Opinions on Extenders, please?

[PajamaGuy]

Extender EF 2x III - or the EF 1.4x III.  Same price.  Other than the obvious, why one over the other?  Are the optics equal?

Thanks!

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

I'm not sure what those two pictures prove (except that you obviously managed to get the bird's attention). I thought the object was to compare two images, one taken with the extender and the other taken without the extender but cropped to the same size as the one that was. If the one taken with the extender doesn't look better, then you didn't need the extender in the first place.

---

Sorry, I don't have a bare lens comparison shot. I've gotten to the point where I don't worry about test charts or even trying to get multiple comparison shots. In this case I did get separate shots with the 1.4X, 2X, and 1.4X and 2X stack. But, it was because the birds were cooperating, and I was waiting for my wife to catch up with me. 😉

All of these were taken at close to the same location, but, not necessarily the exact same location.

100% crop Canon EOS 7D with Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 w/Sigma 1.4X TC 420mm, 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 250

@Canon EOS 7D, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 w/Sigma 2X TC @ 600mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO 500

100% crop EOS 7D with Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and the Sigma 1.4X and 2X stacked 840mm  (1344mm equivelent) 1/2000, f/11, ISO 4000

[ebiggs1]

"I'm not sure what those two pictures prove (except that you obviously managed to get the bird's attention). I thought the object was to compare two images, one taken with the extender and the other taken without the extender but cropped to the same size as the one that was. If the one taken with the extender doesn't look better, then you didn't need the extender in the first place."

Exactly!

Yes, I am with Bob from Boston!  These do not show what I asked for.  I am not going to comment on their IQ for now.  The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a very good lens.  Not quite sure if it gets into the great lens category but none-the-less a very good lens.

It is quite sharp on its own.  It handles the SIgma 1.4x extender well too.  It works well on my 1D Mk IV but I almost, 99.5% of the time never use the extender with it

Personally I have done lots of testing between crop cameras and FF to see if crop bests enlargement.  My conclusion is it could but maybe not.  And that is the reason I was curious as to whether you could show where crop beat enlargement. Using an extender of course instead of crop vs FF. In my own tests using extenders I find my conclusion is still undecided but seriously leaning towards enlargement.  My guess is certain lenses may show different results. 

Remember. All lenses are at there best with no additional "whatnot's" attached to either end.  There is a penalty to pay.

You should be comparing your lens set to 300mm vs a 420mm lens or enlarging your shot to the AOV of a 420mm lens (1.4x converter).  Another factor and why this is so difficult to say with 100% is the distance.  This is besides the ISO value and aperture, SS, on and on, etc.

I might offer some advice, try to focus on the bird's head when shooting these shots.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote: 

These do not show what I asked for.  I am not going to comment on their IQ for now.  The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a very good lens.  Not quite sure if it gets into the great lens category but none-the-less a very good lens.

---

Sorry that does not meet your needs. As for the critique of my technique, these photos were chosen, because of the gear used not to display my photographic prowess. 

As far as enlarging vs TCs in my opinion anytime you enlarge beyond 100% then an optical solution is going to be superior. Each of those 100%  crops was ~1920X1920 which is typically what I use for the width for digital display.  So in my opinion the 420mm shot isn't usable where the 2X shot is. 

[ebiggs1]

"... these photos were chosen, because of the gear used not to display my photographic prowess."

But still the results are telling.  Aren't they?  It may well be your combo is the way to go but unless you are willing to show them side by side we will never know.

[PajamaGuy]

Does "anybody" have examples of using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200 f.2.8 IS II vs. cropping the lens-alone pic to acheive the same effective "magnification"?

(just picked up a 70-200 2.8 IS II - and can't wait for grandson's basketball...) - and no I wouldn't use it there, but for the upcoming outdoor baseball & football where light isn't an issue.... 

[ebiggs1]

"...  and can't wait for grandson's basketball.. ..."  "... no I wouldn't use it there, ..."

Why?  It will be the best choice you can make if you also take a shorter zoom too.  Like the 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.  You know the action is not always on your end?  Sometimes it is.

For baseball it will be your shorter zoom.  You might add the 100-400 II to that bag.

Personally for me I will amost always (99% of the time) choose post editing over an extender.  Yes, I reserve a few situations where I would use an extender but not many.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  and can't wait for grandson's basketball.. ..."  "... no I wouldn't use it there, ..."

Why?  It will be the best choice you can make if you also take a shorter zoom too.  Like the 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.  You know the action is not always on your end?  Sometimes it is.

For baseball it will be your shorter zoom.  You might add the 100-400 II to that bag.

Personally for me I will amost always (99% of the time) choose post editing over an extender.  Yes, I reserve a few situations where I would use an extender but not many.

---

Basketball indoors is often done in very poor lighting conditions. Losing a stop or two of light using a TC in those conditions usually isn't practical, especially when using a crop sensor camera like the 7D Mk II that already captures one stop less total light tnan a full frame camera. 

[ebiggs1]

"Personally for me I will almost always (99% of the time) choose post editing over an extender"

????? What are you saying?  I never have and I am not recommending using a tele converter for basketball.  I don't like them!

I am advocating he use the 70-200mm as it is.  No converter.  It will not be needed for BB. He will need a shorter focal length to go along with it. 

"... when using a crop sensor camera like the 7D Mk II that already captures one stop less total light tnan a full frame camera."

Oh boy!   You need to start a new thread for this one.  

  Pajamaguy disregard that statement.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  and can't wait for grandson's basketball.. ..."  "... no I wouldn't use it there, ..."

Why?  It will be the best choice you can make if you also take a shorter zoom too.  Like the 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.  You know the action is not always on your end?  Sometimes it is.

For baseball it will be your shorter zoom.  You might add the 100-400 II to that bag.

Personally for me I will amost always (99% of the time) choose post editing over an extender.  Yes, I reserve a few situations where I would use an extender but not many.

---

Basketball indoors is often done in very poor lighting conditions. Losing a stop or two of light using a TC in those conditions usually isn't practical, especially when using a crop sensor camera like the 7D Mk II that already captures one stop less total light tnan a full frame camera. 

---

A crop sensor camera may or may not capture less total light than a full-frame camera, but that's beside the point. The crop sensor camera needs, and therefore uses, less total light because it has less sensor area to cover. It's not at any competitive disadvantage in light gathering power, as compared to a FF camera.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  and can't wait for grandson's basketball.. ..."  "... no I wouldn't use it there, ..."

Why?  It will be the best choice you can make if you also take a shorter zoom too.  Like the 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.  You know the action is not always on your end?  Sometimes it is.

For baseball it will be your shorter zoom.  You might add the 100-400 II to that bag.

Personally for me I will amost always (99% of the time) choose post editing over an extender.  Yes, I reserve a few situations where I would use an extender but not many.

---

Basketball indoors is often done in very poor lighting conditions. Losing a stop or two of light using a TC in those conditions usually isn't practical, especially when using a crop sensor camera like the 7D Mk II that already captures one stop less total light tnan a full frame camera. 

---

A crop sensor camera may or may not capture less total light than a full-frame camera, but that's beside the point. The crop sensor camera needs, and therefore uses, less total light because it has less sensor area to cover. It's not at any competitive disadvantage in light gathering power, as compared to a FF camera.

---

I don't know why so many people have such a hard time with the concept. A given exposure lets in a set amount of light PER UNIT AREA. A full frame sensor has more units of area, so receives more total light for any given exposure. 

image from quora.com

So for crop sensor cameras, at any given ISO the signal is amplified one stop more than it would be on a full frame camera.. This is why full frame cameras seem to have about a one stop advantage in terms of ISO noise.