot with film. My finding was A you lost a stop or two exposure, and B buy a good one, cheap ones wehe rubbish. That said a good one worked well. Oh and I dont know if x3 are still made but I never found a good one of those.
 
I was looking at the Canon ones so I would have hoped it would have been a decent fit and quality. But if you don't really gain a lot more than cropping it doesn't look like a good choice. I nay aswell add the cash to another lens.

Thanks folks. Your time and opinions are greatfully received.
 
I use the Canon 1.4x converter and have found that the light loss is manageable and the quality is pretty good.

This example was shot with the R5 Mk2, the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and the 1.4x III (giving 460mm focal length). The deer was about 40 metres away from me and this is a crop comprising about 25% of the full frame. The ISO of 1000 is not untoward for modern cameras and noise reduction.

I find the quailty quite acceptable (your mileage may vary!).

Roe doe in the sun by John Liddle, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top