Re: Canon Cameras (regarding TCs)

Subject: Re: Canon Cameras (regarding TCs)
From: Ingo Waschkies <>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:28:55 +0100
Hi all,

   there's a useful comparison for the use of TCs done here (scroll down a
It's for a 600 mm lens but as far as I know the 500 f4 actually even deals a
bit better with TCs than the 600mm. There's little doubt that the conclusion
from this studio test is that
a) the 2x TC gives additional detail compared to 1.4x TC but
b) you need to be able to shoot at f11 to really benefit from this
c) stacking ain't worth it

Of course this is but one guy testing his equipment in his way.

Still helpful I think. I have done the same tests on my 500 f4 with
approximately the same conclusion. My 2x shots look a bit more mushy than
his, but maybe that's because I used a Kenko Pro (tested on a MkIV). After
some effort in post processing I get a good looking image with more detail
than with my Canon 1.4x. In real world conditions, images with the 2x tend
to be a little on the soft side with a lack of contrast, and they definitely
need quite a bit more post processing, but if the light conditions are
superb, I'd consider it worthwhile using the 2x TC.

I think the main conclusion with the 2xTC is to always avoid it if possible
and try to get closer, but if you can't approach the bird and the conditions
are really great then it's better to have a shot with the 2x than a very
heavy crop with a 1.4x. This will never result in a picture that looks
stunning on a pixel-level, but it will give a picture that looks pretty much
perfect if you do a 13cmx19cm print from a full frame. For web pictures
there's simply no doubt that the 2x TC is worthwhile.
The truth is also that it is always some hassle to change the TCs, care
needs to be taken to avoid dust and scratches, so in the vast majority of
days I leave the 1.4x permanently on my 500 f4. When I was shooting with a
300 f2.8 the 2x converter was pretty much permanently on, unsless I go for
flight shots in which case I take all converters off.

Just my 2cents,

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Alistair McKeough <
> wrote:

> My experience mirrors David's. In fact, I sold the 2x converter for that
> reason.
> Gitzo tripod, Markins M20, Wimberley sidekick, all locked down tight and
> still...
> Are the images good? Yes. But you do notice they're not *quite* as sharp
> and
> I find it annoying! Maybe I'm too much of a pixel peeper though Akos - I
> know Art Morris happily uses a 2x when he needs the reach.
> Also, bear in mind that Dave is the sort of lucky bugger that can get his
> hands on an 800 when needs the reach... :)
> Al
> On 26 November 2010 08:22, David Stowe <> wrote:
> > Akos
> > The 500mm is such a sharp lens that you get used to a certain level of
> > quality. With a 1.4x I don't really notice the difference, whereas with a
> 2x
> > I do notice a difference in quality. Nothing to do with technique. I also
> > have reasonable shots with stacked converters but you could never say
> they
> > are as sharp as the 500mm by itself.
> > Obviously its easy to make these images look sharp when resizing for web
> > forums and adding sharpening etc, but at 100% i personally find a
> > difference.
> > Cheers
> > Dave
> >
> > On 26/11/2010, at 7:43 AM, Ákos Lumnitzer wrote:
> >
> > David
> >
> > I have to disagree about the Canon EF 2x. Maybe you have a bad copy or I
> > have a fabulous one. Under the right circumstances and using solid
> technique
> > I most certainly get more than good enough quality images and I don't
> even
> > use a 500/4L yet. Even stacking a 1.4x and a 2x I can get very good
> results
> > (hand holding!). Just food for thought. I admit, I am no pixel peeper,
> but
> > certainly have a very good grasp of this funny thing called photography
> and
> > professional nature photographers world-wide like what I am capable of
> > producing.  :) What my point is that there are many factors to consider
> with
> > converters; light, lens, technique, converter quality (individuals most
> > likely differ) and so on. I won't even touch the subject of cropping
> > (excessively) as many now do because they have 15+ megapixel cameras.
> >
> > respectfully yours
> >
> > Akos
> > (just an amateur in many worlds) :)
> >
> >
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: 

My latest bird pictures on pbase:

Ingo Waschkies
Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis
Laboratoire J.A. Dieudonné
Parc Valrose
06108 Nice (France)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU