If you have light, teleconverters are great. I like the 2.0x, unlike a lot of other photographers. And I'll happily put it on a zoom lens as long as it's constant aperture.
To me, this was the best video on the subject of using extenders that I have watched.I shoot with full frame Canon DSLR cameras. I use my 400mm F2.8 is lens for my bird photography as well as other wildlife photography. I often use the EF X1.4 III extender. I can use it with excellent results in most situations, including large bird photography. I rented an EF X2 III extender recently and found it to not be acceptable for me as far as shooting birds in flight. However, I was impressed with the results when shooting many other subjects. I was able to shoot Bison, and get some awesome close up shots of just their heads. These Bison are not fenced in, so you do have to limit how close you get. After using the X2 converter, I have ordered one for myself. I know the limitations it has, but I am definitely excited about the benefits it offers. Your video hit the nail on the head.
I never use 2x extender on any lens > f5.6 at the top end. Alternative to extender is to use a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor. The built in crop of 1.5/1.6 effectively extends the focal length by 1.5/1.6 with less degradation.
I have both the Sony TC's but try not to use them ! I would only use the 1.4 with the 200-600mm, but the 600mm f4 takes both no problem as you would expect ! I do a lot of BIF shots and 840mm is a lot of reach ! Try and use my legs rather than TC's but sometimes you don't have a choice ! Previous Nikon TC were nowhere near as good as the Sony I would concur ! Awesome work Jan !
I ordered a cheap extender Vivitar 2x just for the test to complement with my Sigma 70-300,i will use this combo only for landscape/slow photos etc.From what i've read if my lens is sharp at f8,i must now set it to f16 to compensate...hope that the image quality is not that bad stopped down !
Hey Jan… I wanted to share with you something that I have found with my setup. I have an old Canon non IS 600 f4 that I have traditionally used a 1.4tc on..since using the R5 I have been getting 90% soft images. Was thinking it was just my technique and getting frustrated with missing shots. Recently I found an article where it suggested to turn the IS off with the version 1 IS lens….I gave it a go and bang sharp images again..also the auto focus was super fast again. Seems like the R5 just can’t deal with these older lenses… thought I would share this just in case others are having the same issue
I think in this case it's the other way around. The old lenses cannot deal with the R5, or in this case probably the IBIS. I didn't know about that. Thanks for sharing.
@@jan_wegener Same thing with the R6 and 500 f/4 MkI. It's surprising how better the R6 is with 100-400 MkII than with the prime lens MkI. I first bought an hybrid to get a new start with my old lenses without spending a lot of money... now I'm considering buying 100-500 RF and converters ;=)).
Another great video mate, I have my 1.4 on my 500 95% of the time and it works great. For me the price of the RF1.4 is ridiculous at $900AUD. It is also a real shame the design of the 100-500 means you lose the wide end but 700mm on a zoom is a bonus. The benefit of say an R7 would be the lens becomes a 160-800 f7.1 FF equiv compared to the 420-700 f/10 on a FF with a 1.4. Ultimately always good to have the options. Cheers, Duade
If you are talking in FF equivalents then you need to apply the crop factor to the aperture also, so the 100-500 on a hypothetical R7 would be 160-800 f11. An APS-C crop from an R5 would be the same. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
@@Bayonet1809 Thanks, yes the DOF will be impacted by the crop but I don't think the exposure does, the R7 will be shooting wide open at f7.1 whereas the FF will be at f10 with a converter. My understanding is the R7 will be able to use a higher SS or lower ISO due to the 7.1 opening. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Correct the exposure is not affected by the crop, but the total light is, thus the noise is greater, which means that to reach equivalent image quality one would have to use a stop lower ISO with APS-C, and therefore the shutter speeds will be the same between shooting at f7.1 on APS-C and f11 on FF. The only benefit of APS-C at the image level is the potential for greater magnification (reach) due to greater pixel density (e.g. with a 32MP R7), which achieves the same effect as a teleconverter which magnifies optically. This is the beauty of equivalence.
I have both the RF 100-500 and 800 lenses, as well as the 1.4 extender. If II had to choose 2 out of 3, I would go with the two lenses. The 800mm is an awesome lens. Yes, it suffers under low light but it works very well. Yes, it is a big lens, but it is so damn light that I would find someway to include it in my bag. Another consideration is that out in the field, I actually find it easier to swap out one lens for another than to add an extender to the 100-500.
Great tips as usual. Another good use of an extender with 100-400 or 100-500 is to get greater magnification in macro-like shots. Because these lens can focus super close and the minimum focusing distance does not change with the extender on, it can give a huge magnification without having to use a macro lens. I have got some cool insect shots using this combination.
I have the 100-400 L ii and use the 1.4x 50% of the time. The minimum focus distance increases 1.4x with the 1.4x tc on. I have observed this 100s of times. Thus, the maximum close up magnification is allways 0.31x, with the 1.4x on or off. I still use this lens as a macro lens with the 1.4x on. Great for shooting critters on flowers.
@@pratyayr really mate, is that your experience, or, are you just making that up ? I have tested this many times. My 100-400L ii has a mfd of 98cm (to the sensor). And then, surprise surprise, when I fit a 1.4x tc, the mfd is increased to about 1.4m from my R5s sensor. This is my actual (not made up) experience. The close focus magnification factor of this lens will not change regardless of how many TCs are fitted. Ie, if the mfd didnt change, then the magnification factor of 0.31 could become a true 1:1 magnification ration macro lens with a 3.2x TC fitted. Only problem is, it doesnt. A 0.31x mf lens will allways have a 0.31 close focus magnification ratio regardless of how many TCs you fit. Prehaps you can post me a link to testing other than mine that shows a different result to mine ?
@@nordic5490 Yes, I have shot at 560mm (400mm + 1.4 TC) and focused at a distance of 98cm (approx) from the sensor many many many times. You don't have to believe me, just Google something like "minimum focus distance and teleconverters". You will find many many results talking about this. If you are interested you may even read about the maths/physics part to understand why this happens. And yes, you do achieve bigger magnification by doing this. In fact this is a very common technique people use. I am surprised that someone talking about macros and 0.31x mf did not know about this.
@@pratyayr you sir, win the internet today. I just did some testing 5mins ago. 100-400L ii bare = mft of 94cm to the front of the hot shoe + EF 1.4X tc iii = mft 97cm + EF 2x tc iii = mft 99.5cm Thus, you sir are correct. This is good to know, and explains why I was taking such good 'macro' images @400mm + 2x on a club macro shoot. Thank you for being pepersistant. Chz
Under dark, ugly conditions, I prefer no extender with my 100-500. If it is bright and/or sunny, I rarely shoot without the extender (1.4x). I don't really like the results under any conditions with the 2x on my zoom lens. Nice work as always Jan.
It can be great and it can be not so good. Sometimes it's hard to know why it works and others times not so much. I had outstanding results and some subpar ones with the 2x
Very interesting comparison, Jan! What I found most surprising was that 100-500 and 2x TC had so much more detail than bare 100-500 cropped to the same size. I usually stick with the 1.4x TC, seems to be the best compromise for me. The one thing that would be interesting to address is zoom lenses with TCs for birds in flight. The equation seems to change quite a bit in favor of bare lenses.
We’ve been using both the Olympus 1.4 and 2x on the 300mmF4 and the results are much better then cropping. My lab tests also confirm this result. The 2x may have a bit of impact on saturation but post processing can easily fix this. The 1.4 lives on this lens for shooting BIF and the results are very very good.
Thank you for this video! It is just at the right time, I was playing with this exact question this weekend. The shop where I buy my camera gear could only give me some very basic advice without any real insights, this makes it so much clearer I have the 800mm and 100-500mm. I already have the 1.4x extender, but I was doubting what to do, keep the 800mm or replace it with the 2x extender for that little bit of extra range. I really like the 800mm lens, but since I have the 100-500mm I see that I almost never use it anymore, indeed due to the flexibility. I generally put the extender in my pocket and use it when needed. I use them with the R6, so low light is less of an issue then needing to crop a lot.
Elze, I have both lenses as well and I have the 1.4 extender. So far, I''ve been using the extender with my 100-500, but I have not been impressed by the results. Btw, I love the 800mm. It works so well with the R6 (I also have the R5) and I've been very happy with the results of that combination.
For Birds in flight I almost always use an extender since they are generally further away, I usually stick with the 1.4x. If it’s perched & far away I may throw a 2x on it & maybe if the stars align it won’t fuzz out. On my 600 f/4 II I can get good results on that lens with the 2x but the hit rate goes down in comparison with the 1.4x. If it’s a small pond where the subject is closer I’ll use the bare lens. That’s the situation where the 100-500 is intriguing especially for mammals sometimes the 600 is too much in closer situations or when birds are overhead & need something quickly that is lightweight to handle or hike with. I have it on order with a 1.4x probably will be months before I see it. Most here probably know that 1.4x extenders you lose one stop of light, 2x you lose two stops. If you don’t stop down accordingly you’ll get blurry photos.
2X mk iii on a 300 f2.8 gives 600mm on my FF. it’s brilliant just depends on your set up and adapting to using it, in good light it’s far better than cropping.
The newest teleconverter's are really good, especially the new mirrorless TC's. I use a Nikon TC-14E III on both my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL and 500mm f/4E VR FL lenses. By the way Jan Wegener, you don't lose any "depth of field" or "background blur" with teleconverter's. They (2x TC's) make a 400mm f/2.8 into an 800mm f/5.6... all day everyday. If anything at close distances like minimum focusing distance they would give you slightly more background blur or separation because you'd have more focal length, but the same minimum focusing distance. Therefor it would make your subject look bigger, it would increase your maximum reproduction ratio at minimum focusing distance. But teleconverters absolutely DO NOT effect depth of field, but they do effect f/stop, but at an exact focal length to aperture equivalent!
Did you see the example with the Rose Robin. They heavily affect DOF. I assume because they physically move the lens forward. On a prime lens you get more BG blurr
@@jan_wegener There is a mathematical equation to figuring out the “amount” of background blur. You just divide the aperture from the focal length, so for 600mm f/4 you would get 150. The higher the number the greater the background blur or separation you can get. Adding a 2x TC to a 400mm f/2.8 would give you an 800mm f/5.6. Both of those would have a score/amount of 143. Exactly the same amount. Yes, you lose a stop of light or two, but you increase your focal length an equal amount or equivalent to aperture. But what you described about a lens moving it’s focusing elements closer or whatever, would be lens design related, not from the TC itself. You’re probably referring to focus breathing, it sounds like, which actually effects the focal length, usually at close distances. Focus breathing can make a 200mm lens act more like a 135mm at close distances. Adding a teleconverter has nothing to do with that. So I’m absolutely 100% sure you’re mistaken. I know you legitimately think you saw what you did, but it must be related to your settings or distance to subject and or distance of subject to the background. There is another answer or variable responsible for the results you saw or noticed. I’ve been a photojournalist now for 20 years, I’ve also been shooting wildlife for 25 years. Not trying to sound like I’m bragging at all. I just want you to know a few of my qualifications. I do this for a living and I also teach photography classes and do private lessons. I’m an Nikon Professional Services member and I’m friends/colleagues with some of the most respected photographers in the world. I regularly speak to and work with Nikon ambassadors, Canon explorer’s, etc. I can say with certainty that adding teleconverter’s does NOT effect background blur or subject isolation. Like I said it can appear to do the opposite at minimum focusing distance, because your subject will be larger, as your lenses reproduction ratio increases. That’s technically not actually affecting the depth of field or subject isolation. However since you have more focal length at the same minimum focusing distance it can appear that way. Since TC’s stretch the image circle and you’ll get more focal length, but at the same minimum focusing distance. However your subject isolation or amount background blur, does not change based on using a teleconverter. Again it may be something else you noticed while out shooting. You don’t have to take my opinion, even though I know I’m right, you should ask someone who knows more than you. Like call Canon CPS or email Canon or ask someone who you’d expect to know for sure. They should confirm what I’m saying. I wouldn’t lie or say I was positive unless I absolutely was positive.
@@patricksmith2553 There are calculators like this one to calculate DOF www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator And you can see the difference. at 600 mm it's 60mm at 10m distance and 42mm at the same distance with the extender on. The extender increases focal length and thus also affects DOF
@@jan_wegener I think we’re getting confused about what we’re taking about. Teleconverter’s do not effect the equation that matters, the one I already said. You divide the focal length by the aperture. A 400mm f/2.8 divided by its own aperture is 143. It’s the exact same at 800mm f/5.6! Teleconverter’s can only do or at least appear to do the opposite of what you said, at minimum focusing distance. That’s because at minimum focusing distance the focal length does increase, but the minimum focusing distance stays the same. Which gives you a better or higher maximum reproduction ratio and therefor would give you a little more subject isolation. Depth of field is obviously how much of your subject is in focus. So the equation you speak of is not the proper equation for what we’re discussing here. But I can tell, that you don’t believe or agree with me. I’m 100% sure I’m correct and I’m not here to brag, but I’ve been doing this professionally a long time. I’m a photojournalist and I’m regularly shooting major sports events and breaking news. I’ve been a photojournalist for two decades, and a wildlife photographer for 25 years. I don’t make my money doing wildlife photography but I have made money doing so and I’ve won some awards. I used to teach photography and do private lessons. I’ve also been asked by other well known sports photographers to help run and teach at their photo tours/classes. I’m regularly published in the worlds largest well known newspapers, news agencies and sports magazines, etc. I’m only telling you all of this to say when I’m sure about something photography related, I’m sure. I don’t doubt that you believe you are correct as well and you seem pretty knowledgeable about a lot of things. I’ve watched a few of your videos and I subscribed, because I liked the content. I’m happy to just agree to disagree or at least agree we must be thinking or talking about two different subjects. I’ve owned and or borrowed almost every super-tele lens from Nikon and Canon over the years. I’ve owned and used three or four different versions of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8, and I’ve used to also own a copy of the Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR FL. Both have the exact same amount of subject isolation or same ability and amount of blurring the background. The only difference is the 800mm f/5.6 is much sharper than the 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC is. If you use that simple equation that I gave, you’d see that the 600mm f/4 lenses give the most amount of subject isolation or background blur. Most people might assume that the 800mm f/5.6 lenses would be the bokeh king, and I’ve even heard people say that! As long as you’re standing beyond both lenses’ (that you’re comparing) minimum focusing distances, both lenses would have the same amount of subject isolation or background blur. However I will admit I’ve not used the Canon 100-500mm or the new Canon 2x TC. So it’s possible something weird is happening in your case. Such as the TC effecting the optical formula when the lens is zoomed out, or even it could be that the 2x TC is not quite actually 2x? I can’t rule out that something strange like that is happening to you. Even the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR that I used to own is more like a 385mm lens. Many zoom lenses and even some prime lenses are not quite the actual focal length advertised. If you compare the Nikon 200mm f/2 to a 70-200mm VR II at 200mm, you’d see the zoom is more like 135-150mm depending on distance to subject. That is due to focus breathing, so again there are unknown or at least variables at play that could be to blame here. I’m not trying to say you’re lying or even that you’re wrong. The truth is there could easily be some factor(s) that led to your results. But if everything was correct or how it should be, there should be absolutely no difference! A 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC and an 800mm f/5.6 should have exactly the same amount of subject isolation or background blur. So I stand by that fact and my original statements, but I do admit there could be a variable or variables at play. So we may both be correct, either way I hope you know I wasn’t trying to argue or make you look bad. Take care!
The last bit of info is priceless. Name brand tele-conv's are expensive. Also you make even one poor buy with a lens and you're out thousands. Re-sell is tough. Jan does the heavy lifting! Thanks man!
I've used both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on my 100-500mm for several months now mostly with BIF. I have found little difference between image quality in both teleconverters and I would say both are excellent vs teleconverters that I have used in the past. I returned the 1.4 converter because on the RF 100-500 at 700mm you are only losing 1/3 of a stop of light, if I'm remembering correctly, with the 1.4 vs 2.0 because of the the native lens aperture at 500 with the 1.4 vs 350 with the 2x and on top of that you have the 700-1000 reach with the 2x that are unavailable with the 1.4. Between 500 and 700mm light loss varies in favor of the 1.4 but because I'm primarily a BIF shooter, I'm shooting usually between 700 and 1000mm with the 2x most of the time. Additionally, with more pixels on the bird, I have not found a case yet where the native lens outperformed the 2x in detail (even with the high ISO values up to 12.8k because of DXO noise reduction) for BIFs which are usually at some distance. I've found the animal AF to be responsive with both TCs with the R5. I do use the native 100-500 in iffy lighting conditions and when birds, etc. fill the frame reasonably well. I'm extremely happy with this lens and 2x setup and if you have avoided TCs in the past, you should reconsider given the RF mount with the new RF TCs and the exceptional RF100-500 lens. The R5, RF100-500mm, and Jan's commentary over the last 8 months or so has lured me into the Canon camp from being a Nikon shooter for 20 years. It's a great time to be wildlife photographer! Thanks Jan!
Aperture is F10 vs F14, so decent difference. Thanks Bill, glad you are really enjoying this combo. The AF with the 2x extender is surprisingly fast for sure.
@@jan_wegener You are exactly right if the lens is max'd at 500 mm with both extenders. But at 700mm (500x1.4) the 1.4x is F10 and at 700mm (350mm*2) the 2x is F11. This is only 1/3 of a stop at 700mm (only). This is because the of the variable aperture of the 100-500mm. Since I shoot in the 700-1000 range with BIF mainly and can't discern noticeable image quality or marked focus acquisition differences and get the benefit of the extra reach 700-1000, I've settled on the 2x when not shooting natively.
Excellent, useful and well-presented - thank you. Your tip about stopping down when using an extender on a zoom lens really works for me. Using a Canon 1.4x extender with an EF 100-400mm II on a 5D MkIV and stopping down to f11 shows a noticeable improvement in image quality even at the relatively high ISO needed for the UK at this dull time of year.
Thank you for your well reasoned presentation on teleconverters. I agree that not all zooms can use them. The Nikon 200-400 f4 zoom was great for safaris but was not capable of producing decent images with any teleconverter (TC). Jan, I think that your discussion of depth of field (dof) with teleconverters could be expanded. As you mentioned, adding a TC increases focal length and reduces depth of field. The latter can be somewhat restored by reducing the shooting aperture (making it smaller) which requires higher ISO. Crop sensors (1.5, 1.6, 2.0) when used with teleconverters are more adaptable to bird photography than full frame sensors because the crop sensors inherently have greater dof at any given focal length. M43 sensors are a boon for those of us who photograph or video-graph birds at 600mm to 1200mm+. We can keep entire birds in focus while the backgrounds are still nicely blurred. And yes, Jan, the qualities of the lens (sharpness, micro-contrast, focus breathing and aperture constancy) all determine if a TC will work well with the lens. With regard to the Olympus m43 telephoto lenses I use (40-150mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, and 100-400mm 1.25x f/4.5), the Olympus 1.4 and 2.0 TCs were intentionally designed to work with these very high quality internally focusing, constant aperture Pro-grade lenses. The 1.4x TC produces images with these lenses that are not optically degraded in any way that matters to me. The 2.0 TC can produce excellent images with both zooms and especially with the prime (1200mm equivalent at f/8). Certainly, the 5-7 stops of image stabilization helps at the very long focal length. It is great to be able to get frame-filling 1200mm images of Eagles where the entire bird is sharply in focus and not just its eye and head. In sum, I am a big fan of TCs on my m43 cameras as I can get a large proportion of my modest limit of 20MPs on the bird.
This was one of the main drawbacks for Nikon for me for a while that their extenders never seemed to work as well as Canon & Sony. Yes, I usually stop down, but for this example it showed the DOF difference best. I usually find I have to stop down to F11 to get similar DOF compared to bare lens. Thanks for sharing your Olympus experience
Love the 1.4 on my 200-600, seem to even stand up alright on the 61Mp A7RIV...and you are only a button press away from a 26Mp 1260mm APS-C shot. Also "fixes" that focus breathing, or rather focal length loss as the 200-600 doesn't really breathe much, when up close.
I couldn't justify the R5/100-500 and what I went with is the R6, 100-400 RF, 800 RF and RF 1.4 extender. That has proved a great compact and fairly affordable setup. The extender is fine on both lenses. OK, I haven't got such bright max apertures but the AF works great and the camera allows fairly high ISO if you need it. It's been giving great quality and is a nice kit for someone like me, who likes to walk a lot and do most of my shots hand held. Although the aperture is quite small, of course the depth of field is still small at such focal lengths and in fact its no bad thing to have the depth of field at say f11 to get more of my bird in focus.
I just found this video, and this may be what I have to do in the short term. I blew most of my budget on a higher end body, so I gotta hold off on the white lenses for a bit!...
Thanks for the video! I must say with the New bodies extenders sure got a lot more interesting. I used to shoot birds with my 100-400 4.5 5.6 II with the x2 extender on my 1dx II, only because basically it was my work gear and I couldn't afford the extra 12k for a big prime just for hobby to be fair.. It allowed me to have a few really great pictures, even handheld in low light, deep forest situation (albeit not many) but without that I simply wouldn't have had a picture at all So to me extenders are still a good investment, pretty cheap and can make photos happen that would be otherwise missed But most important tip was at the beginning of your video: if the bird is too far off to begin with without the extender then don't bother slapping the extender, I learnt that the hard way, so many useless pictures! Also to be able to use the extender, better have at least a r5 (or equivalent for other brands), since you'll probably need high Iso and from experience on the 1dx II you dont get auto focus except in live view mode! So yeha shooting manual with such a setup is hell, while now with r5 you get great Iso management AND auto focus, that's pretty incredible Anyway looking forward for more cockatoos photos!
This was a really interesting video. Especially about it depending on what lens you're using it on, and the subject distance; expectation management is not things RUclipsrs tend to mention, so thanks! I had a 2x converter with my EF100-400 and the IQ was awful. I'm currently trying out a 1.4x converter with my RF100-500 and I can barely tell the difference. So you're right that things have come a long way. But I'm probably not going to get one and the reason is it's a hassle to attach it and remove it out in the field. Plus if you're shooting birds in flight it you lose the ability to zoom out with the physical zoom range limit in place.
I have the Tamron 150-600mm g1 on my Canon 77D. When I use the Tamron 1.4x converter, the AF is hit and miss unless there's a lot of sunlight. Post-cropped photos seem to have slightly better quality and I get more keepers without using the converter.
I was taught that the extender is a necessary compromise if your subject is too far away. You should never use one unless you have to... but that's the thing... sometimes you HAVE TO.
Interesting that you notice the extender producing shallower depth of field in the 600 f4 example of the robin, but I noticed that that’s with the exact same aperture of f6.3. A 600mm f4 shot should have an identical depth of field as an 840mm f5.6 because the extender is simply magnifying the middle of the lens and ‘spreading the light’ over the full sensor area, resulting in the darker exposure, but the DoF remains the same. A fairer comparison would be stopping the extender shot down by 1 stop to f9 and bumping the iso by one stop, so at least the images have the same depth of field. I’d be really interested to see how the detail, noise etc compares in that instance between cropping into the bare 600mm shot (which also magnifies the noise), vs an upcropped shot with the extender at a higher iso to compensate for the smaller aperture. Otherwise a very helpful and informative video, many thanks!
I think what you have to account for is also that lens lens move forward physically, which moves it away from the sensor, which may account for the change in DOF. I usually stop down when using extenders, but this was a good example to show the loss in DOF when using the extender Glad you liked the video
I was going to mention this, extenders have no impact on depth of field. The lens’s distance to the subject also has no impact on depth of field, the distance from the sensor does. All extenders do is allow you to get more pixels on the bird at the cost of degraded image quality instead of cropping in and maintaining the bare lens’ image quality while losing resolution.
@@Kirkland_Signature I suspected this to be true, the thing I really wonder is which image do I actually prefer in the real world, a cropped bare lens or an extender…. 🤔
I tested the RF 100-500L with a 2x TC and i was not really happy with the sharpness, especially not happy with the aperture. The Sigma 150-600C on the other hand.... if i would still use a full frame camera, i would use for sure the 1,4x Sigma teleconverter. But since im using the R7 for wildlife, the R7 is my extender/teleconverter instead of losing aperture which was the main reason i got the Sigma (600mm F6.3 is still awesome in a zoom lens!) Im very impressed that the 150-600C is sharp enough for the R7, in fact its barely less sharp than the RF 800 F11, in real world conditions the Sigma is normally even sharper since the RF 800 images are in 90% of the cases suffering from heat haze etc, just physical external limits, not the sharpness from the lens.
Thanks for another enjoyable and informative video. My 1.4tc lives on my RF100-500... I haven't taken a shot without yet but I am very satisfied with the results I am getting
On photo trips I sometimes take multiple bodies to cover different focal lengths - but I wouldn't take a lens off the camera on a photo trip - and I usually go to the bathroom before mounting another lens. I've owned extenders before, but I don't use them, they cost too much light and sometimes dramatically degrade a good lens.
