Telephoto Zoom VS Teleconverters (70-200 f2.8)

ThomasH

ThomasH

Messages
63
Edit My Images
Yes
This is just a general question really. If you already had a 70-200 F2.8 lens ( and had no other telephoto lenses) would you rather ask Father Christmas for a pair of teleconverters ( 1.4x and 2x ) to use with it or a separate large zoom lens (such as 70-400 f4-5.6 or similar) and why?
 
Tc probably as its small, probably just a 1.4

The Sony 70400 is very fast focusing tho, so that's nice about it
 
Just get a 1.4x for your zoom.............. & continue saving for a longer prime. :cool:
 
Hello Joe, can I ask why you feel sticking to a 1.4x only is the better option instead of the 2x?
Aside from a slight gain in the f value the difference is only slight regards the focal length with a 1.4x.
A 1.4 from 2.8 becomes f/3.7 (as near as I can calculate.)
1.4 x 70-200 = 98-280 (FF) & can be usually taken care of by stepping forward 5 yards. (not always but sometimes).
However, 2 x = 140-400 (FF) & requires a physical stepping forward of approx 30 yards to replicate.
This distance is less likely available to be practical.
And 400mm f/5.6 isn't too bad & considered almost fast. I know f/4 would be better but the 1.4x is 120mm short
& although at f/3.7 (ish) the focal length is way off.

By the bottom end I mean the 70 becomes 98 of which is already covered & with the faster f/2.8 between the 70-200mm.
But the top end only adds 80mm & is almost as fast at f/3.7.
But an extra 200mm for a 1 stop loss to me is an acceptable exchange.

I was just interested in your thoughts as I have had a 120-300mm f/2.8 (through the zoom) + 2x for the past 9 years & have
never felt the need to have a 1.4x as the bottom end would be too close to the previous bottom end.
As shown in the 70-200 example, my 120 becomes 168 which is covered but the top end gains 300 instead of 120.

This is the same gain over f loss for any zoom lens & I have never understood why anyone has a 1.4x.
Am I wrong in assuming that if a lens can take a 1.4 it can take a 2x?
Or do some lenses that take a 1.4x don't take a 2x?

Please don't take this as rude I am genuinely interested in any ones view on a 1.4x vs a 2x converter.
Maybe I am missing something, I know the 2x can give a softer image but unless you're into top class competitions PS or LR can usually compensate for this to a larger degree.
 
AF speed, or ability as past 6.3 some cameras can't AF

And the ability to resolve detail, the lens maybe can't or needs to much stopping down to be effective
 
At f/5.6 most lenses cope so a f/2.8 lens as suggested should be okay.
 
Depends on the lens really.

I had the Canon MKI 70-200mm f2.8L IS and would use the 1.4x converter but not the 2x as there was too much of a hit in IQ for my liking (and no, I'm not into top class competitions). I now have the MKII version of the lens and would use the 2x (in an emergency) as the quality is now acceptable most of the time. I wouldn't use it if AF speed was a factor though.

If I need 400mm though I mostly tend to use my 400mm 5.6 prime.
 
I can see the point you're making Paul.
For me though I can't see the point in using a lens more than f/2.8 with a 2x otherwise you enter the territory of issues you mention.
So for that reason you would use a 1.4x.
But for me you can get all sorts of 300mm (end reach) lenses that are f/5.6 on their own merit.
So the point of using a converter that causes a higher f stop than f/5.6 is pointless.

Meaning that f/2.8 is pretty much the slowest! lens to use a 2x with.
Which makes the lack of ability in resolving detail etc moot when using a converter giving higher than f/5.6, who would?
You'd just as well buy any old lens...
 
The IQ is subjective to each of us, but as is the speed of AF, although I would concede the AF is certainly more of a defining factor for more people who aren't quite proficient with PS or LR.
However, even I won't try to argue about using a prime that has the equivalent f stop as when using a converter.
 
retrosi said:
although I would concede the AF is certainly more of a defining factor for more people who aren't quite proficient with PS or LR.
Click to expand...

How does being proficient with Photoshop or Lightroom make up for the hit in AF speed?
I have been using Lightroom for years and have never seen a tool in there that could sharpen up a blurred picture that was due to the AF not being able to keep up.
 
Mike my post when read says nothing about the lack of AF being made up with PS or LR, quite the opposite in fact,.

I said, 'I concede the AF is certainly more of a defining factor for more people who aren't quite proficient in PS or LR.'
'defining' being the operative word in my sentence. i.e the deference between someone using said converter or not.

Which is saying IQ can if proficient (ish) in PS or LR be made up for (up to a point of course) but AF can't, which is why I conceded that point
& found it a valid reason not to use a 2x, of which although I knew I admit hadn't given much thought to.

But then my field isn't football or a similar environment where quick AF is needed.
 
No problem Mike, I myself have done that too many times before...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top