Canon Teleconverter - or should you just crop your image?
Sometimes I need more reach than my telephoto lens has, but is it better to use a teleconverter or just crop in the computer? In this video I'll try it both ways and compare the results. I was pretty surprised at what I found!
-Eric
Canon 2x extender - amzn.to/2Vfd361
Canon 1.4x extender - amzn.to/2LBu1HJ
Learn more at our channel and subscribe / @billericphotography
See the photo gear we use and recommend at www.amazon.com/shop/disneyima...
Find the Adobe photo editing programs we use at
clkuk.tradedoubler.com/click?p...
Check out our Disneyland book amzn.to/2KVZhj0
DISCLAIMER: If you would like to help us support the channel and allow us to continue making videos like this, shop through the affiliate links above. This means that if you buy through one of the product links, we may receive a small commission. Thank you for your support!! - Bill & Eric
The main point of this video saying that if you crop more than two times, the teleconverter is better is a very useful advice. Havent seen it in other videos on this topic. Thanks man!
Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison.
Happy to help 😄👍🏻
Note that Canon CPN has stated "To get the best out of the new lenses and the Mark III extenders photographers must ensure they attach the extender to the lens first, before attaching the whole unit to the camera. This ensures that the combined lens information is transmitted correctly to provide the optimum image quality and focus performance."
Great point thanks for sharing
Hmmm. Good to know... Now I try to flash back to remember how I've done it ? Probably both ways. My question is, if a person did this in the wrong order, would it make a night and day difference ? Would it lead to a complete failure and terrible images, or only a slight difference ?
It really doesn’t make a difference. It’s mostly about the info being transmitted between camera and lens.
I have heard this before, not only with the new converters, but the old ones as well. I have done it both ways, in the excitement of the moment, and haven't seen a difference, but Canon should know.
Thank you for all your time and effort to give us what we need to know how much do extenders actually make difference on an image.
Thanks for watching!
Always wanted to know these details. Great work thank you!
Thank you!
Excellent job on this video. Right to the point with the information that is needed, no fluff. Thanks
Thank you!
I want to see the photo of the woodpecker! ;)
Haha I thought I found a nice quiet spot!
yeah me too, he takes a picture of a sign when there's obviously beauty around him.
@@evildiesel1709 the sign is a fixed object so easier to do comparison tests
Really great video on the teleconverter conundrum.
Thank you 📷👍🏻
I think the main advantage for using an extender is when you need to manually focus. Did you try to sharpen the pixelated image in post processing? How do the images compare after post production?
Thanks always wondered about the extender vs cropping
Happy to help, I was wondering the same thing!
Very interesting, often wondered about this myself now I know. Thanks
Happy to help Peter!
Thank you. Very helpful and informative video, very well done!
Thank you!
Thanks very much for the video. I have been so debating buying this lens - this answered my questions. This lens will be a long timekeeper. Excited to use here on marine life.
Happy to help!😊
Nice video. The lens is a beauty and a beast.
Very useful video - thank you. I think I got the main message that is it all depends on what the final results might be used for. Also it shows that yes, there is a slight benefit from an extender if the image is really pushed but for video and for normal picture use, it seems as if the penalties of an extender outweigh any advantages. Thank you for really helping me with this one.
Glad it helped!
Thanks for the comparison! I would only add two more things to consider before reaching a conclusion: one is the position on the frame of the portion to be cropped. Most lenses are sharper in the center. Thus, if you crop from the edges you may be using a less sharp image to begin with. The other is the noise amount. As you crop the noise does not increase but it becomes more visible. I shot some condors in the Andes and the combination of cropping from off-center and noise gave me as a result very noise and not very sharp images. Cheers!
Great points, thanks!
i think this video made me want to pull the trigger on buying one. Great informative vid!
Thanks! I’ve been using them for years, great accessory!
Good test! Crop is sharper but more pixelation vs extender which gives you a slightly softer but smoother image. If you use the extender, you can get a little extra sharpness with the photoshop/lightroom texture/clarity/dehaze settings.
Good points. Definitely a fine line between these options.
Great experiment. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
This is a fantastic review mate.
Thank you!
Great video, very well analysed. Thanks very much.
Thanks for watching!
It was very useful information, thanks!
Happy to help!
You have missed one very important point here - what will the end use of the image be? Cropping in on an image as much as you did means you now have a much smaller resolution file, so say you wanted to print it, you wouldn't be able to print it anywhere near as big as the image using the teleconverter.
Yes, thanks! Of course the photographer needs to be aware that the resolution of the final image is important.
Absolutely agree, i want to use my 32mp m6 mkii with my canon 100-400 and 1.4 extender to see what I get. cropping is not something you want to do if you want to print.
As much as I understood, this was just "academic" test, not practical one. It´s all about your gear. Conclusion is fine, if you own 5D IV, otherwise extender could be the way to go.
@@oldtimer7635 I believe what you were trying to tell us who do not know the differences between cropping and extenders, sadly you did miss the points out that cropping an image degrades it and that would be foolhardy to even think of cropping and not putting an extender on.