Hey Jan! In this video you talk about the DOF changing a lot when using TCs on the big primes. And I agree at first glance. But keep in mind you are shooting the 600mm F6.3 (Stopped down 1 and 1/3 stop) vs 840mm F6.3 (stopped down only 1/3 of a stop). Both are at 6.3 yes but the bare 600mm is stopped down a lot more. It would be more interesting to see they stopped down equal amount or both wide open. Do you still have shallower DOF and the nicer background now? Andy
@6:50, that is not just acceptable, but freaking fantastic !!! I have ordered for rent, an RF 100-500 + 1.4 and 2.0 TC's, to be tried on my R5.... And I'm totally worried about how much I might like it ! $$$ ! Exactly the video I needed to see though. TYSM :)
I use the 1.4x teleconverter on my Canon RF 100-500 in well lit daytime scenes where the subject is stationary or moving slow enough to not require subject tracking in the camera settings. However, for my backyard photo blind, I find that leaving the extender out of the equation did exactly what you emphasized- gave me more options. More f/stop range, lower ISO range needed, better subject tracking, slightly faster autofocus, and a shorter lens with better balance to maneuver within the confined space of the blind. It also helps that my three primary target areas are less than 20 feet from the front of the blind. In that scenario, neither the 1.4x nor the 2x extender would offer any benefit. As for the 2x, I have a hard time justifying the purchase for something that would be used on so few rare occasions due to it's f/stop limitations.
As for my own use of teleconverters, on the Olympus m4/3 cameras I would recommend staying under f/11 after adding the teleconverter. If you can't do that because the base lens is at f5.6 or higher, you're probably not going to be happy with a 2x extender. I have the 100-400mm zoom and the 2x extender puts it out at almost f/13. It's not good out there. Too much diffraction. On the other hand, with the Sony 200-600mm lens and the 2x extender, you can kind of get away with it. Not gonna work with birds in flight, but for static objects that are far away with good light...it's worth it. Better to use that 2x extender on the 600 f4. Even the 100-400mm at f5.6 is a stretch for the 2x extender. And remember, as you extend any lens, you lose depth of field.
Excellent video! I use the Canon R6 800mm f/11 with the 1.4x extender shooting wildlife and birds in flight. Getting some excellent results. Have two custom settings setup, one without crop mode, one with crop mode. For stationary subjects, crop mode gives even more reach and works really well with the 1.4x extender. Birds in flight without crop mode is easier to acquire fast moving subjects. But when the subject is far away, say a Bald Eagle in flight, crop mode plus the 1.4x extender works very well.
I have no need of an extender as I have a Canon 800mm F11 and don’t care about carrying it around....BUT. There is a circumstance. I have a sigma 100-400 f5.6-6.3 with the R5. Shooting butterflies and dragon flies is nearly impossible to get them life size since using any macro lens is too close, and they flit. But using the sigma 2x TC-2001 along with the 100-400 on my R5 works great. Focusing distance remains at 57 inches. Sigma says that the 2x will focus fine at f/12.6 although just a tad slower than the RF 800. Lowered image quality is taken up by the 45 mp, a little sharpening and the fact that you are shooting at F12.6. And 2 stop reduction in light is dealt with by the R5’s incredible performance at ISO 8000, and the fact that macro photographers often add 1/8 to 1/4 power flash. Using this combo the magnification is 1:0.98 at the 1.4x and 1:1.42 at the 2.0x.
Exactly the questions I have for my Sony and my brother has for his Canon. Curious why you didn’t compare the 100-500 + 1.4x. Not sure you’d miss the extra 100mm and the aperture is more equitable. Some notes on the Sony + 1.4 with the A7RIV. 1) I do see a slight bit of image degradation at full resolution, but have not compared a scaled down image taken with the 1.4x, 2) focus clearly does not pick up as fast with the 1.4x, even with good light, 3) using APS-C instead of the 1.4 TC, yields faster frame rate and faster AF on my A7RIV (uncompressed RAW). All that said, I use the 1.4x often for still, like you show in your review. Thanks for your excellent reviews and advice. They are very helpful.
Use the 1.4tc with the 200600 on the A1 often, results are great. For more reach i assign a button to APS-C mode.. gets me over 1000mm with still excellent results. No need for the 2x TC
Thank you Jan. This video really helped me to understand that I need to stop down using the RF 100-500mm + RF 1.4x on my R6. Can't wait to get out there and try this. I need to stop being concerned with high ISO from the DSLR days. I'm really happy I switched over to mirrorless.
The 1.4x is a fixed piece of gear in my bag. The AF is really good and the image is really good, too. I hesitate to get a 2x for the R5 because the older 2x was too slow to focus on the Dslr cameras and unless I am close to the subject the image is not that good. I mainly use the 1.4x. I did use the 2xIII with the 600II and R5 in a wood canopy area and the eye AF tracked the bird. I was pleasantly surprised. The R5 changed some of my thoughts about the 2x in a positive way, but I will probably stay away from it. I use the 600II, 300 2.8 , 100-500 and 100-400 for bird photography. I used the 300 2.8, 2xIII and 1D4 and ut is a nice walk around 600 with pretty fast focus and nice images. A lot of photographers use the 2x with 300 and 400 2.8 with really good results. Don't slap any extender on a cheap zoom lens. If you start out with crap, you end up with a bigger piece of crap.
Thank you for a very interesting and informative video. All my lenses are EF. When using my telephoto’s 300 f2.8 ll & 600 f4 ll I use both the 1.4 & 2 with good results as long as I stop down and fill the frame with the subject. With my 100-400 ll I never bother with the 2X. I have an R5 since this past March, My back up body is a 5D MKlV. Rather then diving into a lot of expensive RF lenses & converters, I chose the path of the RF 800mm F-11. For an inexpensive lens, it actually offers “in the right conditions” some very acceptable results. I really benefitted from your masterclass and recommend it to any bird photographer wishing to improve and refine their process.Thank you and keep up the great work.
Awesome video Jan! For me, I have given up on extenders with my R5 and 100-500. I get better results just cropping in then I uprez the photo with Topaz Photo AI or Gigapixel.
Your video on extenders is exceptional. It is the best “maybe” answer I have ever heard. I would really appreciate it if you would take this discussion another step further. I shoot some wildlife (25%) and a lot of sports (50%). My camera of choice is the R5, so that I have plenty of pixels to work with. I also purposely shoot a little wide so that I can get the action and crop later in post. Lately, rather than using my 1.4 extend, I have been using the in-camera crop feature and have set my controls to change from full frame to 1.6 crop with a single button. I am not sure if this is helping or hindering the overall photo quality. It does allow me to switch back and forth quickly and easily depending on how close I am to the action. My concern is that I may be just as well off shooting full frame and cropping in post.
you would be, there's no IQ difference between shooting in crop mode and cropping, it might help you and the AF tho to have the subject larger in the frame
A few days ago I used R5 +RF 100-500 with 1.4X Extender for shooting migrating raptor birds in flight. The focusing was great and never feel any drop of focusing performance. The image quality was quite acceptable. Onlything that concerned was to set the image stabilization mode to Mode 3 and custom set focus tracking otherwise pictures will blur when bird fly passing overhead with high speed and accelleration. Also the combination of R5+adapter Viltrox EF-R2+ EF1.4X + EF600M2 can have a good pictures and tracking performance of a pale-capped pigeon in fligt in front of tree background.
Another great video - the analysis at end couldn't have been better. But will add a comment - the problem of atmospheric distortion. At some point, even with the best gear, the subject will be far enough away that atmospheric distortion can significantly decrease the IQ of a photo. Can't tell you the number of photogrphers who ask me why their setup isn't performing as expected. When you look over their photos they are shooting from a hot field, over cooler water/vegetation, back over hot ground. - or - shooting from cooler vegetation (in forested area), over a hot field, for a subject in cooler water. And doing this with 1000mm or higher. For me, if I need anything more than 800mm (prefer 600 or lower) - I'm either walking closer to the subject or taking a photo knowing it will probably not meet my standards. With this in mind, if I need an extender, use the 1.4x 95% of the time. It has a nominal effect on IQ. The 2.0x on the other hand is noticeable, even in the best of conditions. Only use the 2.0x on the 300/400 prime lenses and with the 70-200mm 2.8 to achieve a 140-400mm with a constant 5.6. Once again - atmospheric distortion can be a major problem independent of gear. Even using a 400 2.8 prime, with 2x converter, on a 1.6x crop body (1280mm at 5.6), sitting on a tripod with plenty of light - might get you some extremely soft photos due to atmospheric distortion. Atmospheric distortion can also mess with the AF system as well.
I got a 2x TC for my 75-300 lens. I got it cheap and I like the look. I get f/5.6 wide open at around 600mm on the tripod. I can read the street sign 2 blocks away LOL.
I agree with your preference to have the bird smaller and crop rather than loose DOF but have a larger bird in the image area. I still prefer extenders only with prime lenses and only when I can't carry a prime to cover the affective focal length of the prime + 1/4x (IE, using a 400mm + 1.4x vs 600mm). My 400mm f/4 DO is just much more portable with and without a 1.4x vs the 600mm f/4. And I can handhold the 400mm DO with and without the 1.4x as well. I can hand hold the 600mm, but for like for 3 seconds and then I have to take a nap!
Nice video again 😃 I disagree on the point about high iso though. The high iso performance is more or less the same the last 10 years, but the software for removing it is getting a lot better. canon 1Dx, Canon 5DIII , Nikon D4/D5, Nikon D800E, D810 where all awsome at high iso. And its important to compare scaled to same size 😃 Can see the value of converters tho, considering buying one for my Nikon 300/4PF 🤗
Yes and no. I didn't feel comfortable using my 5D cameras at ISO 12800 and ISO like that. I never see the point of scaling images to the same size. If I do that, I could make them all 8mpix and no camera would have noise...
The beauty of putting a full frame lens on a cropped sensor DSLR , is that in effect that lens has a built in teleconverter !! - that being said , even though I own 1.4 and 2X teleconverters for my 70-200 f 2.8 lens , I rarely, if ever , use the 2X teleconverter , even if the lens is stabilised on a tripod
Very good video Jan. I am a newbie/prosumer and most interested in video. Even though the photography/camera jargon is still a challenge for me, I followed almost everything you were describing! Thanks a lot!
all depends what you use a converter for. Sometimes it's useful and sometimes it's just disastrous experimentation. I put a 1.4 onto the EF 100 2.8 and it made the lens a great deal more functional and gave me the images I wanted. Made it focus more accurately... for "fun" have put a 2x +1.4 on a 50-500 4--6.3 to shoot the moon, but never do that for any serious work. Adding an extension to a 35-135 3.5-6.3 didn't help at all and rather hindered more than helped. So is matter of test and fail and when possible just better lens is best solution. Have also put extension on a 50 2.5 to go microscopic... it's possible with the 60 2.8 as well, but the 60 2.8 has extremely fine focus and can shoot aphids nicely without. Problem can also be that an extension can create imbalance between lens and camera and create stress. Depends on lens, camera combination. Sometimes it's useful and a lot of times not. Moved to Sigma 105 2.8 which is far better lens than Canon 100 2.8. All manual, no IS and handheld. No tripod here. It's too much to carry in bush.
Great Vid Jan as ever...I shoot my A9 in crop mode nearly all the time for birds and wildlife because with Sony the focus as you say works better and you can see in more detail the subject for more accurate pin point focus.
Great for video. For photography, it's not necessary, but some may prefer the wysiwyg part of using a TC while others may prefer or do better without it.
I use my EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II almost always with the 2x extender. Contemplating a used EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II as well. On my 1DIV the latter will produce a focal length of 1040mm FF equivalent. I'm optimistic that if I get an MILC; these combos will work fine!
Thank you for the video ! It's interesting. In wildlife photography the speed is crucial. With 2x teleconverters you loose not only 2 stops, but also focus speed&accuracy and some IQ. When you increase ISO to compensate the 2 stops, you will have higher noise and less details. For static subjects and plenty of light, the teleconvertor will shine. For everything else, the TC will be a disatvantage. So the most important thing I learnt about teleconverter is to avoid keeping mounted on all the time.
Yes, you are right. It's not good to have them as "default". They're tools to help you when needed. With the mirrorless cameras, AF speed with 2x is greatly improved
Great video Jan. I REALLY wish that Canon did a 500mm f5.6 L series prime like Nikon has with their 500mm pf f5.6. It's a great price point with being so much cheaper than a 600 or even 500mm f4 prime. A 500mm f5.6 prime to me would be good for handheld birds in flight and would be great with teleconvertors which wouldn't increase the f stop too much
I generally shoot the 100-400GM on the a7RIV. I had the 200-600 for a while, but I'm primarily a landscape photographer and only shoot occasional wildlife so the size/weight of that lens was impractical for me for how infrequently I shot with it. I go back and forth between using the 1.4x TC and the RIV's in crop mode. I've gotten fantastic results from each. I guess, like you said, it just depends haha. I also have had many times where I was shooting with the 135 GM and feel that Sony missed an opportunity by not making that lens to accept TC's.
Sounds great! Yeah, the 200-600 is quite big. Yes, that would be nice with TCs. Just like Canon's weird choice of not allowing the new 70-200 to take TCs
Quite similar for me - A7R IV, 100-400GM, 1.4x TC and doing landscape. Just never ever use the crop mode, but crop in post - there iss little reason to throw an inflexibly fixed part of the image away prematurely. The rare cases where you defenitely know that you do not want to crop less lateron do neither jushify designating a custom button nor Fn menu item for it nor spending the extra time to switch without these.
I find the RF800 F11 challenging for birds in flight in on cloudy days and in low light conditions my ISO can exceed 5,000 so I end up using my EF100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter at f8. A big advantage I notice is the size of the autofocus area when using the 100-400 and teleconverter. It appears to be near 100% coverage while the 800mm f11 is dramatically smaller and can be tricky with fast moving birds.
Once you learn to denoise, iso 5000 isnt high at all on the R5. I found the practical limit for my R5 that still preserves some feather detail is iso 12800.
Wow - as usual very informative! I tried extenders in the past and never liked them but I bought a Canon R6 recently and may give them another try but of course I'll wait until I can afford a new RF lens as I'm still using EF lenses. Clear and concise comments - you are the best at this! Hope you are well down under - thank you for this - take care and be safe out there....
Extenders work differently depending on the lens. I use Sony and I had horrible results with one of their premium lenses and amazing results with others.
Fantastic video that will have me rethinking how I use teleconverters moving forward. I certainly have experienced the inconsistency that these can bring to the table. It has me debating if I should sell my Canon 1.4 and Fuji 1.4....but then I'll occasionally get those shot where I'm amazed at what it helped me achieve. Thanks for the great content. I'll definitely start using it more for emphasizing already good shots instead of trying to us them to just get extra reach.
16:04 this is a really important consideration which is very rarely discussed - and why I strongly prefer (even need) a high MPIX camera with a long, fast prime for my style of shooting as I can get excellent background extinction while preserving the subject in focus. So Canon - lets get that mythical 80-120 MPIX R5s sooner than later.
The main key for using teleconverters, is that they are only really useful when you have plenty of light as well. I like your points, on the fact that problems which exist without a TC, are just really amplified by using the TC…
Why buy these long lenses when you can add up extenders? :))) My position with Sony is why buy extenders when you can buy an APS-C sensors, works with all lenses and only slightly more expensive than a TC. For others TCs are cheaper, work with more lenses therefore might be a harder decision.
Thanks for video Jan, been on the fence about getting TC for a while now. With pictures like your Boobook shot, ive found myself with situations like this the closer you get the more it looks like you are looking upto the bird, rather than being eye level so this means the closer you get the more sky will enter your background. Sometimes if I remember I will step back and get a less detailed shot to get the nicer composition, I don't own a converter yet but I feel like I would stay back a little getting more eye level shots and not scaring birds off.
@@jan_wegener Yep I ended up getting a 1.4x converter :) just had to re-watch this vid and just tried down sizing some of my higher ISO images shot with TC and it works wonders going from 61MP to 29MP, having those extra pixels on the bird really helps with flexibility of the file. I might even try downsizing some of my older images that filled the frame.
I have used TC's for 30 + years and honestly there is too much drama around things when folks don't want to practice their skill. Most don't understand the magnification vs the actual extra reach you get.
The newest teleconverter's are really good, especially the new mirrorless TC's. I use a Nikon TC-14E III on both my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL and 500mm f/4E VR FL lenses. By the way Jan Wegener, you don't lose any "depth of field" or "background blur" with teleconverter's. They make a 400mm f/2.8 into an 800mm f/5.6 all day everyday. If anything at close distances like minimum focusing distance they would give you slightly more background blur or separation because you'd have more focal length, but the same minimum focusing distance. Therefor it would make your subject look bigger, it would increase your maximum reproduction ratio at minimum focusing distance. But teleconverters absolutely DO NOT effect depth of field, but they do effect f/stop, but at an exact focal length to aperture equivalent!
Long awaited video, Jan. Very good. As you point out several times, It's actually a questions about acceptance all the time. I did use it om my Canon EOS 100-400,but not on my Canon EOS 100-500, but I will try it. Thank you for taking it to the limit. Kind Regards, Jan
Can not agree more on "it depends" and especially the remarks about how external factors like atmospheric effects and also camera movement/vibration can play a bigger role in disappointing results than the TC and lens itself. With the TC basically magnifying the image the lens projects its also pretty obvious that resulting sharpness depends a lot on the lens and sensor. A very sharp lens on a relatively low resolution sensor has a good amount of headroom to add a TC and magnify the image, while a lesser lens that already is pushed to or even beyond its limits on a high resolution sensor, any magnification will only show the lack of sharpness more drastically. Accordingly, I happily used a (low resolution) Canon 6D, (very sharp at its time) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and Extender EF 2x III. The results were not as impressively sharp on a pixel by pixel basis as the bare lens, but way better than any crop and not worse than going to some less sharp L lens, and thus perfectly acceptable. Nowadays, on the (very high resolution) Sony A7R IV, I went with the (quite sharp) FE 100-400MM F4.5-5.6 GM OSS to get the same reach. I meanwhile also did get the 1.4x TC, part of the motivation was being able to combine quite a good offer with some cashback coupon on top. Results with that combination a the resulting open aperture of f/8 are easily noticeable soft (looking at 100%), the sweet spot with very good image quality seems to be f/16, with f/18 and f/11 being hardly worse, all definitely leading to more detail than just cropping in and good enough to still crop in somewhat on top of it, if needed. For anything wildlife or other action that needs more than 400mm reach, the 200-600 probably is the better choice, but for my almost exclusively static work (landscape, cityscape, architecture) it does work fine if I really want to pick out some detail beyond 400mm. Having to go to the smaller apertures also is rather beneficial in terms of depth of field.
The A7rIV definitely seems to be a quite challenging camera when it comes to the usage of many lenses. Not the first time I hear people saying that. You're right that in that case the addition of a TC creates an even bigger challenge
That's a great feedback on teleconverters Jan, I have the R5 but I have only just received the 100-500mm rf after waiting months, only had it a few days, so your video was great timing. I have the 1.4x cv but was deliberating on the 2x, after your talk I now think I will just wait and see how much I need the 2x cv. Your feedback has been really valuable. I have commiserated on whether I should have gone Sony with the 200-600mm but have been Canon for so many years that the menu and buttons are almost instinctive and the versatility of the 100-500mm more appealing. So I also really like your positive opinion about versatility. I am also really interested in doing your editing course.
I was on the look out for the Sigma 1.4x converter for my Sigma 100-400 but I ending up snagging a great deal the Sigma 2x converter for L-mount instead. I was really worried about the image quality because of my hang ups about ISO performance. But the truth is I'm using ISO far higher than I have used on previous cameras with sensational results. The sensors of today are far better than the sensors of yesterday. I'm using a Lumix S1 and S5 with the Sigma 100-400 and Sigma 2x Teleconverter.
There are three versions of Canon ef tele extenders 1.4x and 2x , 1.4x ii and 2x ii , 1.4x iii and 2x iii . Each newer version has slightly different optics. Optical quality depends more on your lens than the extender. A prime lens would be sharper depending on elements in the lens of course higher quality glass equally higher quality images. A zoom lens have more optical glass that the light must pass through, so image quality will suffer slightly over a prime. Again depending on glass element quality. With Canon super telephoto lenses image quality is fantastic and some of Canon newest zooms 100-400 mii L lens are tack sharp. As well as Canon 200-400 mm L lens with its built in 1.4 extender images are also tack sharp. Some other feature differences are dust resistant or finger print resistant coatings. The version ii models offer a new rear dust seal. Version iii offers fluorine optical coatings to resist fongerprints it has different electronics eliminating compatibility to older bodies. But allow more or all focus points to be utilized with certain camera bodies (currently): (1dx ii and III, 5d miv)and lenses.
@@jan_wegeneryes, I upgraded to the version 3 only after a full frame body allowed auto focus at f8. I've eliminated the original versions from my gear. Keeping the second and third versions. For mixing with a couple of 7D mii crop bodies and my 5d ii and 5dsr full frame bodies. Third versions are used primarily on my 1dx mii and 5D miv bodies.
Great video as always. Very informative. Good point about using 2x. I was shooting Sandhill Cranes and used 2x on a prime lens. The heat haze ruined everything. Very soft or sometimes not focused properly. I will use 2x when the subject is close. This is kind of contradictory to the idea that we use 2x for far away subject. 2x amplifies everything good or bad. RF 100-500 with 1.4x is good even for BIF. But I would use it with 2x for bird portrait.
@@jan_wegener and for my general shooting, it is almost always tiny birds which are reasonably close. About the only time I ever shoot anything really far away, is so that I can them zoom in on it, for identification. My camera sees better than I do 🙂 But I never expect to process and post those shots.
Excellent video Jan - I generally lean towards shooting wider apertures for mammals (as it is very hard to get the whole body in the plane anyway unless you have good light and separation to stop down a to f/10 or so) so as long as the eyes and face are sharp I'm ok. For birds, however I do try to stop down when possible to get more of the subject in focus.
@@jan_wegener Yeah, but my point was mainly about 1.4x vs 2x and that the 2x on a prime is much better than a 1.4x on a zoom. So it is not the 14 xor 2x by itself that makes a difference but what kind of lens you attach it to. It took me some time to get my head around this :-)
Happy to help. I think it really depends what you are shooting. When you are shooting people (or street signs :D) cropping may very well be better. And with these you usually don't have the issue that they move too far away and you can just go closer if need be. For birds and wildlife there's a lot more factors in play that favour teleconverters I believe. Like smoother background, being able to be a bit further a way from the animal etc.
If you have light, teleconverters are great. I like the 2.0x, unlike a lot of other photographers. And I'll happily put it on a zoom lens as long as it's constant aperture.
To me, this was the best video on the subject of using extenders that I have watched.I shoot with full frame Canon DSLR cameras. I use my 400mm F2.8 is lens for my bird photography as well as other wildlife photography. I often use the EF X1.4 III extender. I can use it with excellent results in most situations, including large bird photography. I rented an EF X2 III extender recently and found it to not be acceptable for me as far as shooting birds in flight. However, I was impressed with the results when shooting many other subjects. I was able to shoot Bison, and get some awesome close up shots of just their heads. These Bison are not fenced in, so you do have to limit how close you get.
After using the X2 converter, I have ordered one for myself. I know the limitations it has, but I am definitely excited about the benefits it offers. Your video hit the nail on the head.
I never use 2x extender on any lens > f5.6 at the top end. Alternative to extender is to use a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor. The built in crop of 1.5/1.6 effectively extends the focal length by 1.5/1.6 with less degradation.
I have both the Sony TC's but try not to use them ! I would only use the 1.4 with the 200-600mm, but the 600mm f4 takes both no problem as you would expect ! I do a lot of BIF shots and 840mm is a lot of reach ! Try and use my legs rather than TC's but sometimes you don't have a choice ! Previous Nikon TC were nowhere near as good as the Sony I would concur ! Awesome work Jan !
Yes! It was actually one of the reason I always went and stuck with Canon back in the day, Their extenders were way better than the Nikon ones.
I ordered a cheap extender Vivitar 2x just for the test to complement with my Sigma 70-300,i will use this combo only for landscape/slow photos etc.From what i've read if my lens is sharp at f8,i must now set it to f16 to compensate...hope that the image quality is not that bad stopped down !
Hey Jan… I wanted to share with you something that I have found with my setup. I have an old Canon non IS 600 f4 that I have traditionally used a 1.4tc on..since using the R5 I have been getting 90% soft images. Was thinking it was just my technique and getting frustrated with missing shots. Recently I found an article where it suggested to turn the IS off with the version 1 IS lens….I gave it a go and bang sharp images again..also the auto focus was super fast again. Seems like the R5 just can’t deal with these older lenses… thought I would share this just in case others are having the same issue
I think in this case it's the other way around. The old lenses cannot deal with the R5, or in this case probably the IBIS. I didn't know about that. Thanks for sharing.
I also started turning off OSS on my Sony 200-600 if I’m shooting high speed action at 1/2000s or faster shutter speeds.
@@jan_wegener Same thing with the R6 and 500 f/4 MkI. It's surprising how better the R6 is with 100-400 MkII than with the prime lens MkI. I first bought an hybrid to get a new start with my old lenses without spending a lot of money... now I'm considering buying 100-500 RF and converters ;=)).
