High-quality zoom lenses are expensive, usually running over $2,000, and as such, most of us are always looking to get more mileage out of what we already own. The thought of doubling your zoom's reach with an affordable 2x teleconverter is definitely appealing, but will it work in practice? This great video review takes a look at the situation for Sony shooters.
Coming to you from Tim - AlphaShooters, this excellent video comparison takes a look at the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II paired with the FE 2x Teleconverter (making it a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens) compared to the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS. In addition to the loss of two stops of aperture, traditionally, you sacrifice autofocus performance and image quality with a teleconverter (especially with a more extreme 2x model). However, in this case, the loss of aperture essentially brings you in line with the 100-400mm lens, and more importantly, the autofocus performance is quite impressive (it certainly surprised me). On the other hand, you also have to consider if the loss of sharpness is acceptable for your work, but overall, I was quite impressed and rather surprised by how well the teleconverter performed. It seems like a viable alternative to another expensive lens if you would like to save a nice chunk of change. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
I added a 2x TC to the 800mm RF lens with my Canon RP. It is amazing to hand-hold 1600mm.
This can get out of hand, though.
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/show-us-what-your-adapted-lens-looks-like-...
Ive been using the 1.4TC on the new Fuji XF70-300 and found the sharpness of the lens to be largely the same as without. I know 2TC's are traditionally supposed to be worse however.
This was taken at 420mm, f8, ISO4000, unless im blind id say it performs well.
Yes, but no. This is similar to the "Should I buy a pro lens or a cheap lens?" senario. What would you do then? If cheap, buy the converter. Pro, buy the lens.
Depends on the lens and the teleconverter. If either one is below-par, the combo is going to suffer.
But yea, I've known high-quality 1.4x teleconverters that were essentially invisible on high-quality lenses, like the OM Zuiko 350mm ƒ/2.8 with the matched OM 1.4-XA.
Let me roll back my comment. This is about Sony converters. Sony converters only work with Sony GM white lenses... and the 200-600mm G. What's that come out to, like 6 lenses?
When I formulated my original post, I was thinking of 30 years ago when, on a budget, I bought a converter from a pawn shop and effectively doubled the lens count in my bag. The converter worked with every lens I had. Wait, maybe "worked" is not the correct word. It was mechanically compatible and could be mounted to my camera with every lens I had. I actually loved what it did to my nifty-fifty! However, it magnified flaws in some of the lenses. And the need for light with others was a bit of a problem. I eventually bought a couple more lenses at the focal lengths I needed.
So, yes, in this situation, especially with a converted New 70-200 against the old 100-400, I'd invest in the 70-200 and two converters. However, as a general rule, I'll use an unconverted lens before a converted one and I'd definitely use the 70-200 unconverted inside of the 200mm mark.
"as a general rule, I'll use an unconverted lens before a converted one"
I think we are in heated agreement. :-)
But an outstanding teleconverter on an outstanding lens is worth considering, especially if that outstanding lens set you back four figures, and the one you turn it into would be close to five figures. There's a lot I'd rather spend money on than a 500mm ƒ/4!
You absolutely can use a TC.
I use my 2X with my 100-400mm MII with indistinguishable results from not using it.
Canon makes TCs that match some lenses that are that good.
Other makes seem to fall apart but that is not the issue with Canon unless perhaps one hyper pixel peeper peeps pixel by pixel.