2X Tele-converter success?

[Bowhunter]

I was wondering if anyone was having good success taking wildlife pics using a 2x tele-converter?

[RikWriter]

Depends on the lens and the available light. I've gotten some okay shots using the 2X with the 300 2.8 and the 500 f4. Didn't do so well with the 70-200 f2.8 though.

[scot079]

Same here. A nice lens like the 300 2.8 IS + 2x TC gives VERY decent results.

[Dave 1942]

Me too.. I use my 2X tele on my 300 f2.8 and my 500 f4 with great results..

Dave

[Larry Weinman]

The 2X works well on my 300mm f 2.8 especially if I can stop down to f 8 but even at f 5.6

[wayne_eddy]

works well in the right conditions on my 400 f/5.6

I have my 2x Siggy for sale if anyone is interested, I rarely use it and need funds for just about everything it seems ($5000 car repairs, two knee operations, new hot water system and a few other things.)

[samsen]

I am happy with every lens I used it on (Physically it is a bit bigger than for eg Sigma's 2x TC and wont fit physically on lenses with shorter rare element clearance, but Sigma does better here).
It's sometimes hard if not impossible to say if TC was on or not just by looking at IQ. I love it. Only drawback IMO is that few stops you loss so if light is plenty, it worth using it quite well.

Wayne; My full sympathy for you. Please someone buy his tools for a decent price! Even one of the things you mentioned are such a crushing pain that don't know how you are doing with all in once.

[Tom Reichner]

I guess I'm the exception. I have the 2x and used it quite a bit on my 400 2.8. I hate it. When you use it on a 2.8, the AF is still supposed to work. Well, it does focus, but only after an enormous delay of 2 to 5 seconds. In my opinion, if AF takes more than a second to lock in, then it doesn't work. I can't even imagine using the 2x TV on a 5.6 or an f4, as some of you have mentioned. The subjects I photograph are constantly moving. MF just simply isn't an option. Even if a bird is perched on a branch, you want to focus on it's eyeball. Not the spot on the head just behind the eye, not the base of the bill. The eyeball. If you MF on the eye, what happens if the bird turns his head ever so slightly between the time when you achieve focus and when you release the shutter? Now your point of focus is not on the eyeball itself, and the image is unsuccessful. So the way I shoot, the 2x is only a valid option if used on a 2.8 lens. But then the AF takes so long to lock in the opportunity is over by time you are focused. I challenge any of you to find a full-time, professional wildlife photographer who uses one of these things and claims that IQ doesn't suffer tremendously. So, anyone want to buy my 2x TC? If you all are happy with it, then I'm sure someone else would be, too.

[BradM]

Got to argue with you a bit here Tom. Artie Morris, Adams Jones and plenty of others at the top of the wildlife & bird shooting use the 2X with very very good success.

Spent the weekend with Adam and we discussed some of the toughest shooting one can do and what equipment he uses and recommends. He is regularly doing Africa photo safaris for pro photographers with Joe Van Os.

Adam is one of Canon's Explorers of Light and has access to all of their equipment for use. He also believes crop is a dirty word and doesn't do it to his images.His regular kit in Africa is the 500mm f/4 with the 1.4x and 2x in front of a 1Ds Mk2. The shots he gets are spectacular regardless of what extension he is using.

We spent two hours over dinner looking at some of his images on his laptop of the big predators in action shot with the 500mm and 2x, you can't get much faster than a Cheetah on the tail of an Impala in full stride and his shots at full frame were incredible. And dozens of others we went through were just as good if not better.

To say that these pros aren't using them and not getting great results just isn't quite right. They will tell you that IQ does take a hit but for the distance one is shooting or one can get to the subject is limited by circumstances or law you cannot do any better.

Adam's shots of lion kit's at 1000mm is pulling out each whisker and eye brows at the full frame, it works and it works well enough these guys are selling shots every single day and even better filling their seminars with people wanting to learn how they are doing it which is where the real money is.

[Tom Reichner]

th Joe Van Os.

Adam is one of Canon's Explorers of Light and has access to all of their equipment for use. He also believes crop is a dirty word and doesn't do it to his images.His regular kit in Africa is the 500mm f/4 with the 1.4x and 2x in front of a 1Ds Mk2. The shots he gets are spectacular regardless of what extension he is using.



Brad, Did Adam say what he does to get AF to work with the 2x, and work rapidly, at f4? It's been my understanding that if you use a 2x the AF will only work at f2.8. Even on my 400 2.8, the AF is extremely slow to find what it wants and lock in. Without any converter on it, it rapidy finds what it wants and locks in instantaneously. For many types of wildlife shooting AF must be very, very fast. Shooting birds in flight is something you can forget about if AF is not rapid. If he's doing anything to get the AF to work the way it was designed to with the 2x on there, please let me know - I could really use this thing if AF would lock in rapidly, especially at the closer distances where I want to fill the frame with portrait/head shots of big game animals that are on the move. Thanks, Tom

[BradM]

He is using a 1Ds mk2 body which allows AF (all 1D bodies do so) to work up to f/8 albeit with only the center AF point. So with the f/4 lens it is "seen" as an f/8.

If you are using a xxD body then it would require a f/2.8 lens to allow the use of the 2x and keep AF. And while the AF system on the xxD's are good they are no way in the same class as the 1D's, it is a night to day difference.

This center point only limits the possiblities of the custom AF functions the 1D's allow. On my mk2 I have it set to expand to 11 additional AF points when using it AI servo but if I put the 2x on it only the center point is active.

He is shooting just like the rest of us, center point (though sometimes all enabled if the aperture restrictions don't apply) and AI servo. His technique for this was nothing new to me on any of my bodies nor I think probably to you.

[Tom Reichner]

Was it taking alot longer for AF to lock in for him with the 2x on there? Much longer than if there was no extender on it? When you use your 2x, do you have trouble with it taking longer to focus? That's my chief gripe with the 2x.

[scot079]

Tom, any lens/body combo will focus slower with a converter attached...but you're saving a few Gs by getting the reach of the 800/5.6 (in your case) without paying for it. Sounds like a good deal to me!:-)

In all seriousness, I do notice a little sluggishness in AF with the 2x attached compared even to the 1.4x. Have a good one:-)

[RikWriter]

He also believes crop is a dirty word and doesn't do it to his images.

That seems very odd to me.

[BradM]

That seems very odd to me.

I don't know why, if you can frame a shot as you want it why crop it?

Pixel density means less loss when going big, it also means if a client wants or needs an image cropped to fit their needs the density is still there to support it without interpolation.

[BradM]

Was it taking alot longer for AF to lock in for him with the 2x on there? Much longer than if there was no extender on it? When you use your 2x, do you have trouble with it taking longer to focus? That's my chief gripe with the 2x.

The time to acquire focus does increase, but when I use mine I follow the advice from a bunch of pros to pre-focus to cut down that time needed to acquire focus. It need not be completely accurate but if you are in the ball park of the subject it will snap into focus for you whether it is a slow moving or static subject or a bif.

[RikWriter]

I don't know why, if you can frame a shot as you want it why crop it?

Pixel density means less loss when going big, it also means if a client wants or needs an image cropped to fit their needs the density is still there to support it without interpolation.


First of all, with wildlife, you frequently CAN'T frame a shot as you want it, so often the difference is between cropping later or not taking the shot at all and chancing that you'll have another opportunity. Now, it's one thing to keep trying but it's another entirely to refuse to take the shot period because you don't want to crop.

[BradM]

First of all, with wildlife, you frequently CAN'T frame a shot as you want it, so often the difference is between cropping later or not taking the shot at all and chancing that you'll have another opportunity. Now, it's one thing to keep trying but it's another entirely to refuse to take the shot period because you don't want to crop.

Why is it an issue if someone refuses to take a shot because they don't like the look, the light, the amount of the frame it fills or any other factor?

Is that not the difference between an experienced photog and some one who is just out there shooting away. For example, I am often out with some folks that are pointing their cameras up at a 45 degree angle shooting what I call a proctocology shot to capture some birds anus (or to be accurate cloaca). And then get asked why didn't I get any shots of it. Not my style. Bird wants colonoscopy it is going to have to pay for it like everyone else.

I often will not shot because of the angle, the pov, the distance or some other factor. I don't shoot just because the subject is there and hope I can make the shot work later.

It is all a subjective choice on the photographers part that defines their style

And if a pro, like Adam Jones, (which Canon seems to think is one of the 60 best photographers in all genres in world), decides that is how he is going to work why would someone take issue with it?

Personally I find it to be a bit more of an interesting challenge, I have hundreds of shots folks can't capture with a 600mm that I did at 400mm or less. I think going to the 500mm and extenders may have made me lazy and not working to get as close as I did previously.

[RikWriter]

Why is it an issue if someone refuses to take a shot because they don't like the look, the light, the amount of the frame it fills or any other factor?