Another great video mate, I have my 1.4 on my 500 95% of the time and it works great. For me the price of the RF1.4 is ridiculous at $900AUD. It is also a real shame the design of the 100-500 means you lose the wide end but 700mm on a zoom is a bonus. The benefit of say an R7 would be the lens becomes a 160-800 f7.1 FF equiv compared to the 420-700 f/10 on a FF with a 1.4. Ultimately always good to have the options. Cheers, Duade
I bought them in the US, just like memory cards, some things are just too pricy here. Yes, not being able to zoom back is kinda annoying
If you are talking in FF equivalents then you need to apply the crop factor to the aperture also, so the 100-500 on a hypothetical R7 would be 160-800 f11. An APS-C crop from an R5 would be the same. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
@@Bayonet1809 Thanks, yes the DOF will be impacted by the crop but I don't think the exposure does, the R7 will be shooting wide open at f7.1 whereas the FF will be at f10 with a converter. My understanding is the R7 will be able to use a higher SS or lower ISO due to the 7.1 opening. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Correct the exposure is not affected by the crop, but the total light is, thus the noise is greater, which means that to reach equivalent image quality one would have to use a stop lower ISO with APS-C, and therefore the shutter speeds will be the same between shooting at f7.1 on APS-C and f11 on FF.
The only benefit of APS-C at the image level is the potential for greater magnification (reach) due to greater pixel density (e.g. with a 32MP R7), which achieves the same effect as a teleconverter which magnifies optically. This is the beauty of equivalence.
@@DuadeWe need to see the t stop info 😀
I have both the RF 100-500 and 800 lenses, as well as the 1.4 extender. If II had to choose 2 out of 3, I would go with the two lenses. The 800mm is an awesome lens. Yes, it suffers under low light but it works very well. Yes, it is a big lens, but it is so damn light that I would find someway to include it in my bag. Another consideration is that out in the field, I actually find it easier to swap out one lens for another than to add an extender to the 100-500.
Main thing for me is that the extenders fit in my pockets, but there's definitely an argument to be made for the 800
Great tips as usual. Another good use of an extender with 100-400 or 100-500 is to get greater magnification in macro-like shots. Because these lens can focus super close and the minimum focusing distance does not change with the extender on, it can give a huge magnification without having to use a macro lens. I have got some cool insect shots using this combination.
I have the 100-400 L ii and use the 1.4x 50% of the time. The minimum focus distance increases 1.4x with the 1.4x tc on. I have observed this 100s of times.
Thus, the maximum close up magnification is allways 0.31x, with the 1.4x on or off.
I still use this lens as a macro lens with the 1.4x on. Great for shooting critters on flowers.
@@nordic5490 That is not quite true. TC does not change MFD.
@@pratyayr really mate, is that your experience, or, are you just making that up ? I have tested this many times.
My 100-400L ii has a mfd of 98cm (to the sensor). And then, surprise surprise, when I fit a 1.4x tc, the mfd is increased to about 1.4m from my R5s sensor. This is my actual (not made up) experience.
The close focus magnification factor of this lens will not change regardless of how many TCs are fitted.
Ie, if the mfd didnt change, then the magnification factor of 0.31 could become a true 1:1 magnification ration macro lens with a 3.2x TC fitted. Only problem is, it doesnt. A 0.31x mf lens will allways have a 0.31 close focus magnification ratio regardless of how many TCs you fit.
Prehaps you can post me a link to testing other than mine that shows a different result to mine ?
@@nordic5490 Yes, I have shot at 560mm (400mm + 1.4 TC) and focused at a distance of 98cm (approx) from the sensor many many many times. You don't have to believe me, just Google something like "minimum focus distance and teleconverters". You will find many many results talking about this. If you are interested you may even read about the maths/physics part to understand why this happens.
And yes, you do achieve bigger magnification by doing this. In fact this is a very common technique people use. I am surprised that someone talking about macros and 0.31x mf did not know about this.
@@pratyayr you sir, win the internet today. I just did some testing 5mins ago.
100-400L ii bare = mft of 94cm to the front of the hot shoe
+ EF 1.4X tc iii = mft 97cm
+ EF 2x tc iii = mft 99.5cm
Thus, you sir are correct. This is good to know, and explains why I was taking such good 'macro' images @400mm + 2x on a club macro shoot.
Thank you for being pepersistant. Chz
Under dark, ugly conditions, I prefer no extender with my 100-500. If it is bright and/or sunny, I rarely shoot without the extender (1.4x). I don't really like the results under any conditions with the 2x on my zoom lens. Nice work as always Jan.
It can be great and it can be not so good. Sometimes it's hard to know why it works and others times not so much. I had outstanding results and some subpar ones with the 2x
@@jan_wegener But would you choose the x1.4 over the 2x?
Very interesting comparison, Jan! What I found most surprising was that 100-500 and 2x TC had so much more detail than bare 100-500 cropped to the same size. I usually stick with the 1.4x TC, seems to be the best compromise for me. The one thing that would be interesting to address is zoom lenses with TCs for birds in flight. The equation seems to change quite a bit in favor of bare lenses.
Yes, for BIF, I would prefer no extenders, although lately I had some success with them
Agree. TC seems to slow down AF in my experience.
We’ve been using both the Olympus 1.4 and 2x on the 300mmF4 and the results are much better then cropping. My lab tests also confirm this result. The 2x may have a bit of impact on saturation but post processing can easily fix this. The 1.4 lives on this lens for shooting BIF and the results are very very good.
Thank you for this video! It is just at the right time, I was playing with this exact question this weekend. The shop where I buy my camera gear could only give me some very basic advice without any real insights, this makes it so much clearer
I have the 800mm and 100-500mm. I already have the 1.4x extender, but I was doubting what to do, keep the 800mm or replace it with the 2x extender for that little bit of extra range. I really like the 800mm lens, but since I have the 100-500mm I see that I almost never use it anymore, indeed due to the flexibility. I generally put the extender in my pocket and use it when needed. I use them with the R6, so low light is less of an issue then needing to crop a lot.
Glad I could help :)
Elze, I have both lenses as well and I have the 1.4 extender. So far, I''ve been using the extender with my 100-500, but I have not been impressed by the results. Btw, I love the 800mm. It works so well with the R6 (I also have the R5) and I've been very happy with the results of that combination.
For Birds in flight I almost always use an extender since they are generally further away, I usually stick with the 1.4x. If it’s perched & far away I may throw a 2x on it & maybe if the stars align it won’t fuzz out. On my 600 f/4 II I can get good results on that lens with the 2x but the hit rate goes down in comparison with the 1.4x. If it’s a small pond where the subject is closer I’ll use the bare lens. That’s the situation where the 100-500 is intriguing especially for mammals sometimes the 600 is too much in closer situations or when birds are overhead & need something quickly that is lightweight to handle or hike with. I have it on order with a 1.4x probably will be months before I see it. Most here probably know that 1.4x extenders you lose one stop of light, 2x you lose two stops. If you don’t stop down accordingly you’ll get blurry photos.
Great summary. I hope you get your lens, soon!
2x TC on the new Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 is fantastic. I don't notice a significant decrease in sharpness shooting with my Z6.
sounds nice
2X mk iii on a 300 f2.8 gives 600mm on my FF. it’s brilliant just depends on your set up and adapting to using it, in good light it’s far better than cropping.
I love the combo ×1.4 with the RF 100-500mm coupled with the R5 it's a beast.💪😍
The newest teleconverter's are really good, especially the new mirrorless TC's. I use a Nikon TC-14E III on both my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL and 500mm f/4E VR FL lenses. By the way Jan Wegener, you don't lose any "depth of field" or "background blur" with teleconverter's. They (2x TC's) make a 400mm f/2.8 into an 800mm f/5.6... all day everyday. If anything at close distances like minimum focusing distance they would give you slightly more background blur or separation because you'd have more focal length, but the same minimum focusing distance. Therefor it would make your subject look bigger, it would increase your maximum reproduction ratio at minimum focusing distance. But teleconverters absolutely DO NOT effect depth of field, but they do effect f/stop, but at an exact focal length to aperture equivalent!
Did you see the example with the Rose Robin. They heavily affect DOF. I assume because they physically move the lens forward.
On a prime lens you get more BG blurr
@@jan_wegener There is a mathematical equation to figuring out the “amount” of background blur. You just divide the aperture from the focal length, so for 600mm f/4 you would get 150. The higher the number the greater the background blur or separation you can get. Adding a 2x TC to a 400mm f/2.8 would give you an 800mm f/5.6. Both of those would have a score/amount of 143. Exactly the same amount. Yes, you lose a stop of light or two, but you increase your focal length an equal amount or equivalent to aperture. But what you described about a lens moving it’s focusing elements closer or whatever, would be lens design related, not from the TC itself.
You’re probably referring to focus breathing, it sounds like, which actually effects the focal length, usually at close distances. Focus breathing can make a 200mm lens act more like a 135mm at close distances. Adding a teleconverter has nothing to do with that. So I’m absolutely 100% sure you’re mistaken. I know you legitimately think you saw what you did, but it must be related to your settings or distance to subject and or distance of subject to the background. There is another answer or variable responsible for the results you saw or noticed. I’ve been a photojournalist now for 20 years, I’ve also been shooting wildlife for 25 years.
Not trying to sound like I’m bragging at all. I just want you to know a few of my qualifications. I do this for a living and I also teach photography classes and do private lessons. I’m an Nikon Professional Services member and I’m friends/colleagues with some of the most respected photographers in the world. I regularly speak to and work with Nikon ambassadors, Canon explorer’s, etc. I can say with certainty that adding teleconverter’s does NOT effect background blur or subject isolation.
Like I said it can appear to do the opposite at minimum focusing distance, because your subject will be larger, as your lenses reproduction ratio increases. That’s technically not actually affecting the depth of field or subject isolation. However since you have more focal length at the same minimum focusing distance it can appear that way. Since TC’s stretch the image circle and you’ll get more focal length, but at the same minimum focusing distance. However your subject isolation or amount background blur, does not change based on using a teleconverter. Again it may be something else you noticed while out shooting. You don’t have to take my opinion, even though I know I’m right, you should ask someone who knows more than you. Like call Canon CPS or email Canon or ask someone who you’d expect to know for sure. They should confirm what I’m saying. I wouldn’t lie or say I was positive unless I absolutely was positive.
@@patricksmith2553 There are calculators like this one to calculate DOF
www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator
And you can see the difference.
at 600 mm it's 60mm at 10m distance and 42mm at the same distance with the extender on.
The extender increases focal length and thus also affects DOF
@@jan_wegener I think we’re getting confused about what we’re taking about. Teleconverter’s do not effect the equation that matters, the one I already said. You divide the focal length by the aperture. A 400mm f/2.8 divided by its own aperture is 143. It’s the exact same at 800mm f/5.6! Teleconverter’s can only do or at least appear to do the opposite of what you said, at minimum focusing distance. That’s because at minimum focusing distance the focal length does increase, but the minimum focusing distance stays the same. Which gives you a better or higher maximum reproduction ratio and therefor would give you a little more subject isolation. Depth of field is obviously how much of your subject is in focus. So the equation you speak of is not the proper equation for what we’re discussing here. But I can tell, that you don’t believe or agree with me. I’m 100% sure I’m correct and I’m not here to brag, but I’ve been doing this professionally a long time. I’m a photojournalist and I’m regularly shooting major sports events and breaking news. I’ve been a photojournalist for two decades, and a wildlife photographer for 25 years. I don’t make my money doing wildlife photography but I have made money doing so and I’ve won some awards. I used to teach photography and do private lessons. I’ve also been asked by other well known sports photographers to help run and teach at their photo tours/classes. I’m regularly published in the worlds largest well known newspapers, news agencies and sports magazines, etc. I’m only telling you all of this to say when I’m sure about something photography related, I’m sure. I don’t doubt that you believe you are correct as well and you seem pretty knowledgeable about a lot of things. I’ve watched a few of your videos and I subscribed, because I liked the content.
I’m happy to just agree to disagree or at least agree we must be thinking or talking about two different subjects. I’ve owned and or borrowed almost every super-tele lens from Nikon and Canon over the years. I’ve owned and used three or four different versions of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8, and I’ve used to also own a copy of the Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR FL. Both have the exact same amount of subject isolation or same ability and amount of blurring the background. The only difference is the 800mm f/5.6 is much sharper than the 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC is. If you use that simple equation that I gave, you’d see that the 600mm f/4 lenses give the most amount of subject isolation or background blur. Most people might assume that the 800mm f/5.6 lenses would be the bokeh king, and I’ve even heard people say that! As long as you’re standing beyond both lenses’ (that you’re comparing) minimum focusing distances, both lenses would have the same amount of subject isolation or background blur.
However I will admit I’ve not used the Canon 100-500mm or the new Canon 2x TC. So it’s possible something weird is happening in your case. Such as the TC effecting the optical formula when the lens is zoomed out, or even it could be that the 2x TC is not quite actually 2x? I can’t rule out that something strange like that is happening to you. Even the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR that I used to own is more like a 385mm lens. Many zoom lenses and even some prime lenses are not quite the actual focal length advertised. If you compare the Nikon 200mm f/2 to a 70-200mm VR II at 200mm, you’d see the zoom is more like 135-150mm depending on distance to subject. That is due to focus breathing, so again there are unknown or at least variables at play that could be to blame here. I’m not trying to say you’re lying or even that you’re wrong. The truth is there could easily be some factor(s) that led to your results. But if everything was correct or how it should be, there should be absolutely no difference! A 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC and an 800mm f/5.6 should have exactly the same amount of subject isolation or background blur. So I stand by that fact and my original statements, but I do admit there could be a variable or variables at play. So we may both be correct, either way I hope you know I wasn’t trying to argue or make you look bad. Take care!
It would be interesting to see how extenders cope with BIF rather than static subjects.
Again…the glass matters. Sony 600mm handles it very well, I find. Not Sony 200-600…it’s okay, grainy and a tad softer using tripod.
I have used them with BIF, too. 1.4x was quite good, 2x I would probably not use as much, but it does track well
The last bit of info is priceless. Name brand tele-conv's are expensive. Also you make even one poor buy with a lens and you're out thousands. Re-sell is tough. Jan does the heavy lifting! Thanks man!
Glad you enjoyed it
I've used both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on my 100-500mm for several months now mostly with BIF. I have found little difference between image quality in both teleconverters and I would say both are excellent vs teleconverters that I have used in the past. I returned the 1.4 converter because on the RF 100-500 at 700mm you are only losing 1/3 of a stop of light, if I'm remembering correctly, with the 1.4 vs 2.0 because of the the native lens aperture at 500 with the 1.4 vs 350 with the 2x and on top of that you have the 700-1000 reach with the 2x that are unavailable with the 1.4. Between 500 and 700mm light loss varies in favor of the 1.4 but because I'm primarily a BIF shooter, I'm shooting usually between 700 and 1000mm with the 2x most of the time. Additionally, with more pixels on the bird, I have not found a case yet where the native lens outperformed the 2x in detail (even with the high ISO values up to 12.8k because of DXO noise reduction) for BIFs which are usually at some distance. I've found the animal AF to be responsive with both TCs with the R5. I do use the native 100-500 in iffy lighting conditions and when birds, etc. fill the frame reasonably well. I'm extremely happy with this lens and 2x setup and if you have avoided TCs in the past, you should reconsider given the RF mount with the new RF TCs and the exceptional RF100-500 lens. The R5, RF100-500mm, and Jan's commentary over the last 8 months or so has lured me into the Canon camp from being a Nikon shooter for 20 years. It's a great time to be wildlife photographer! Thanks Jan!
Aperture is F10 vs F14, so decent difference.
Thanks Bill, glad you are really enjoying this combo. The AF with the 2x extender is surprisingly fast for sure.
@@jan_wegener You are exactly right if the lens is max'd at 500 mm with both extenders. But at 700mm (500x1.4) the 1.4x is F10 and at 700mm (350mm*2) the 2x is F11. This is only 1/3 of a stop at 700mm (only). This is because the of the variable aperture of the 100-500mm. Since I shoot in the 700-1000 range with BIF mainly and can't discern noticeable image quality or marked focus acquisition differences and get the benefit of the extra reach 700-1000, I've settled on the 2x when not shooting natively.
@@billgedeon3656 ah yes, gotcha now.
Excellent, useful and well-presented - thank you. Your tip about stopping down when using an extender on a zoom lens really works for me. Using a Canon 1.4x extender with an EF 100-400mm II on a 5D MkIV and stopping down to f11 shows a noticeable improvement in image quality even at the relatively high ISO needed for the UK at this dull time of year.
Glad it was helpful! On that lens in particular the stopping down had a big impact :)
Thank you for your well reasoned presentation on teleconverters. I agree that not all zooms can use them. The Nikon 200-400 f4 zoom was great for safaris but was not capable of producing decent images with any teleconverter (TC). Jan, I think that your discussion of depth of field (dof) with teleconverters could be expanded. As you mentioned, adding a TC increases focal length and reduces depth of field. The latter can be somewhat restored by reducing the shooting aperture (making it smaller) which requires higher ISO. Crop sensors (1.5, 1.6, 2.0) when used with teleconverters are more adaptable to bird photography than full frame sensors because the crop sensors inherently have greater dof at any given focal length. M43 sensors are a boon for those of us who photograph or video-graph birds at 600mm to 1200mm+. We can keep entire birds in focus while the backgrounds are still nicely blurred. And yes, Jan, the qualities of the lens (sharpness, micro-contrast, focus breathing and aperture constancy) all determine if a TC will work well with the lens. With regard to the Olympus m43 telephoto lenses I use (40-150mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, and 100-400mm 1.25x f/4.5), the Olympus 1.4 and 2.0 TCs were intentionally designed to work with these very high quality internally focusing, constant aperture Pro-grade lenses. The 1.4x TC produces images with these lenses that are not optically degraded in any way that matters to me. The 2.0 TC can produce excellent images with both zooms and especially with the prime (1200mm equivalent at f/8). Certainly, the 5-7 stops of image stabilization helps at the very long focal length. It is great to be able to get frame-filling 1200mm images of Eagles where the entire bird is sharply in focus and not just its eye and head. In sum, I am a big fan of TCs on my m43 cameras as I can get a large proportion of my modest limit of 20MPs on the bird.
This was one of the main drawbacks for Nikon for me for a while that their extenders never seemed to work as well as Canon & Sony.
Yes, I usually stop down, but for this example it showed the DOF difference best. I usually find I have to stop down to F11 to get similar DOF compared to bare lens.
Thanks for sharing your Olympus experience
Love the 1.4 on my 200-600, seem to even stand up alright on the 61Mp A7RIV...and you are only a button press away from a 26Mp 1260mm APS-C shot.
Also "fixes" that focus breathing, or rather focal length loss as the 200-600 doesn't really breathe much, when up close.
Yes, I liked it on that lens :)
I couldn't justify the R5/100-500 and what I went with is the R6, 100-400 RF, 800 RF and RF 1.4 extender. That has proved a great compact and fairly affordable setup. The extender is fine on both lenses. OK, I haven't got such bright max apertures but the AF works great and the camera allows fairly high ISO if you need it. It's been giving great quality and is a nice kit for someone like me, who likes to walk a lot and do most of my shots hand held. Although the aperture is quite small, of course the depth of field is still small at such focal lengths and in fact its no bad thing to have the depth of field at say f11 to get more of my bird in focus.
I just found this video, and this may be what I have to do in the short term. I blew most of my budget on a higher end body, so I gotta hold off on the white lenses for a bit!...
Thanks for the video!
I must say with the New bodies extenders sure got a lot more interesting.
I used to shoot birds with my 100-400 4.5 5.6 II with the x2 extender on my 1dx II, only because basically it was my work gear and I couldn't afford the extra 12k for a big prime just for hobby to be fair..
It allowed me to have a few really great pictures, even handheld in low light, deep forest situation (albeit not many) but without that I simply wouldn't have had a picture at all
So to me extenders are still a good investment, pretty cheap and can make photos happen that would be otherwise missed
But most important tip was at the beginning of your video: if the bird is too far off to begin with without the extender then don't bother slapping the extender, I learnt that the hard way, so many useless pictures!
Also to be able to use the extender, better have at least a r5 (or equivalent for other brands), since you'll probably need high Iso and from experience on the 1dx II you dont get auto focus except in live view mode! So yeha shooting manual with such a setup is hell, while now with r5 you get great Iso management AND auto focus, that's pretty incredible
Anyway looking forward for more cockatoos photos!
The R5 can easily autofocus with the extender. That's another great advantage of mirrorless
This was a really interesting video. Especially about it depending on what lens you're using it on, and the subject distance; expectation management is not things RUclipsrs tend to mention, so thanks!
I had a 2x converter with my EF100-400 and the IQ was awful. I'm currently trying out a 1.4x converter with my RF100-500 and I can barely tell the difference. So you're right that things have come a long way. But I'm probably not going to get one and the reason is it's a hassle to attach it and remove it out in the field. Plus if you're shooting birds in flight it you lose the ability to zoom out with the physical zoom range limit in place.
Yes, on the 100-500 the extender is good, but annoying to use!
I have the Tamron 150-600mm g1 on my Canon 77D. When I use the Tamron 1.4x converter, the AF is hit and miss unless there's a lot of sunlight. Post-cropped photos seem to have slightly better quality and I get more keepers without using the converter.
Yes, on a lot of these 150-600mm zooms, the extenders don't work that well
I was taught that the extender is a necessary compromise if your subject is too far away. You should never use one unless you have to... but that's the thing... sometimes you HAVE TO.
thank you, very well balanced exposé!!
My pleasure!
Interesting that you notice the extender producing shallower depth of field in the 600 f4 example of the robin, but I noticed that that’s with the exact same aperture of f6.3. A 600mm f4 shot should have an identical depth of field as an 840mm f5.6 because the extender is simply magnifying the middle of the lens and ‘spreading the light’ over the full sensor area, resulting in the darker exposure, but the DoF remains the same.
A fairer comparison would be stopping the extender shot down by 1 stop to f9 and bumping the iso by one stop, so at least the images have the same depth of field. I’d be really interested to see how the detail, noise etc compares in that instance between cropping into the bare 600mm shot (which also magnifies the noise), vs an upcropped shot with the extender at a higher iso to compensate for the smaller aperture.
Otherwise a very helpful and informative video, many thanks!
I think what you have to account for is also that lens lens move forward physically, which moves it away from the sensor, which may account for the change in DOF.
I usually stop down when using extenders, but this was a good example to show the loss in DOF when using the extender
Glad you liked the video
I was going to mention this, extenders have no impact on depth of field. The lens’s distance to the subject also has no impact on depth of field, the distance from the sensor does. All extenders do is allow you to get more pixels on the bird at the cost of degraded image quality instead of cropping in and maintaining the bare lens’ image quality while losing resolution.
@@Kirkland_Signature I suspected this to be true, the thing I really wonder is which image do I actually prefer in the real world, a cropped bare lens or an extender…. 🤔
Dear Jan, thank you for what you do for us! The question is: (Canon R6 + RF 100-500 + 1.4x/2x extender) vs (R7 + RF 100-500mm). Many thanks!
R6 or R6 II?
@@jan_wegener the first one
I tested the RF 100-500L with a 2x TC and i was not really happy with the sharpness, especially not happy with the aperture.
The Sigma 150-600C on the other hand.... if i would still use a full frame camera, i would use for sure the 1,4x Sigma teleconverter. But since im using the R7 for wildlife, the R7 is my extender/teleconverter instead of losing aperture which was the main reason i got the Sigma (600mm F6.3 is still awesome in a zoom lens!)
Im very impressed that the 150-600C is sharp enough for the R7, in fact its barely less sharp than the RF 800 F11, in real world conditions the Sigma is normally even sharper since the RF 800 images are in 90% of the cases suffering from heat haze etc, just physical external limits, not the sharpness from the lens.
Thanks for another enjoyable and informative video. My 1.4tc lives on my RF100-500... I haven't taken a shot without yet but I am very satisfied with the results I am getting
You're welcome! Must be annoying to store it away with the TC attached :D
@@jan_wegener it fits in my bag just fine, which is a Lowepro 300aw with the 1.4 attached and the hood reversed.
On photo trips I sometimes take multiple bodies to cover different focal lengths - but I wouldn't take a lens off the camera on a photo trip - and I usually go to the bathroom before mounting another lens. I've owned extenders before, but I don't use them, they cost too much light and sometimes dramatically degrade a good lens.
Hey Jan!
In this video you talk about the DOF changing a lot when using TCs on the big primes. And I agree at first glance. But keep in mind you are shooting the 600mm F6.3 (Stopped down 1 and 1/3 stop) vs 840mm F6.3 (stopped down only 1/3 of a stop). Both are at 6.3 yes but the bare 600mm is stopped down a lot more. It would be more interesting to see they stopped down equal amount or both wide open. Do you still have shallower DOF and the nicer background now?
Andy
@6:50, that is not just acceptable, but freaking fantastic !!! I have ordered for rent, an RF 100-500 + 1.4 and 2.0 TC's, to be tried on my R5.... And I'm totally worried about how much I might like it ! $$$ ! Exactly the video I needed to see though. TYSM :)
I use the 1.4x teleconverter on my Canon RF 100-500 in well lit daytime scenes where the subject is stationary or moving slow enough to not require subject tracking in the camera settings. However, for my backyard photo blind, I find that leaving the extender out of the equation did exactly what you emphasized- gave me more options. More f/stop range, lower ISO range needed, better subject tracking, slightly faster autofocus, and a shorter lens with better balance to maneuver within the confined space of the blind. It also helps that my three primary target areas are less than 20 feet from the front of the blind. In that scenario, neither the 1.4x nor the 2x extender would offer any benefit. As for the 2x, I have a hard time justifying the purchase for something that would be used on so few rare occasions due to it's f/stop limitations.
