04-06-2020 07:18 PM - edited 04-06-2020 07:35 PM
@ebiggs1 wrote:Years, and years ago I tried to use a 1.4x, a 2x and a 3x tel con stacked together on a FD 300mm f4 lens. I found out quickly it was a horrible idea. I suspect you will come to the same conclusion..................soon, I hope.
Quite so.
IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.
I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think.
04-06-2020 11:31 PM
I tried it again, it worked. I believe your comment about light had something to do with it.
Quality wasn't as good as I'm sure a 500mm or 600 mm with a 2x tc, but detail wasn't as bad as I expected.
Thanks again Peter, I appreciate your input.
04-07-2020 08:08 AM
"Quality wasn't as good ..."
It all has to do with what you call "quality". That elusive word has different meanings to everybody.
04-07-2020 08:14 AM
"Quite so.
IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.
I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think."
Perhaps acceptable, I freely admit. One of the very few lens combos I agree do work well with the 1.4x tel-con is the ef 70-200mm f2.8L.
Two things, though, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L has a lot of IQ it can afford to loose. Second did you take the same shot with, say, the ef 300mm f4L prime lens to compare? No, I didn't think so!
A tel-con may be the answer but it is never the best answer, IMHO, of course, as always.
04-07-2020 08:34 AM
@ebiggs1 wrote:"Quite so.
IMHO, the use of any tel-con or x-tube is a bandaide fix for a problem that requires the proper lens alone.
I don't althgether afree. My 70-200mm f/2.8 tolerates the 1.4x III quite well, I think."
Perhaps acceptable, I freely admit. One of the very few lens combos I agree do work well with the 1.4x tel-con is the ef 70-200mm f2.8L.
Two things, though, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L has a lot of IQ it can afford to loose. Second did you take the same shot with, say, the ef 300mm f4L prime lens to compare? No, I didn't think so!
A tel-con may be the answer but it is never the best answer, IMHO, of course, as always.
Well, you knew the answer to that question, Ernie, because you know that I agree with your oft-stated opinion that modern zooms have relegated the prime lens to niche product status.
Our household contains, IIRC, two prime lenses: my wife's EF-S 60mm macro (which she likes a lot) and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I bought as a low-light lens for my XTi thirteen years ago and have almost never used.
04-07-2020 08:46 AM
"... modern zooms have relegated the prime lens to niche product status."
Absolutely! There are very good zooms out there now. However, there are great zooms out there, too. Canon's 70-200mm f2.8L series has proven that over and over.
I have the 1.4x tel-con. I have used it perhaps a dozen times. Maybe because I have two wonderful alternatives. One being the excellent, in its own right, ef 300mm f4L IS.
04-07-2020 08:53 AM
"Some raw files to play around with. x1.4II+x2III vs x2III."
Your files are too large. Nobody is going to d/l such large files. Not me anyway!
04-07-2020 09:17 AM - edited 04-07-2020 09:45 AM
@ebiggs1 wrote:"Some raw files to play around with. x1.4II+x2III vs x2III."
Your files are too large. Nobody is going to d/l such large files. Not me anyway!
You still pay for each MB you use or don't have 406 MB of free space?
04-07-2020 10:30 AM
Yeah they are too big to glance at. A simple jpg would suffice for your claims.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |