400mm, with & without 1.4 and 2x extenders (sample images provided)

Thanks for taking the time to show us the difference between the extenders.

Jon

Thanks a lot for posting this Tom. I did find your original post very useful to see the relative increase in magnification with teleconverters. I am looking at getting a teleconverter so this is very timely for me. The request for 100% crops is understandable because a lot of people claim that the 2x is not sharp enough to be worth it. Clearly, it is on your lens.

Now, if you only you did this test with the 400 5.6L, which is what I have...

nwlight wrote in post #15623199
Thanks a lot for posting this Tom. I did find your original post very useful to see the relative increase in magnification with teleconverters. I am looking at getting a teleconverter so this is very timely for me. The request for 100% crops is understandable because a lot of people claim that the 2x is not sharp enough to be worth it. Clearly, it is on your lens.

Now, if you only you did this test with the 400 5.6L, which is what I have...

I don't own a 400 f5.6, but I have rented them. They are just as sharp as the 400 f2.8, so I assume that they would be capable of providing similar results with the 2x. If only there was enough light - the 2x on the 400 f5.6 puts you up to f11. Stop down one stop for maximum sharpness and you're at f16. In direct sunlight, I'm sure it'd be a great combination.

TSchrief wrote in post #15621865
Thanks, Tom. I would be very happy with that 2X shot. Now if I could only afford 400 2.8 to replace my 100-400L.

me too!!..

Interesting comparison shots.. thanks for posting Tom!

2.8 400mm !
*gasps* 2.8 400mm !!
Tom made me a sad panda

Cheers for posting Tom , wish I had the money , but alas I am lucky enough still to have the 456

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15621502
I had intended for the posted photos to be helpful to others who are interested in seeing the effect of tele-extenders on the final images. I did not realize that what I had to share would be subject to so much nit-pickery with regards to semantics.

Hi Tom,
I did not mean to sound nit picky.

I went back and re-read your initial post to see where I'd gone wrong.

I truly wish you had said more clearly your intention. Again, I don't mean to nit pick or get semantical on you, but I simply misunderstood your intention when you said "I thought I would share a few images that illustrate the effects they have on the images created with them. "

Framing/reach comparison etc.. these effects you illustrate quite well.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
No problem at all, Jay (it is Jay, isn't it?)
I should have had enough foresight to realize that people would be more interested in deep crops than in framing & composition.
Because people are more interested in sharpness and resolution, I added a couple comparison crops that show those aspects of extender use - see post #13.
I hope the additional comparisons are helpful.

thanks tom.
If it makes it any easier, you can send me the lens and extenders, I will spend the next year gathering images and then post a set like you did. I'm only doing this for research of course

thanks again

Gaarryy wrote in post #15625710
thanks tom.
If it makes it any easier, you can send me the lens and extenders, I will spend the next year gathering images and then post a set like you did. I'm only doing this for research of course

thanks again

Hmmm . . . maybe we can trade. Do you know of any good spots in Texas for Whitetail buck photos? Not the private fenced in ranches, but places where some good old fashioned free range deer run free? If so, you could guide me to the deer, and in return I'd be glad to let you use the big lens for a few days. Supposing, of course, that I can afford the gasoline to get myself down to Texas next November

No, he would be Jake. I would be Jay...

I too apologize for being hyper critical but I will state that, at least in my case, I have a 300 f/2.8 and a 500mm f/4 because I want that kind of speed at those focal lengths.

Therefore, the impact on IQ when wide open and "extended" would be, in my case, paramount.