Thanks for sharing!
As for my own use of teleconverters, on the Olympus m4/3 cameras I would recommend staying under f/11 after adding the teleconverter. If you can't do that because the base lens is at f5.6 or higher, you're probably not going to be happy with a 2x extender. I have the 100-400mm zoom and the 2x extender puts it out at almost f/13. It's not good out there. Too much diffraction. On the other hand, with the Sony 200-600mm lens and the 2x extender, you can kind of get away with it. Not gonna work with birds in flight, but for static objects that are far away with good light...it's worth it. Better to use that 2x extender on the 600 f4. Even the 100-400mm at f5.6 is a stretch for the 2x extender. And remember, as you extend any lens, you lose depth of field.
I know you did this 2 years ago, but thank you. I was going to get one, and you helped me to NOT get one. I have canon RF 6 mark11.
Excellent video!
I use the Canon R6 800mm f/11 with the 1.4x extender shooting wildlife and birds in flight.
Getting some excellent results.
Have two custom settings setup, one without crop mode, one with crop mode.
For stationary subjects, crop mode gives even more reach and works really well with the 1.4x extender.
Birds in flight without crop mode is easier to acquire fast moving subjects.
But when the subject is far away, say a Bald Eagle in flight, crop mode plus the 1.4x extender works very well.
I would like to try the RF800. I reckon that would be a great walk around or cycling lens
It is
Interesting. That lens with the extender is certainly pushing the limits a lot, but I also had some decent results
@@jan_wegener thanks, I did go and get one, and am loving it. I dont love the restricted focus area though.
@@nordic5490 yes, bit annoying
I have no need of an extender as I have a Canon 800mm F11 and don’t care about carrying it around....BUT. There is a circumstance. I have a sigma 100-400 f5.6-6.3 with the R5. Shooting butterflies and dragon flies is nearly impossible to get them life size since using any macro lens is too close, and they flit. But using the sigma 2x TC-2001 along with the 100-400 on my R5 works great. Focusing distance remains at 57 inches. Sigma says that the 2x will focus fine at f/12.6 although just a tad slower than the RF 800. Lowered image quality is taken up by the 45 mp, a little sharpening and the fact that you are shooting at F12.6. And 2 stop reduction in light is dealt with by the R5’s incredible performance at ISO 8000, and the fact that macro photographers often add 1/8 to 1/4 power flash. Using this combo the magnification is 1:0.98 at the 1.4x and 1:1.42 at the 2.0x.
birding with a 150-600 Sigma and a 2x extender at F13 really works great. I use that on a tripod/gimball with a Canon R6.
Exactly the questions I have for my Sony and my brother has for his Canon. Curious why you didn’t compare the 100-500 + 1.4x. Not sure you’d miss the extra 100mm and the aperture is more equitable. Some notes on the Sony + 1.4 with the A7RIV. 1) I do see a slight bit of image degradation at full resolution, but have not compared a scaled down image taken with the 1.4x, 2) focus clearly does not pick up as fast with the 1.4x, even with good light, 3) using APS-C instead of the 1.4 TC, yields faster frame rate and faster AF on my A7RIV (uncompressed RAW). All that said, I use the 1.4x often for still, like you show in your review. Thanks for your excellent reviews and advice. They are very helpful.
Use the 1.4tc with the 200600 on the A1 often, results are great. For more reach i assign a button to APS-C mode.. gets me over 1000mm with still excellent results. No need for the 2x TC
Thank you Jan. This video really helped me to understand that I need to stop down using the RF 100-500mm + RF 1.4x on my R6. Can't wait to get out there and try this. I need to stop being concerned with high ISO from the DSLR days. I'm really happy I switched over to mirrorless.
Totally, the DSLR days of bad AF and higher noise are luckily mostly behind us :D
The 100-500 wide open isn't too bad from my experience
The 1.4x is a fixed piece of gear in my bag. The AF is really good and the image is really good, too. I hesitate to get a 2x for the R5 because the older 2x was too slow to focus on the Dslr cameras and unless I am close to the subject the image is not that good. I mainly use the 1.4x. I did use the 2xIII with the 600II and R5 in a wood canopy area and the eye AF tracked the bird. I was pleasantly surprised. The R5 changed some of my thoughts about the 2x in a positive way, but I will probably stay away from it. I use the 600II, 300 2.8 , 100-500 and 100-400 for bird photography. I used the 300 2.8, 2xIII and 1D4 and ut is a nice walk around 600 with pretty fast focus and nice images. A lot of photographers use the 2x with 300 and 400 2.8 with really good results. Don't slap any extender on a cheap zoom lens. If you start out with crap, you end up with a bigger piece of crap.
The one thing that's great about mirrorless is that there's hardly any drop in AF speed with the extenders, including the 2x
Thank you for a very interesting and informative video. All my lenses are EF. When using my telephoto’s 300 f2.8 ll & 600 f4 ll I use both the 1.4 & 2 with good results as long as I stop down and fill the frame with the subject. With my 100-400 ll I never bother with the 2X. I have an R5 since this past March, My back up body is a 5D MKlV. Rather then diving into a lot of expensive RF lenses & converters, I chose the path of the RF 800mm F-11. For an inexpensive lens, it actually offers “in the right conditions” some very acceptable results. I really benefitted from your masterclass and recommend it to any bird photographer wishing to improve and refine their process.Thank you and keep up the great work.
Yes, extenders work well with those lenses.
Glad I could help you with the Masterclass :)
Awesome video Jan! For me, I have given up on extenders with my R5 and 100-500. I get better results just cropping in then I uprez the photo with Topaz Photo AI or Gigapixel.
Your video on extenders is exceptional. It is the best “maybe” answer I have ever heard. I would really appreciate it if you would take this discussion another step further. I shoot some wildlife (25%) and a lot of sports (50%). My camera of choice is the R5, so that I have plenty of pixels to work with. I also purposely shoot a little wide so that I can get the action and crop later in post. Lately, rather than using my 1.4 extend, I have been using the in-camera crop feature and have set my controls to change from full frame to 1.6 crop with a single button. I am not sure if this is helping or hindering the overall photo quality. It does allow me to switch back and forth quickly and easily depending on how close I am to the action. My concern is that I may be just as well off shooting full frame and cropping in post.
you would be, there's no IQ difference between shooting in crop mode and cropping, it might help you and the AF tho to have the subject larger in the frame
A few days ago I used R5 +RF 100-500 with 1.4X Extender for shooting migrating raptor birds in flight. The focusing was great and never feel any drop of focusing performance. The image quality was quite acceptable.
Onlything that concerned was to set the image stabilization mode to Mode 3 and custom set focus tracking otherwise pictures will blur when bird fly passing overhead with high speed and accelleration.
Also the combination of R5+adapter Viltrox EF-R2+ EF1.4X + EF600M2 can have a good pictures and tracking performance of a pale-capped pigeon in fligt in front of tree background.
Interesting observation in regards to the IS mode.
Another great video - the analysis at end couldn't have been better. But will add a comment - the problem of atmospheric distortion. At some point, even with the best gear, the subject will be far enough away that atmospheric distortion can significantly decrease the IQ of a photo. Can't tell you the number of photogrphers who ask me why their setup isn't performing as expected. When you look over their photos they are shooting from a hot field, over cooler water/vegetation, back over hot ground. - or - shooting from cooler vegetation (in forested area), over a hot field, for a subject in cooler water. And doing this with 1000mm or higher. For me, if I need anything more than 800mm (prefer 600 or lower) - I'm either walking closer to the subject or taking a photo knowing it will probably not meet my standards. With this in mind, if I need an extender, use the 1.4x 95% of the time. It has a nominal effect on IQ. The 2.0x on the other hand is noticeable, even in the best of conditions. Only use the 2.0x on the 300/400 prime lenses and with the 70-200mm 2.8 to achieve a 140-400mm with a constant 5.6. Once again - atmospheric distortion can be a major problem independent of gear. Even using a 400 2.8 prime, with 2x converter, on a 1.6x crop body (1280mm at 5.6), sitting on a tripod with plenty of light - might get you some extremely soft photos due to atmospheric distortion. Atmospheric distortion can also mess with the AF system as well.
Yes, that's one of the main factors of bad images
I got a 2x TC for my 75-300 lens. I got it cheap and I like the look. I get f/5.6 wide open at around 600mm on the tripod. I can read the street sign 2 blocks away LOL.
I agree with your preference to have the bird smaller and crop rather than loose DOF but have a larger bird in the image area. I still prefer extenders only with prime lenses and only when I can't carry a prime to cover the affective focal length of the prime + 1/4x (IE, using a 400mm + 1.4x vs 600mm). My 400mm f/4 DO is just much more portable with and without a 1.4x vs the 600mm f/4. And I can handhold the 400mm DO with and without the 1.4x as well. I can hand hold the 600mm, but for like for 3 seconds and then I have to take a nap!
thanks for sharing :)
Nice video again 😃 I disagree on the point about high iso though. The high iso performance is more or less the same the last 10 years, but the software for removing it is getting a lot better. canon 1Dx, Canon 5DIII , Nikon D4/D5, Nikon D800E, D810 where all awsome at high iso. And its important to compare scaled to same size 😃 Can see the value of converters tho, considering buying one for my Nikon 300/4PF 🤗
Yes and no. I didn't feel comfortable using my 5D cameras at ISO 12800 and ISO like that.
I never see the point of scaling images to the same size. If I do that, I could make them all 8mpix and no camera would have noise...
I only use my 1.4x extender on my Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 IS II. And only when there is plenty of light.
The beauty of putting a full frame lens on a cropped sensor DSLR , is that in effect that lens has a built in teleconverter !! - that being said , even though I own 1.4 and 2X teleconverters for my 70-200 f 2.8 lens , I rarely, if ever , use the 2X teleconverter , even if the lens is stabilised on a tripod
Yes, I never found any 2x TC to be great on any 70-200mm lens
Very good video Jan. I am a newbie/prosumer and most interested in video. Even though the photography/camera jargon is still a challenge for me, I followed almost everything you were describing! Thanks a lot!
Glad it was helpful!
all depends what you use a converter for. Sometimes it's useful and sometimes it's just disastrous experimentation. I put a 1.4 onto the EF 100 2.8 and it made the lens a great deal more functional and gave me the images I wanted. Made it focus more accurately... for "fun" have put a 2x +1.4 on a 50-500 4--6.3 to shoot the moon, but never do that for any serious work. Adding an extension to a 35-135 3.5-6.3 didn't help at all and rather hindered more than helped. So is matter of test and fail and when possible just better lens is best solution. Have also put extension on a 50 2.5 to go microscopic... it's possible with the 60 2.8 as well, but the 60 2.8 has extremely fine focus and can shoot aphids nicely without. Problem can also be that an extension can create imbalance between lens and camera and create stress. Depends on lens, camera combination. Sometimes it's useful and a lot of times not. Moved to Sigma 105 2.8 which is far better lens than Canon 100 2.8. All manual, no IS and handheld. No tripod here. It's too much to carry in bush.
Exactly. It's trial and error in the end and finding the gear where it works
Actualy 100-500 + 1.4 is certainly better than 800 f/11. WIth x2 you are correct, better use the 800mm.
Yes, the 1.4 is pretty good on it
@@jan_wegener I was surprised, nearly as good as the old nikon 200-500.
Great Vid Jan as ever...I shoot my A9 in crop mode nearly all the time for birds and wildlife because with Sony the focus as you say works better and you can see in more detail the subject for more accurate pin point focus.
Great for video. For photography, it's not necessary, but some may prefer the wysiwyg part of using a TC while others may prefer or do better without it.
Good point!
I use my EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II almost always with the 2x extender. Contemplating a used EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II as well. On my 1DIV the latter will produce a focal length of 1040mm FF equivalent. I'm optimistic that if I get an MILC; these combos will work fine!
they will
Thank you for the video ! It's interesting.
In wildlife photography the speed is crucial. With 2x teleconverters you loose not only 2 stops, but also focus speed&accuracy and some IQ.
When you increase ISO to compensate the 2 stops, you will have higher noise and less details.
For static subjects and plenty of light, the teleconvertor will shine. For everything else, the TC will be a disatvantage.
So the most important thing I learnt about teleconverter is to avoid keeping mounted on all the time.
Yes, you are right. It's not good to have them as "default". They're tools to help you when needed. With the mirrorless cameras, AF speed with 2x is greatly improved
Great video Jan.
I REALLY wish that Canon did a 500mm f5.6 L series prime like Nikon has with their 500mm pf f5.6. It's a great price point with being so much cheaper than a 600 or even 500mm f4 prime.
A 500mm f5.6 prime to me would be good for handheld birds in flight and would be great with teleconvertors which wouldn't increase the f stop too much
Canon might think the 100-500 covers this for now. Not the same of course
I loved this video of yours Jan! You have really backed your points with solid data and clear explanations. Thanks for sharing!
Glad it was helpful!
I generally shoot the 100-400GM on the a7RIV. I had the 200-600 for a while, but I'm primarily a landscape photographer and only shoot occasional wildlife so the size/weight of that lens was impractical for me for how infrequently I shot with it. I go back and forth between using the 1.4x TC and the RIV's in crop mode. I've gotten fantastic results from each. I guess, like you said, it just depends haha. I also have had many times where I was shooting with the 135 GM and feel that Sony missed an opportunity by not making that lens to accept TC's.
Sounds great! Yeah, the 200-600 is quite big. Yes, that would be nice with TCs. Just like Canon's weird choice of not allowing the new 70-200 to take TCs
Quite similar for me - A7R IV, 100-400GM, 1.4x TC and doing landscape. Just never ever use the crop mode, but crop in post - there iss little reason to throw an inflexibly fixed part of the image away prematurely. The rare cases where you defenitely know that you do not want to crop less lateron do neither jushify designating a custom button nor Fn menu item for it nor spending the extra time to switch without these.
I find the RF800 F11 challenging for birds in flight in on cloudy days and in low light conditions my ISO can exceed 5,000 so I end up using my EF100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter at f8. A big advantage I notice is the size of the autofocus area when using the 100-400 and teleconverter. It appears to be near 100% coverage while the 800mm f11 is dramatically smaller and can be tricky with fast moving birds.
Once you learn to denoise, iso 5000 isnt high at all on the R5. I found the practical limit for my R5 that still preserves some feather detail is iso 12800.
Wow - as usual very informative! I tried extenders in the past and never liked them but I bought a Canon R6 recently and may give them another try but of course I'll wait until I can afford a new RF lens as I'm still using EF lenses. Clear and concise comments - you are the best at this! Hope you are well down under - thank you for this - take care and be safe out there....
Thanks Fredrick :)
Extenders work differently depending on the lens. I use Sony and I had horrible results with one of their premium lenses and amazing results with others.
Fantastic video that will have me rethinking how I use teleconverters moving forward. I certainly have experienced the inconsistency that these can bring to the table. It has me debating if I should sell my Canon 1.4 and Fuji 1.4....but then I'll occasionally get those shot where I'm amazed at what it helped me achieve. Thanks for the great content. I'll definitely start using it more for emphasizing already good shots instead of trying to us them to just get extra reach.
Nothing wrong with using them. Just need to be aware of the potential issues arising. Like I wouldn't have TCs attached all the time.
16:04 this is a really important consideration which is very rarely discussed - and why I strongly prefer (even need) a high MPIX camera with a long, fast prime for my style of shooting as I can get excellent background extinction while preserving the subject in focus. So Canon - lets get that mythical 80-120 MPIX R5s sooner than later.
The main key for using teleconverters, is that they are only really useful when you have plenty of light as well. I like your points, on the fact that problems which exist without a TC, are just really amplified by using the TC…
Yes and no, I have had some good results even in low light, but the better the light the better of course.
i will definitely use the camera Super35 to zoom in instead of the converter.
very comprehensively explained, well done!
Glad you liked it!
Why buy these long lenses when you can add up extenders? :)))
My position with Sony is why buy extenders when you can buy an APS-C sensors, works with all lenses and only slightly more expensive than a TC.
For others TCs are cheaper, work with more lenses therefore might be a harder decision.
better video about this topic.thanks
Thanks for video Jan, been on the fence about getting TC for a while now. With pictures like your Boobook shot, ive found myself with situations like this the closer you get the more it looks like you are looking upto the bird, rather than being eye level so this means the closer you get the more sky will enter your background. Sometimes if I remember I will step back and get a less detailed shot to get the nicer composition, I don't own a converter yet but I feel like I would stay back a little getting more eye level shots and not scaring birds off.
That's what I did. I walked further back and up the hill with the extender to get a better shot
@@jan_wegener Yep I ended up getting a 1.4x converter :) just had to re-watch this vid and just tried down sizing some of my higher ISO images shot with TC and it works wonders going from 61MP to 29MP, having those extra pixels on the bird really helps with flexibility of the file. I might even try downsizing some of my older images that filled the frame.
Can't wait to see you review the new Canon RF 1200mm and RF 800mm. ;)
I have used TC's for 30 + years and honestly there is too much drama around things when folks don't want to practice their skill. Most don't understand the magnification vs the actual extra reach you get.
The newest teleconverter's are really good, especially the new mirrorless TC's. I use a Nikon TC-14E III on both my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL and 500mm f/4E VR FL lenses. By the way Jan Wegener, you don't lose any "depth of field" or "background blur" with teleconverter's. They make a 400mm f/2.8 into an 800mm f/5.6 all day everyday. If anything at close distances like minimum focusing distance they would give you slightly more background blur or separation because you'd have more focal length, but the same minimum focusing distance. Therefor it would make your subject look bigger, it would increase your maximum reproduction ratio at minimum focusing distance. But teleconverters absolutely DO NOT effect depth of field, but they do effect f/stop, but at an exact focal length to aperture equivalent!
@@patricksmith2553 yup
Long awaited video, Jan. Very good.
As you point out several times, It's actually a questions about acceptance all the time. I did use it om my Canon EOS 100-400,but not on my Canon EOS 100-500, but I will try it.
Thank you for taking it to the limit.
Kind Regards, Jan
Glad you enjoyed it. Always interesting to see what happens when you push the gear
Can not agree more on "it depends" and especially the remarks about how external factors like atmospheric effects and also camera movement/vibration can play a bigger role in disappointing results than the TC and lens itself.
With the TC basically magnifying the image the lens projects its also pretty obvious that resulting sharpness depends a lot on the lens and sensor. A very sharp lens on a relatively low resolution sensor has a good amount of headroom to add a TC and magnify the image, while a lesser lens that already is pushed to or even beyond its limits on a high resolution sensor, any magnification will only show the lack of sharpness more drastically.
Accordingly, I happily used a (low resolution) Canon 6D, (very sharp at its time) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and Extender EF 2x III. The results were not as impressively sharp on a pixel by pixel basis as the bare lens, but way better than any crop and not worse than going to some less sharp L lens, and thus perfectly acceptable.
Nowadays, on the (very high resolution) Sony A7R IV, I went with the (quite sharp) FE 100-400MM F4.5-5.6 GM OSS to get the same reach.
I meanwhile also did get the 1.4x TC, part of the motivation was being able to combine quite a good offer with some cashback coupon on top.
Results with that combination a the resulting open aperture of f/8 are easily noticeable soft (looking at 100%), the sweet spot with very good image quality seems to be f/16,
with f/18 and f/11 being hardly worse, all definitely leading to more detail than
just cropping in and good enough to still crop in somewhat on top of it, if needed.
For anything wildlife or other action that needs more than 400mm reach, the 200-600 probably is the better choice, but for my almost exclusively static work (landscape, cityscape, architecture) it does work fine if I really want to pick out some detail beyond 400mm. Having to go to the smaller apertures also is rather beneficial in terms of depth of field.
The A7rIV definitely seems to be a quite challenging camera when it comes to the usage of many lenses. Not the first time I hear people saying that.
You're right that in that case the addition of a TC creates an even bigger challenge
That's a great feedback on teleconverters Jan, I have the R5 but I have only just received the 100-500mm rf after waiting months, only had it a few days, so your video was great timing. I have the 1.4x cv but was deliberating on the 2x, after your talk I now think I will just wait and see how much I need the 2x cv. Your feedback has been really valuable. I have commiserated on whether I should have gone Sony with the 200-600mm but have been Canon for so many years that the menu and buttons are almost instinctive and the versatility of the 100-500mm more appealing. So I also really like your positive opinion about versatility. I am also really interested in doing your editing course.
Happy to help :)
I am sure you will enjoy my Masterclass :)
Many thanks! This video is just the answer to a question that has worried me lately.
Glad it was helpful!
Very timely video, Jan…. been debating getting the 1.4 extender to go with the 100-500 and my R6.
Thanks for the excellent content 😊
Glad to help!
I was on the look out for the Sigma 1.4x converter for my Sigma 100-400 but I ending up snagging a great deal the Sigma 2x converter for L-mount instead. I was really worried about the image quality because of my hang ups about ISO performance. But the truth is I'm using ISO far higher than I have used on previous cameras with sensational results. The sensors of today are far better than the sensors of yesterday. I'm using a Lumix S1 and S5 with the Sigma 100-400 and Sigma 2x Teleconverter.
Thanks for sharing
Great explanations with regards to extenders and cropping. You have gained a new subscriber.
Awesome, thank you!
Really thorough guide. Many thanks, was really helpful
Glad you liked it!
Very helpful video, Jan. But I believe I will have to watch it again to grasp your recommendation! 😆
or ask me :P
I love your clear explanations!
Great :)
There are three versions of Canon ef tele extenders 1.4x and 2x , 1.4x ii and 2x ii , 1.4x iii and 2x iii . Each newer version has slightly different optics. Optical quality depends more on your lens than the extender. A prime lens would be sharper depending on elements in the lens of course higher quality glass equally higher quality images. A zoom lens have more optical glass that the light must pass through, so image quality will suffer slightly over a prime. Again depending on glass element quality.
With Canon super telephoto lenses image quality is fantastic and some of Canon newest zooms 100-400 mii L lens are tack sharp. As well as Canon 200-400 mm L lens with its built in 1.4 extender images are also tack sharp.
Some other feature differences are dust resistant or finger print resistant coatings.
The version ii models offer a new rear dust seal.
Version iii offers fluorine optical coatings to resist fongerprints it has different electronics eliminating compatibility to older bodies. But allow more or all focus points to be utilized with certain camera bodies (currently): (1dx ii and III, 5d miv)and lenses.
I always upgrade the extenders when new ones come out, since they're seems to be better. Yes, the lens used is the most important factor.
@@jan_wegeneryes, I upgraded to the version 3 only after a full frame body allowed auto focus at f8. I've eliminated the original versions from my gear. Keeping the second and third versions. For mixing with a couple of 7D mii crop bodies and my 5d ii and 5dsr full frame bodies. Third versions are used primarily on my 1dx mii and 5D miv bodies.
work's nice on my 600 f/4 mark II the 1.4 tc a beautiful 850mm at 5.6
I think the best extender for the money is a Canon 90D! Using that glass on a crop sensor!
Great video as always. Very informative. Good point about using 2x. I was shooting Sandhill Cranes and used 2x on a prime lens. The heat haze ruined everything. Very soft or sometimes not focused properly. I will use 2x when the subject is close. This is kind of contradictory to the idea that we use 2x for far away subject. 2x amplifies everything good or bad. RF 100-500 with 1.4x is good even for BIF. But I would use it with 2x for bird portrait.
Yes exactly. The 2x is weirdly more for things that are close rather than too far away
@@jan_wegener and for my general shooting, it is almost always tiny birds which are reasonably close. About the only time I ever shoot anything really far away, is so that I can them zoom in on it, for identification. My camera sees better than I do 🙂 But I never expect to process and post those shots.
Blimey , all those shots look superb with or without extenders , people can be to critical
Thanks Jan!As usually you rock!
Thank you!
Still waiting for that 10-1000 f1.2 which is cheap, compact and lightweight and has excellent sharpness throughout its range. 🤞
Excellent video Jan - I generally lean towards shooting wider apertures for mammals (as it is very hard to get the whole body in the plane anyway unless you have good light and separation to stop down a to f/10 or so) so as long as the eyes and face are sharp I'm ok. For birds, however I do try to stop down when possible to get more of the subject in focus.
Yes, I think the smaller the bird/animal the closer you are and the more impact DOF has
Nice work I use the canon EF 300+2x and 100-400+1.4x on an R5 and the 300+2x combo gives sharper results and better contrast.
Yes, a good prime like that should always outperform a zoom, especially with extenders
@@jan_wegener Yeah, but my point was mainly about 1.4x vs 2x and that the 2x on a prime is much better than a 1.4x on a zoom. So it is not the 14 xor 2x by itself that makes a difference but what kind of lens you attach it to. It took me some time to get my head around this :-)
@@dimitristsagdis7340 yes, the underlying lens is the most important
Such great work with these videos and comparisons, thank you!
Glad you like them!
Great video Jan - glad you are helping to dispel some of the myths out there (Jared Polin!) about how bad teleconverters are.
Happy to help. I think it really depends what you are shooting. When you are shooting people (or street signs :D) cropping may very well be better. And with these you usually don't have the issue that they move too far away and you can just go closer if need be. For birds and wildlife there's a lot more factors in play that favour teleconverters I believe. Like smoother background, being able to be a bit further a way from the animal etc.