I returned my 1.4TC after 1 half-day of use

[Reciprocum]

I was expecting a "slight" decrease in IQ after pairing a TC14 to my 200-600mm. What I was not expecting was a noticeable-significant (could not find a word halfway between these 2) decrease in IQ.
I thought the mantra "optical zoom always wins over digital zoom" was undisputable. Well, today, my 4h long (957 shots) surf photo session proofed it is not always true.

Before, whenever I lacked reach, I just punched a button to enter APS-C mode to get 1.5x zoom (I know this is just an in-camera crop) loosing 29 of the 50mpx of the A1 sensor in the process.

Mentaly I was expecting that, using an TC14 I would get almost the same 1.4x zoom factor while retaining all the 50mpx, and whatever slight IQ hit the TC use could incur would be more than compensated when downsampling from the 50mpx file down to the 3240px short-side deliverables.

Boy was I WRONG !!!!
Every single frame had a lack of sharpness to it. I knew immediately I had to return the TC (with I did immediately)

Right now I attribute this to shooting at f8-f9 with the TC, above the diffraction limit of the A1 sensor. maybe a bit too to the increased ISO the TC forces you to use.
The end conclusion is that I rather have 21mpx of crisp <f7 files (continue to do APS-C zoom-ins) than 50mpx of diffracted junk files.

Maybe the TC with a body with lesser resolution won't cause such noticeable degradation of IQ, but I am not putting my A7M4 into surf/sports duty because it lacks the necessary fps for it, and it would eat into the m-shutter lifespan in a short time.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G) + 1.4X Teleconverter (SEL14TC)
• 840.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Reciprocum]

Not to be rude, but there are thousands of examples of that combination out there on the interwebs that are exemplary. The result you've posted is not representative, and is certainly not something I'd base a purchase on.

And is because of those examples that I went and purchased the TC In the first place. Maybe they were done with lesser resolution (no DLA issues at f9) sensors, or of not fast moving subjects at base iso100, or after extensive per-picture post processing (Wich I cannot do on 1000+ Pics surf sessions). With my A1 and fast moving surfers I could not get satisfactory (to me) results on a cold crisp air morning light conditions.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I used mine on the 200 600 and A7R4 a few times, and never thought it affected IQ badly at all in good light, which is something you need given the smaller max aperture. When the light was poor there was a small drop, but not unusable. Maybe it's too short a period to have tested it? There are many factors that can affect things, I'm sure you know. I sold mine, but just because I wasn't using it and it helped fund other lenses.

 

[rōken]

I think the reason the loss of image quality in surf photos is noticeable when using a TC is because of the great distance from the camera to the subject. The moisture in the air possibly combined with random refracted and reflected light and maybe even dust and heat shimmer is compressed by the magnification of the telephoto lens. When you see stellar images of birds, etc., taken with telephotos and TC’s, the bird is closer to the camera, the air is clear and dry and the light is sharp.

 

[pmenear]

Overall image lack of sharpness can't be caused by a higher megapixel sensor compaired to a lower. The Airy disk effect on sensors is per pixel and will overlap onto the neighbouring pixel on smaller pixel pitch size but the larger number of pixels MORE than cancels the effect when images are viwed at the same size like for like and not at pixel size, a higher megapixel sensor will always capture more detail than a lower.
The softness in your image is either lens or user related, the 200-600 always seems soft to me beyond 8 meters compared to my 600 or 800 primes with or without TCs.

 

[spudhead]

I have the 1.4 with 200-600 and used it with a7iii and the a9 and here in dull old england and had some great results, but it took some time get things right for me and I always try to shoot on a monopod if possible because after all that 840 hand held on the long end at f9, also I generally turn off the image stability. It may be a bad copy but lucky for me I am happy with mine

 

[Reciprocum]

I have the 1.4 with 200-600 and used it with a7iii and the a9 and here in dull old england and had some great results, but it took some time get things right for me and I always try to shoot on a monopod if possible because after all that 840 hand held on the long end at f9, also I generally turn off the image stability. It may be a bad copy but lucky for me I am happy with mine

I had mine in a sturdy tripod (with 5kg balast hanging from the weight hook, <10kph winds), Gimbal head. All equipment (and locations) that I am more than familiarised with, the only new bit was really the TC.
You can check my gallery to see some previous surf results gotten without the use of TC.

