Thoughts on weight reduction & teleconverter

[Cuppa]

Hi all, I have an A7iii, & have sold off most of the lenses I had with my A6500 (except for one). My uses are primarily for both recording our travels, mainly in remote & natural areas of Australia, rather than in towns & cities, and photographing birds for ID purposes as well as striving to get pleasing shots of them. With the A6500 (which I liked a lot until tropical wet season humidity killed it) my everyday default lens was the Sony 16-70mm zeiss, & my bird lens was the Sigma 150mm to 600mm. I also had the Sony 10mm-18mm wide angle which got less use, but did provide some stunning landscape shots. A sony 55-210mm with an olympus 1.4 TC hung on the end, which was sort of OK in rainforests in a clunky sort of way as it was lighter & easier to carry than the big Sigma, & a 50mm prime I virtually never used.

With change to the A7 I soldiered on with those lenses for a while until we returned home for a spell earlier this year (after 6 years on the road). I then sought to convert to full frame lenses & at the same time to reduce the bulk/weight of lenses to carry for future travel, as well as to reduce weight of the larger lens as I was finding the weight of the Sigma a bit too much for me. All lenses were sold with the exception of the Wide Angle 10-18m, which as yet I have not really trialled with the A7. I'm thinking that wide angle use is not a regular thing I do, so I might just see how I go with that on the A7. Playing with it indoors it didn't seem to be restricted in the same way the 16 to 70 was, despite being an APSC lens? (I seem to be able to get full frame wide angle shots rather than being 'part frame' shots with the 16 to 70).

Two new lenses have been bought & I'm hoping they will suffice for my needs, the Sony 24-105G (replacement for the 16-70 APSC) & the Sony 100-400 GM. I also have the Sony 1.4 teleconverter, & am thinking to buy the 2.0 teleconverter also. In addition & it may be 'sacrilegious' I've bought an Iphone 16 Pro Max for bushwalking when I dont want the extra weight of camera/lens in addition to binoculars. (It has the added bonus of satellite SOS connectivity too which save carrying a satphone (we have Starlink at the vehicle) and always carry a PLB.

I have read good things about the 2 x teleconverter, & some not so good things. (mainly slower auto focus) - losing 2 f stops seems a reasonable trade of to not need another lens whilst retaining a reasonable 'reach', close to what the Sigma gave me on the A6500 (900mm).

As an 'experienced non expert' I'd be keen to hear thoughts on my choices as well as thoughts on the 2 x converter. My feeling is that I probably should have covered my needs, with the only downside that the full frame equivalent of my beloved 16-70 (the 24-105) is significantly larger & heavier (which was a bit of a surprise when I received it mail order).

Cheers all.

 

[AlphaWorld]

First off, about teleconverters on Sony full frame. They are limited to a small set of lenses (most lenses simply won't work). I think all the lenses that do work are white, and not even all white lenses work. So your previous use of 55-210 with a TC won't work. I think the only lens you've listed that can use a teleconverter is the 100-400 GM. The 1.4x teleconverter works fine on the 100-400 (at the cost of one stop of light), but the 2x, well, is limited. Now I will say that I have not personally used the 2x with the 100-400, but I've talked with others about it, and I have used 1.4x and 2x with several other lenses. As a guide, I'd use the 1.4x on all of them, but I'd only use the 2x on the big white primes (the 300, 400, and 600), and with the 70-200 f/4 G II (and I'd use it on the G II to get 1:1 macro).

So I'd advise you not to get the 2x for your 100-400. If you really want it, try it in a store first. It does go on sale every so often, too.

The iPhone 16 is a perfectly sensible choice for when you want to go super-light. Not difficult to carry a power bank to keep it charged for days, either.

 

[Cuppa]

Thanks AW, It is only the 100-400 I plan to use the teleconverter(s) on. The 55-210 was sold. I'm still getting used to the 'novelty' of having a TC at the camera end of the lens after the rather clunky Olympus TC which screwed onto the other end of the 55-210.

I remain undecided about the 2x TC. Are stores generally open to letting folk take their cameras in to try out a lens/TC before buying?

If we weren't planning remote travel where we will be a minimum of 1000kms much of the time from the nearest camera store, (& expect to be away for several years again) I would just take the x1, & see whether I become too frustrated with it's lack of reach before deciding about the x2, but as it is, I think I need to decide before we go. I'm sorta thinking to maybe see if I can buy a used one with the risk being it doesn't get much use.

 

[Tim Mayo]

How are you getting on with the 1.4x on the 100-400? Personally I always found it a little bit softer than without, but still quite usable unless I was pixel peeping and being picky. The 2x does get softer still and also drops you down to f/11, so you really need a decent amount of light to make it work. Although if you are shooting anything at distance then it's often the atmospheric conditions that cause havoc with your images. If you pickup a used 2x to try out then you probably won't lose much if you decide to resell it. If you feel that the 24-105 is too large then you might want to take a look at the Sony FE 20-70mm F4 G which is about 200g lighter than the 24-105.

 

[Cuppa]

Hi Tim, Ta.
TBH I haven't used the 100-400 with or without the 1.4x much yet. I don't seen to get as enthused about photography at home like I do 'on the road'. The few shots I have taken here I can't say I have noticed any real difference between with & without, but I have't shot anything I've felt warranted in keeping, let alone bothering with any 'post production'.

I have noticed the sharpness & responsiveness of the 100-400 compared to the Sigma I had but will need more 'user time' to really evaluate the 1.4x. but I think it is 'good enough'. The alternative is more lenses, more weight more expense & the bane of outback/desert/tropics travellers, more lens changes with inevitable problems with dust & humidity.

I liked the focal length of the APSC 16-70 as an 'everyday lens' & think 20 -70, although smaller & lighter would be a bit limited for me - hence the 24-105. I'll get used to it's size & weight.

 

[Unframed Dave]

My only contribution is that 560mm is probably sufficient for anything.

If you need more reach than that, you probably need to get closer.