Ok so anyone using fe 70-200 2.8 mk1 or 2 with 1.4 teleconverter

[spudhead]

So as title anyone using the above can you please give me your views on this combo thanks guys

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Gary I have used both lenses with a 1.4 teleconverter having recently sold my GM Mk I version and upgraded to the Mk II.

As a general principle, as has been suggested by many other photographers, both of these lenses work very well with the
Sony 1.4 teleconverter(TC) with very little reduction in image quality.

When I am out in the field with my GII and no other long lens, I often attach my x 1.4 TC as well as switch into ASC mode
for that extra reach and still get very sharp images, the weight reduction of the GII as well as its enhanced functionality
are much better than its predecessor.

There are many opinions concerning using the x 2.0 TC, not only with this lens but others as well,and whilst i am very happy
to use the X1.4 as often as is needed, for me I never go to the x 2.0 TC. Some photographers I know claim good sharpness
for still images on a tripod with the 2.0 TC but as a frequent hand hold shooter I have never achieved this.

I have used x2 TC's with Nikon before converting to Sony and tried the Sony x 2.0 TC with my Sony lenses and for me there is
always a noticable softness to the resulting images.......the light physics dictate this must be except perhaps in those situations
wherein you are using a lens with soft images at lower apertures and the use of a TC brings you nearer the sweet spot for
the particular lens you are using........I haven't seen this with the G II.

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to a question of what is acceptable sharpness to the user.

Hope this helps.

 

[spudhead]

Hi Gary I have used both lenses with a 1.4 teleconverter having recently sold my GM Mk I version and upgraded to the Mk II.

As a general principle, as has been suggested by many other photographers, both of these lenses work very well with the
Sony 1.4 teleconverter(TC) with very little reduction in image quality.

When I am out in the field with my GII and no other long lens, I often attach my x 1.4 TC as well as switch into ASC mode
for that extra reach and still get very sharp images, the weight reduction of the GII as well as its enhanced functionality
are much better than its predecessor.

There are many opinions concerning using the x 2.0 TC, not only with this lens but others as well,and whilst i am very happy
to use the X1.4 as often as is needed, for me I never go to the x 2.0 TC. Some photographers I know claim good sharpness
for still images on a tripod with the 2.0 TC but as a frequent hand hold shooter I have never achieved this.

I have used x2 TC's with Nikon before converting to Sony and tried the Sony x 2.0 TC with my Sony lenses and for me there is
always a noticable softness to the resulting images.......the light physics dictate this must be except perhaps in those situations
wherein you are using a lens with soft images at lower apertures and the use of a TC brings you nearer the sweet spot for
the particular lens you are using........I haven't seen this with the G II.

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to a question of what is acceptable sharpness to the user.

Hope this helps.

Hi just the sort of reply I was hoping for thanks for reply, and I am sure that the 2x is not a good idea that is why I only mention the 1.4x

 

[AlphaWorld]

I want to use the 1.4x with the 70-200 Mark II, but it's not available, and hasn't been for some time.

I have bought the 2x (it came into stock not long ago). If you want it for the distance, and are willing to accept a bit of a reduction in image quality, the 2x is worth getting (I'll be trying it on the 200-600 G at some point, but the weather is cold and wet where I live).

 

[spudhead]

I want to use the 1.4x with the 70-200 Mark II, but it's not available, and hasn't been for some time.

I have bought the 2x (it came into stock not long ago). If you want it for the distance, and are willing to accept a bit of a reduction in image quality, the 2x is worth getting (I'll be trying it on the 200-600 G at some point, but the weather is cold and wet where I live).

I do not need it for reach I was thinking for travel and a lighter rig, I have the 200-600 and it a peach, I have the f4 70-200 and 24-70 zeiss f4 for travel so thanks for input

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

The other factor to be considered outside of overall image quality with the x2 TC is of course the 2 stop increase in aperture
leading to an effective min aperture of f5.6 for the 70-200mm f2.8 whereas for the 200mm-600mm f11 to f13
...at aperture speeds near and higher than f 8.0 speed of focussing will drop substantially particularily in lower light
environments and just about rules out action/BIF it that's your thing..........

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

The whole point of using a 200-600mm "telephoto" is reach and flexability to cover a range of long
focal lengths(with image quality) and on the face of it, it is perfectly reasonable to seek addiitional
reach with ax1.4 or x2 TC and not be limited to the lens native max focal length (600)

The options are clear and ignoring combining a switch to ASC with TC's as a particular use case, the FF 200-600mm
switches from f5.6 to f6.3 at FL 350mm and therefore using the x2TC will provide for a constant f11 between
200- 700mm and f13 at 700-1200mm and even with the x1.4 TC will yield 200 - 490mm @ f8.0 and 400-1200
@ f13 and hence as per my original point will result in much slower focus speeds(focus hunting at best).

To be very precise, fundamentally action(sports) and BIF shooters looking to use the 1.4TC or x2 TC to achieve
reach of between 600-1200 will be seriously limited by focus speed in doing so(off setting linear lens motor value) and
based on the above would suggest other than for a static subjects use case, using TC's will have limited value in
seeking reach over the lens max FL.........this will be further exacerbated by shooting in low general light levels and
subject shots against dark backgrounds.