For me it is crystal clear: I will not touch a TC again unless it is with a lens with wide enough f that, even after the TC factor, still stays below the DLA limit of the sensor on the body being used.
That implies using either my current 200-600 with a 24mpx sensor (I have none now since I sold my 2nd/backup body M3 to upgrade to an M4), or buying/renting a 600mm f4 GM or a 400mm f2.8 GM (0.01% probability)

 

[spudhead]

Hi I see you have the a1 and to be honest I would buy a 400 2.8 if I had spent that much on a body , that is the issue with sony at the moment the lens choice for reach end of things is 100-400 and 200-600 or the other end of the range £ 10,000 and 12,000 400 and 600

 

[Reciprocum]

I did not pick the first sample I gave above because it was worse than all the others and to make a point. The 95% percent of the frames from my only session with the TC were almost as bad.

But to be fair a few here and there were quite acceptable, albeit, again, worse than I was used to get without the TC.

Edit: and I think I also see a pattern: those not fully zoomed-in, at f8, are the better ones, corroborating my feeling that DLA is at play here with the HiRes sensor (and probably also the worse performance of the lens at the far end). But I bought the TC because most of the times 600mm is not enough reach for surf photography and I was finding myself punching in with APS-C mode all the time (before the TC trial).

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G) + 1.4X Teleconverter (SEL14TC)
• 357.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G) + 1.4X Teleconverter (SEL14TC)
• 791.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 800

 

[Reciprocum]

Hi I see you have the a1 and to be honest I would buy a 400 2.8 if I had spent that much on a body , that is the issue with sony at the moment the lens choice for reach end of things is 100-400 and 200-600 or the other end of the range £ 10,000 and 12,000 400 and 600

Primes for surf photography are NO-GO because the distance from the subject to the camera is constantly changing from the beginning of the wave till the end. I will just keep my fingers crossed for a 200-600 F3.5-5.6 GM at under 5,000eur.

 

[rōken]

Primes for surf photography are NO-GO because the distance from the subject to the camera is constantly changing . . .

rules were made to be broken, bro!

 

[spudhead]

Primes for surf photography are NO-GO because the distance from the subject to the camera is constantly changing from the beginning of the wave till the end. I will just keep my fingers crossed for a 200-600 F3.5-5.6 GM at under 5,000eur.

With respect I thought you mentioned the 400 f 2.8 600 f 4 , I have been using primes for fast moving animals for years and as you say the surfers are along way from you I cant see why they would not work you are never going to be at minimum focus range any way, it might be worth hiring the 400 it could be a game changer for you and at least you would get the answer to the question if its any use or not with out a big out lay of cash

 

[pointreyes]

Thanks for the samples, they have strengthen the years old decision of this GM prime snob to keep staying away from zoom lenses, especially Tamron ones. Sorry for the brutal (but honest) opinion.

Primes for surf photography are NO-GO because the distance from the subject to the camera is constantly changing from the beginning of the wave till the end. I will just keep my fingers crossed for a 200-600 F3.5-5.6 GM at under 5,000eur.

Huh? But you are a GM prime snob. You really should maybe do as suggested and try the 400 GM - it will help out with your snobbery.

 

[Reciprocum]

Huh? But you are a GM prime snob. You really should maybe do as suggested and try the 400 GM - it will help out with your snobbery.

Too big, too heavy, too expensive, not enough reach for surf.
Another local surf photographer shoots with 100-400GM + 7M3 and finds himself doing mostly APS-C 1.5x cropped video instead of photography due to lack of reach (and lack of resolution for photography when cropping his 24mpx sensor). The 1.4TC could (?) be a good fit for him.
7.000 is my limit for a single lens, saving it for that 200-600 GM or 300mm F2.8 GM for indoor sports.

 

[spudhead]

Too big, too heavy, too expensive, not enough reach for surf.
Another local surf photographer shoots with 100-400GM + 7M3 and finds himself doing mostly APS-C 1.5x cropped video instead of photography due to lack of reach (and lack of resolution for photography when cropping his 24mpx sensor). The 1.4TC could (?) be a good fit for him.
7.000 is my limit for a single lens, saving it for that 200-600 GM or 300mm F2.8 GM for indoor sports.

Hi I have the 300 2.8 sony and 300 minolta and minolta 400 4.5 and 500 4.5 but the 300 is great but you wont get the reach you are looking for and the thing about primes is that most come good mid f numbers and of course you have to use an adaptor which limits things , and I am not sure about the a1 with adaptors and ssm lenses. When people ask should I buy a better camera or lens the answer in many cases is better glass. I feel for you its difficult and most of us have to compromise gear wise, and I think the 200-600 and 1.4 given the good light you seem get in your shots would be ok with practice and a change of settings we all never stop learning.