It's not an issue, I just find it odd. Wildlife isn't like other shooting in that you frequently don't get another chance to take the same shot.
Hell, it's his career, his money, he can do it any way he sees fit, as can you. I just know that I've made money off photos I had to crop, money I wouldn't have made if I had gone by his way of doing things.

[Rayk]

I was wondering if anyone was having good success taking wildlife pics using a 2x tele-converter?


The image below was shot on a 1Ds with a EF300F4 + 2x converter

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/rayk57/4E5S9513.jpg

[Tom Reichner]

Earlier in this thread, I ripped the 2x converter. Up to that point, my experiences using it had been disastrous. But then those attempts had all been on cloudy days.

So, I decided to give the 2x one more try before selling it off. Good thing I did! Again, it absolutely sucks on dark cloudy days when you need to hand hold a big 400 on it. But when I tried it on a nice, sunny day it rocked!

I found that if I had enough light so that I could stop the lens down to around f8 and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, it worked quite nicely. On a sunny day when I used the 2x, most of my images were shot at 1/2000 or 1/2500. However, image#1 (attached) was shot at just 1/1000, and ended up being sharp enough for me. #2 was shot at only 1/1600 and 7.1, and was also reasonable sharp with the 2x on.

I think that if you're using this 2x converter, you just really need alot of light or the images are going to be nasty (not razor sharp). That is, unless you use a tripod; then I'm sure you can get clear results at a bit slower shetter speeds.

Same thing for the time it takes to AF. If there's alot of light, it's about a second slower than the lens would be with the 1.4tc. But on dismal, cloudy days it is terrible. It has actually searched for focus for 5 to 10 seconds on dismal days. This is with a very good, 400mm f2.8 lens. So, with the 2x I'm shooting at an effective 800mm f5.6. And it takes for freakin' ever to focus in low light. Yet Canon now makes a big 800mm f5.6 lens. And that focuses with reasonable quickness in the same conditions. What the heck?! So it's not simply that you can only expect so much from the combination of 800mm and f5.6 The 2x really does slow it down terribly in these conditions and I'm not sure why, given that the "real" 800 5.6 focuses just fine in the same light.

So, I think the 2x does have a place. That place is a very bright one.

Tom

[Rayk]

Earlier in this thread, I ripped the 2x converter. Up to that point, my experiences using it had been disastrous. But then those attempts had all been on cloudy days.

So, I decided to give the 2x one more try before selling it off. Good thing I did! Again, it absolutely sucks on dark cloudy days when you need to hand hold a big 400 on it. But when I tried it on a nice, sunny day it rocked!

I found that if I had enough light so that I could stop the lens down to around f8 and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, it worked quite nicely. On a sunny day when I used the 2x, most of my images were shot at 1/2000 or 1/2500. However, image#1 (attached) was shot at just 1/1000, and ended up being sharp enough for me. #2 was shot at only 1/1600 and 7.1, and was also reasonable sharp with the 2x on.

I think that if you're using this 2x converter, you just really need alot of light or the images are going to be nasty (not razor sharp). That is, unless you use a tripod; then I'm sure you can get clear results at a bit slower shetter speeds.

Same thing for the time it takes to AF. If there's alot of light, it's about a second slower than the lens would be with the 1.4tc. But on dismal, cloudy days it is terrible. It has actually searched for focus for 5 to 10 seconds on dismal days. This is with a very good, 400mm f2.8 lens. So, with the 2x I'm shooting at an effective 800mm f5.6. And it takes for freakin' ever to focus in low light. Yet Canon now makes a big 800mm f5.6 lens. And that focuses with reasonable quickness in the same conditions. What the heck?! So it's not simply that you can only expect so much from the combination of 800mm and f5.6 The 2x really does slow it down terribly in these conditions and I'm not sure why, given that the "real" 800 5.6 focuses just fine in the same light.

So, I think the 2x does have a place. That place is a very bright one.

Tom

It works, don`t knock it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scot079]

Tom those photos are very nice!

[acousticvibrations]

Earlier in this thread, I ripped the 2x converter. Up to that point, my experiences using it had been disastrous. But then those attempts had all been on cloudy days.

So, I decided to give the 2x one more try before selling it off. Good thing I did! Again, it absolutely sucks on dark cloudy days when you need to hand hold a big 400 on it. But when I tried it on a nice, sunny day it rocked!

I found that if I had enough light so that I could stop the lens down to around f8 and still shoot at fast shutter speeds, it worked quite nicely. On a sunny day when I used the 2x, most of my images were shot at 1/2000 or 1/2500. However, image#1 (attached) was shot at just 1/1000, and ended up being sharp enough for me. #2 was shot at only 1/1600 and 7.1, and was also reasonable sharp with the 2x on.

I think that if you're using this 2x converter, you just really need alot of light or the images are going to be nasty (not razor sharp). That is, unless you use a tripod; then I'm sure you can get clear results at a bit slower shetter speeds.

Same thing for the time it takes to AF. If there's alot of light, it's about a second slower than the lens would be with the 1.4tc. But on dismal, cloudy days it is terrible. It has actually searched for focus for 5 to 10 seconds on dismal days. This is with a very good, 400mm f2.8 lens. So, with the 2x I'm shooting at an effective 800mm f5.6. And it takes for freakin' ever to focus in low light. Yet Canon now makes a big 800mm f5.6 lens. And that focuses with reasonable quickness in the same conditions. What the heck?! So it's not simply that you can only expect so much from the combination of 800mm and f5.6 The 2x really does slow it down terribly in these conditions and I'm not sure why, given that the "real" 800 5.6 focuses just fine in the same light.

So, I think the 2x does have a place. That place is a very bright one.

Tom

Damm,

I need to take a trip to Washington.

Only real bird we have is the seagull and wood duck and add a swan here is Rhode Island!

[Tom Reichner]

Damm,

I need to take a trip to Washington.

Only real bird we have is the seagull and wood duck and add a swan here is Rhode Island!

Hmmmm. Rhode Island. Seagull. And a wood duck.

I bet if you look hard, you'll see some Buffleheads and Goldeneyes, especially now as they move thru on their way north.

And some Black Ducks, too. They have the same kind of subtle beauty that the Gadwall displays. Perhaps a few RIngneck ducks, too.

Hurry up and get out there before they all migrate away!

[acousticvibrations]

Hmmmm. Rhode Island. Seagull. And a wood duck.

I bet if you look hard, you'll see some Buffleheads and Goldeneyes, especially now as they move thru on their way north.

And some Black Ducks, too. They have the same kind of subtle beauty that the Gadwall displays. Perhaps a few RIngneck ducks, too.

Hurry up and get out there before they all migrate away!


lol,

[rbraun]

I guess I'm the exception. I have the 2x and used it quite a bit on my 400 2.8. I hate it. When you use it on a 2.8, the AF is still supposed to work. Well, it does focus, but only after an enormous delay of 2 to 5 seconds. In my opinion, if AF takes more than a second to lock in, then it doesn't work. I can't even imagine using the 2x TV on a 5.6 or an f4, as some of you have mentioned. The subjects I photograph are constantly moving. MF just simply isn't an option. Even if a bird is perched on a branch, you want to focus on it's eyeball. Not the spot on the head just behind the eye, not the base of the bill. The eyeball. If you MF on the eye, what happens if the bird turns his head ever so slightly between the time when you achieve focus and when you release the shutter? Now your point of focus is not on the eyeball itself, and the image is unsuccessful. So the way I shoot, the 2x is only a valid option if used on a 2.8 lens. But then the AF takes so long to lock in the opportunity is over by time you are focused. I challenge any of you to find a full-time, professional wildlife photographer who uses one of these things and claims that IQ doesn't suffer tremendously. So, anyone want to buy my 2x TC? If you all are happy with it, then I'm sure someone else would be, too.

I cannot agree more. I used a 2x on one three week outing 2 years ago and haven't used it since. I guess I just hadn't admitted it was a waste of money until now. I guess we should lol at ourselves sometimes.

[onesickpuppy]

Well..........I have a 400 2.8 and use my 2x a WHOLE lot....and at times use the 1.4 double stacked on it too!!! I use a MKIIn as a body.

Even double stacked, the sharpness is great!!!
Focus speed with the 2x is almost not any different than with out.....

YES....having better light is in need...but anytime you lengthen the "tube"....you need more light!


Here is a recent shot with the 2x and cropped maybe 15%

And these guys come around here in WA from Thanksgiving to Jan, and you don't need any blinds :)

[wayne_eddy]

I love my 2x MkII on my 400mm f/5.6L (with the 7D or previous 40D). Success has improved somewhat with the 7D's ability to adjust the AF for individual lenses. I do get some great keepers from the lens combo even though I MF 90% most of the time such as for this Black Winged Stilt:


http://members.iinet.net.au/~damask/Wayne/Photo/forum/canon/_MG_2428.jpg