Is Sony planning on releasing updated TCs any time soon?

[evacguy]

Hi everyone,
I have a Sony A7iv and Sony GM 70-200mm f2.8 OSS II. I am thinking about getting the 1.4x or 2.0x TC. But late last year I read rumors that Sony are going to release upgraded versions sometime soon. Does anyone know anything about this? Is this likely in the near future? Or is this just baseless wishfull thinking?

This is my first post, so hopefully it's an acceptable question to raise - I couldn't find earlier posts on this topic so hopefully not repeating a thread.
Many thanks.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I have the 1.4x (for use with 200-600) and it is excellent. I am not sure they need to upgrade and I have not read anything, so I would not wait.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Agreed, I have the 1.4x and it performs very well with my medium to long primes/telephotos, but , I have steered clear of the 2.0x as i feel
except for static subjects, shooting from a tripod, it doesn't provide the image quality i look for. Equally whilst adding
"reach " on the positive side it adds a further 2 aperture stops of light reduction with corresponding reduced autofocus speed..

Others on the Forum may disagree with this but for me x2.0 isn't the way to go.

Like Fred i am not aware of any planned TC upgrades and for me am more than happy with my existing x1.4 TC with my
70-200 GM II, 200-600 G and 400mm GM f2.8.

 

[evacguy]

Thanks guys. I wanted the extra reach, but I don't want to lose on image quality, and I really don't want to lose 2 stops if I can avoid it (with the 2.0x). My thoughts are that the longer reach would be great for astro, deep sky long tracked exposures, but that means the 2.0x rather than the 1.4x. But this could be completely the wrong approach, and I may be better off getting a longer prime lens or a telescope. I really don't want to spend on the telescope approach as I want to use my kit for both night sky and terrestrial photography. Also, the 1.4x will give me just 280mm (with my 70-200 GM ii), which is probably not enough, while the 2.0x gives me 400mm, but the loss of 2 stops (so much slower and hence needing longer exposures), and compromises on image quality. A longer prime might be the right approach?

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Thanks guys. I wanted the extra reach, but I don't want to lose on image quality, and I really don't want to lose 2 stops if I can avoid it (with the 2.0x). My thoughts are that the longer reach would be great for astro, deep sky long tracked exposures, but that means the 2.0x rather than the 1.4x. But this could be completely the wrong approach, and I may be better off getting a longer prime lens or a telescope. I really don't want to spend on the telescope approach as I want to use my kit for both night sky and terrestrial photography. Also, the 1.4x will give me just 280mm (with my 70-200 GM ii), which is probably not enough, while the 2.0x gives me 400mm, but the loss of 2 stops (so much slower and hence needing longer exposures), and compromises on image quality. A longer prime might be the right approach?

As expressed else where on this forum, for decent lunar shots where reflected light is high a long lens (+ 400mm) will be fine whereas for detailed milky way shots where image light is low you will be better off with a wide angle low F rated lens(20mm f1. 8 or thrreaboutd) fo minimise exposure time and reduce coma effect. For deep space you are really getting into the realms of tracking telescopes.,as you have raised, where my knowledge is very limited.

Hope this helps.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Thanks guys. I wanted the extra reach, but I don't want to lose on image quality, and I really don't want to lose 2 stops if I can avoid it (with the 2.0x). My thoughts are that the longer reach would be great for astro, deep sky long tracked exposures, but that means the 2.0x rather than the 1.4x. But this could be completely the wrong approach, and I may be better off getting a longer prime lens or a telescope. I really don't want to spend on the telescope approach as I want to use my kit for both night sky and terrestrial photography. Also, the 1.4x will give me just 280mm (with my 70-200 GM ii), which is probably not enough, while the 2.0x gives me 400mm, but the loss of 2 stops (so much slower and hence needing longer exposures), and compromises on image quality. A longer prime might be the right approach?

I have both teleconverters.

The 1.4x costs you a stop of light - that is physics, and no new teleconverter can change that.

Likewise, the 2x costs you two stops, and again, no new teleconverter can change that.

I believe that rumour was nothing more than someone's wishful thinking. You are better off planning on what is known, not someone's wish or guess or lie.

I've used the 2x on the 200-600 at 600mm, effectively giving me a 1200mm f/13 lens. With lots of light, I can get decent images. With the 600mm GM I'd get 1200mm and f/8, but it still wouldn't be as sharp as a native 1200mm lens.

 

[Geo C]

I suppose it depends on the quality of image you will accept and what it will be used for. For Me I'm happy with the results using both 1.4x and 2x converters on my 200-600 when used hand held with care.

 

[-ST-]

Thanks guys. I wanted the extra reach, but I don't want to lose on image quality, and I really don't want to lose 2 stops if I can avoid it (with the 2.0x). My thoughts are that the longer reach would be great for astro, deep sky long tracked exposures, but that means the 2.0x rather than the 1.4x. But this could be completely the wrong approach, and I may be better off getting a longer prime lens or a telescope. I really don't want to spend on the telescope approach as I want to use my kit for both night sky and terrestrial photography. Also, the 1.4x will give me just 280mm (with my 70-200 GM ii), which is probably not enough, while the 2.0x gives me 400mm, but the loss of 2 stops (so much slower and hence needing longer exposures), and compromises on image quality. A longer prime might be the right approach?

Hi, Ed.

Just yesterday, I found a local dealer that has a 2x teleconverter in a store not too far from here. They're having it transferred in so I can check it out. I should have it in my hands by Wednesday or Thursday.

Given the consistently strong reviews of the 70-200 GM II with 2x teleconverter - compared to the 100-400, I'm not anticipating any issues, despite the generalizations about teleconverters.

 

[evacguy]

Hi, Ed.

Just yesterday, I found a local dealer that has a 2x teleconverter in a store not too far from here. They're having it transferred in so I can check it out. I should have it in my hands by Wednesday or Thursday.

Given the consistently strong reviews of the 70-200 GM II with 2x teleconverter - compared to the 100-400, I'm not anticipating any issues, despite the generalizations about teleconverters.

I very much look forward to seeing how it goes. Fingers crossed it is as good as some say.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I set out to try the 200-600 with the 2x and APS-C crop yesterday, but after taking some shots with the bare lens and the APS-C crop, I wasn't feeling great.

Must say, I had not appreciated the difference in using the in-camera APS-C crop - it makes only one difference, that being seeing the crop fill the viewfinder, but that's a bigger difference than I expected. Got some good shots that way. So I will be interested in combining the 2x and the crop some time soon, for an effective 1800mm - I suspect I'll need to lean on something to keep it steady, though.

My adventures continue!

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I wish you guys well in your combined x2 TC and ASC crop adventures......

 

[-ST-]

I read and watched @Timothy Mayo's article and video about

Sony 100-400 VS 70-200 F2.8 GM II With 2x Tele at 400mm - AlphaShooters.com

In this article I'll be comparing the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens with the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with the 2x teleconverter attached.

www.alphashooters.com

Thank you, Tim!

From Tim's information: Adding the 2x teleconverter to the 70-200 GM II will cost me nothing in terms of focus speed, sharpness, maximum aperture or vignetting vs. the 100-400 GM.

I've noted concerns about chromatic aberration and can't know how much I'll care, given that I shoot raw and use Capture One (which has chromatic aberration correction for my lens). Optimistically, I hope that someday the stories in my pictures will be compelling enough that any technical issues will go unnoticed.

If it turns out that shooting at 400 mm whets my appetite for more reach, then I'll have to figure out if I'm willing to carry the 200-600. But either way, I'm still delighted with the 70-200 GM II and can't imagine I'd have been happier with the 100-400 GM or 200-600 instead.