TerryWSmith wrote in post #18542125
With the 5DIII and 5DIV bodies accepting tele converters so well it sure seems like a 1.7X is needed. Bridging the gap from 1.4 to 2 would be very desirable.
I completely agree with you, Terry.
The reason I liked my 400 f2.8 lens so much was due to its versatility. . Use it on a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop, or a full frame. . Use any of those combinations with a 1.4x or a 2x extender. . That's a lot of versatility!
However, once I got my 300-800mm f5.6, I have not used the 400 f2.8 nearly as much. . Why? . Because the 300-800mm is even more versatile, and doesn't require that I switch camera bodies and fiddle with tele-extenders. . But the downside is that I am sacrificing depth of field shallowness on those occasions where shallow DOF is desirable and where I am shooting at 600mm or less.
If a 1.7 tele-extender were available, and if it performed as well as the 1.4x (no difference in image quality even when viewing at 100%), then it would breathe new life into my 400 f2.8, and I would use it much more often than I do currently.
MalVeauX wrote in post #18542132
. . . this sort of thing is already sort of handled with the 5DIV's resolution, and readily handled by the 5DSR's resolution, where the pixel density can be an alternative to simply needing a TC.
This resolution argument seems to say that you can just shoot a little wider than you really want to, and then just crop into the image. . But this messes with depth of field, which is so extremely important.
There are so many times when I want to get extremely picky about how much depth of field I have for a shot, and shooting wide and them cropping just throws away all of that attention to detail that I try to give my shots.
A third of a stop can actually make a big difference in how appealing a photo is, and shooting wide and then cropping in is often equivalent to giving up a significant amount of DOF - at least a third of a stop, and much more than 1/3 stop in many instances.
graham121 wrote in post #18542516
Unfortunately a 1.7x converter would prevent the use of F5.6 lenses and limit use to F4 or faster lenses if AF is still required due to the F8 limitation on even the best of the current bodies and this alone would probably make it an uneconomical proposition.
I'm wondering if things would just be rigged to 'report' f8, even though they would actually be at f9. . I think that this is done with the Sigma and Tamron lenses, that are f6.3 but report f5.6. So why couldn't a 1.7 tele-extender be rigged up the same way?
"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".