I shoot usually in well lit day light conditions at or near the equator, but even then the native 200-600mm,
whist very sharp fully open, can struggle to focus with sharp reductions in light conditions both enviromentally
and from generally darkened subject backgrounds and additionally will limit available shutter speeds over
ISO/image noise level considerations.

In summary the 200-600mm lens is not designed for "action/BIF" shooting above 600mm in my mind even
if contemplating switching to ASC with the x1.4 TC.......the other option is of course the 400mm f2.8 with x2 to yield
800mm at f5.6 and 1120mm with ASC but then cost benefit analysis becomes the issue for most other than professionals.

The above, is getting off point from the original thread querying the x1.4 TC use issue but nevertheless and
interesting topic.......

 

[spudhead]

The whole point of using a 200-600mm "telephoto" is reach and flexability to cover a range of long
focal lengths(with image quality) and on the face of it, it is perfectly reasonable to seek addiitional
reach with ax1.4 or x2 TC and not be limited to the lens native max focal length (600)

The options are clear and ignoring combining a switch to ASC with TC's as a particular use case, the FF 200-600mm
switches from f5.6 to f6.3 at FL 350mm and therefore using the x2TC will provide for a constant f11 between
200- 700mm and f13 at 700-1200mm and even with the x1.4 TC will yield 200 - 490mm @ f8.0 and 400-1200
@ f13 and hence as per my original point will result in much slower focus speeds(focus hunting at best).

To be very precise, fundamentally action(sports) and BIF shooters looking to use the 1.4TC or x2 TC to achieve
reach of between 600-1200 will be seriously limited by focus speed in doing so(off setting linear lens motor value) and
based on the above would suggest other than for a static subjects use case, using TC's will have limited value in
seeking reach over the lens max FL.........this will be further exacerbated by shooting in low general light levels and
subject shots against dark backgrounds.

I shoot usually in well lit day light conditions at or near the equator, but even then the native 200-600mm,
whist very sharp fully open, can struggle to focus with sharp reductions in light conditions both enviromentally
and from generally darkened subject backgrounds and additionally will limit available shutter speeds over
ISO/image noise level considerations.

In summary the 200-600mm lens is not designed for "action/BIF" shooting above 600mm in my mind even
if contemplating switching to ASC with the x1.4 TC.......the other option is of course the 400mm f2.8 with x2 to yield
800mm at f5.6 and 1120mm with ASC but then cost benefit analysis becomes the issue for most other than professionals.

The above, is getting off point from the original thread querying the x1.4 TC use issue but nevertheless and
interesting topic.......

I have only ever bought one 2x converter and that was for a-mount 300 2.8 mk1 and frankly I do not use it because its rubbish as far as I am concerned here in the uk the 200-600 at 6.3 is limiting enough given our weather, I have the 1.4x and have posted on here with shots I believe are decent but I would not even consider the 2x on the 200-600 and not on the 70-200 either, I use the a-mount 70-200 with 1.4x on the a99ii and its difficult to see much loss in quality, I guess its down to what works for each person and what they expect from it

 

[spudhead]

LOL. Yeah.

My post specifically addressed the comparison you made between the two for the purposes at hand, which is irrelevant. Stretching the discussion to fit your post doesn't strengthen your position.

What's the difference between 400/5.6 and 400/6.3 in real life? It's a third of a stop. THAT is the only comparison that makes sense for the purposes of this discussion. Why would you need to compare the 200-600 with the TC when it doesn't NEED a TC to equal the FL of the 70-200 WITH a TC?

I understand that Tim and respect it and you make sense, My reply was not aimed at you or your comments.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I think my previous comment covers my opinions which are valid for 200-600 and longer reach utilisation and not a direct comparison with the 70-200 mm, you are entitled to your opinion ....but it is not the only opinion......

Better we leave it at that......

 

[spudhead]

Not directed at you, Spud. It was in response to Deleted Member 5003.

I had not noticed the thread had moved on from my question, l was stating I would only use the 70-200 with the 1.4x

 

[AlphaWorld]

There is good evidence out there that the 2X TC is top drawer, but it seems the copies can vary. One reviewer (I think on Fred Miranda) noted that he was dissatisfied with his and he decided to return it. After some deliberation he instead exchanged it, and the second one was much better. His image samples were very surprising with the 200-600 at full extension. I guess the moral of the story is if you want to buy the 2X, get it from a place with an easy return policy, test it out immediately, and exchange it if need be.

Thank you for this comment!

I will revisit the images I shot with it, and give it a second try tomorrow - I let auto-ISO get out of control last time.

I bought my 2x from my local dealer. I will give it a second trial tomorrow and decide whether to try for an exchange.

 

[Deleted Member 777]

Thank you for this comment!

I will revisit the images I shot with it, and give it a second try tomorrow - I let auto-ISO get out of control last time.

I bought my 2x from my local dealer. I will give it a second trial tomorrow and decide whether to try for an exchange.

I did a search and a couple of threads popped up at Miranda. One is a 200-600 W/2X image thread, and another one that was supposed to be dedicated to the 1.4X has quite a few 2X images for comparison. I couldn't find that post where the guy did the exchange. It may not have been at Miranda, or it may have been deep into a thread that I didn't read entirely.

Working with the limitations of a lens that size with slower aperture speeds, the image samples there are amazing.