@@oldtimer7635 yeah it really depends on the quality of the TC and the resolution of the body
A good vid. I regularly shoot low light music events with an F2.8 70-200mm and always want more reach, but can never afford to lose 2 stops. I'll stick with a crop, but may get an extender for daytime work.
Sounds like a solid plan!
Great explanation and excellent use case. If you want to go beyond the 2X then it’s fair to use it and crop. If you just want 2X and that’s the final composition... just crop in post. 👍
Thanks, glad it made sense!
Love that 300 2.8 L IS as well! That's more or less why I decided to go with Canon mirrorless right now
It’s about as good as a lens can get!
yeah, really agree with your result. I found your video after I've done a comparison myself. IF you are not going to print or show the picture on a big screen, crop can even provide better results. Test my olympus 40-150mm with and without a 1.4x teleconverter.
Totally agree
Excellent video. I use a canon 100-400 with a 1.4x on a 5D IV. I don’t see any image quality reduction but what I do think maybe a slight downside, is the speed of focusing may be slightly reduced. I notice this with birds in flight.
Good point about the focusing, if you’re using the extender for wildlife or sports that’s definitely something to consider.
superb explanation
Thanks!
Great video, thanks for the pixel peaks! I’ve wondered about these extenders. Rather than the extender, I keep the M50. Its crop is my extender, turning the Sigma 150~600 into a 240~960mm lens, put on the Viltron reducer & it becomes 170~681mm. All that said, I have no doubt that using Canons extender on a quality Canon lens probably produces a better overall result.
Thanks! If you need super-telephoto and you need to crop in even further, the teleconverter is the way to go. Otherwise, use the versatility of your sensor!
Yes, that's what I do when using my 400mm L lens and need more reach, switch from the 6D MkII to my 80D. But I still would like get one of the extenders.
They’re a good accessory to have!
What I love about L lenses is that often cropping at 100% gives you a better image than a non L lens which is not cropped at all. This alone makes them worth the money as it effectively gives you added zoom in post, and a whole new photo from a photo that you didn't see in the field. I'm so glad I was talked into spending the extra money on L lenses. Looking at the 70-200 f2.8 with x2 tele right now.
Good point thanks!
@@BillEricPhotography I had that lens for a bit, with the 1.4 converter, and it was great image quality. However I sent it back because it was so heavy it wasn't useable. It really is awkward handling it without a tripod. I may get the f4 version as it's so much lighter.
I watched the video at 1,5x speed, no exposure problems at all! ^)))
Good test.
Thanks that really helped.
Happy to help!
Thank you. Very useful.
👍🏻👍🏻
Very useful video! Short and to the point with example. I think for the price a Teleconverter is a good buy, just in case the need arises. What you loose in quality, for the average enthusiast is minimal.
Great point thanks!
Would be interesting to see a similar comparison but with a smaller far away target, like birds in flight, or wildlife. I find the crop of such targets quickly breaks down, especially on a crop sensor camera. The extender seems to make a larger difference when cropping such targets in post processing.
Yes if you’re cropping in to 100% or beyond then the extender would be better.
Modern Professional lenses are so sharp, that they resolve details smaller than the pixel size of modern DSLRS with 5-9µm pixel size. Teleconverters don't increase that resolution, but their added magnification brings the size of resolvable details closer to the pixel size, basically giving you a higher resolution shot for the cost of a few F-stops. For most cameras you can find the "Diffraction limited aperture", which is the aperture at which point a perfect lens can resolve details smaller than the pixel size of that camera. For a Canon 5D that's 10.1. So that X2 converter putting your aperture to 11 should not produce a noticeable reduction in sharpness. It's actually a pretty good combination to make your whole camera system work as close to the diffraction limit as possible.
Great video 💯
Very helpful! 👍🏼
😄👍🏻
Excellent review, thank you. I will make this test on my future 100-400 Mark II with the 5D Mark IV. Cropping yes, but you need to have at least 30 Million Pixel. I believe the same test on a 5D Mark iii will advantage the converter...
I think you’re right you need about 25mp+ to get a higher quality crop.
Thanks for this video. I did the same test with a Canon 5DSr /100-400 Mk II / 1.4x III converter and the 2x converter. I found that the results were phenomenal with the 1.4x III. However, there was some softness with the 2x (very slight though). I'd be interested it you found the same thing with your set up.
Yes you definitely get better results from the 1.4x. But the differences are so slight, it really is hard to tell.
For pixel peepers only. Cheers. P
at 5:50 if I zoom on this KZhead video (you can do it too, just not in fullscreen mode) I can clearly see a sharper and much cleaner image which means on my own computer there will be a big difference. Thank you for this video I will now buy with confidence.
Happy to help!
Hi thanks , very useful. What you found is why up to this point I haven’t got an extender for my 70 - 200 (on a 5d4), however I’ve just started using the 5D4 for video and need the longer reach (from time to time - currently America’s cup yachting) so am likely to invest in the 2xiii. Any views ?
Good point, for video you’re probably better off with the 2x extended. You’ll find that the canon 2xIII works great.
Thanks for this video. Clearly for most people the 2x converter is a bargain compared to $13K for an actual 600 mm lens, unless someone else is paying for the 600 mm lens.
I actually ended up buying the 2x and it is definitely softer for me. I compared a shot without the extender and zoomed in. The zoomed in photo was the same if not sharper than the 2x converter shot. I thought online reviews were being harsh on it but I definitely see the difference. Maybe the 1.4x would be better but the 2x was a headache to put on and off so I think I'll just be cropping from now on.
Not a bad option. Still waiting for the RF versions of all this!
Yeah, 2X CAN work, but often is soft/hard to get super sharp. 1.4x generally is very little sharpness loss/can actually help. But, yeah, these bare lenses can be darn good, with heavy crops.
agreed
However, I am renting a 300 2.8 II lens, and tested 2XIII on that, and it was quite good... sharper than I expected. So depends on the lens.
Great vid! Just wondering if I should get a 2x converter for my 5Ds-R with 75-300mm f/4-5.6?
Thanks! Only if you’re shooting in bright sun, because the 2x will turn that lens into an f/8-11.
I think the main advantage of the extender is that you see the subject taking the picture. Some objects you can not see at all in detail when at 400mm but you can with 800.So cropping afterward can give bad surprises.
Good point thanks!
What about doubling resolution in ACR?
When comparing it gives a more fair result if you increase the number of pixels in the cropped image using a sample algorithm such bicubic sampling (default in Photoshop), this reduces the pixelation quite a lot.
True, I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible though. Most photographers aren’t using anything with the word bicubic in it.
Extenders DO help for things like Astrophotography and Macro Photography. For Astro you need a larger image cast on your sensor. Cropping won't work. Taking photos of planets or nebula, the moon or sun, you often need the image as large as possible through the lens. And pushing a 400mm lens to 800mm makes a big difference. If you simply crop it, you end up with fewer pixels in your final astro image. Same thing for Macro photography. The Canon 1.4X and 2X can be used with the Canon 65mm Macro lens, increasing the magnification of the macro image singificantly.
Good points, thanks!
could be interresting to se the 300mm crop with topaz ai megapixel to get same resolution and see the difference then.
Thanks for this video. I've been using DSLRs since they were 4MP and back then extenders were really helpful when using long lenses. As MP count has gone up, they are less and less useful. The cameras are getting close to extracting all the info that a lens can offer. And for sports or wildlife, better faster focusing is achieved without the extender, especially in low light. Right now I use a 7DII as my "extender". The 1.6 crop gets to the center of the FF image just like an extender, but the lens is still 2.8 (or whatever it's max was.) As the pixel density of the 7DII is still much higher than a FF DSLR like a 1DX, more detail vs cropping the FF image. And while the 7DII is a little more expensive (used) than a converter. It's a also a complete camera that can be used as a back-up, handed to a 2nd shooter etc. I have a M6 II on the way with 32MP in the cropped image. You'd need an 81MP FF to get the same density.
Great points, thanks for sharing. You’re right at the pixel count has increased dramatically, the cropping option becomes better and better.
But with a 2x crop sensor you always have a 2x crop sensor. You don’t always want to shoot super telephoto.
The point is if you’re going to add reach by using a crop sensor you might as well just use a full frame sensor and just crop in editing. This way you’re not restricting yourself on the wide end.
@@BillEricPhotography Using my 7D II as an example, you'd need a 52MP FF camera to achieve the same pixel density. There are FF around 52MP, but I shoot sports, I need that 10fps or better. So maybe a 45MP R5? Just $3900, and the pixel density is close... I shoot about 1000 frames per game and have worn out 2 7DIIs with close to 500K shots on each in the past 5 years. I carry a 1DX as well. I have a great 11-17mm f2.8 crop lens, and an 8-15mm fisheye. I don't feel limited on the wide end because I have a 7DII. My point is the FF cameras don't come close in pixel density or cost per photo right now, or in the history of digital cameras. In the future, maybe.
@@corygraw9729 I have Canon EOS lenses, including a 400mm f2.8. Canon doesn't make a 2X crop sports camera, so this is not really an option for me.
Nice video, thanks! What if you are into bird photography abd you hace to picture fast flying birds, would you crop or teleconverter?
I think with today's cameras it's perfectly fine to crop. If you are planning on printing something really big then maybe you want all of those megapixels.
well done that answers a couple of questions well done bu not on my M50 ha ha stay safe see ya
On the M50 the difference would be a little closer but the conclusion would be the same.
I liked your video, wish you would have shot something more appealing than an inanimate object. I did hear a woodpecker around although it could have been a jackhammer if there was construction going on:) I have this teleconverter and use it exclusively with a Canon f5.6 400mm lens. I find the image quality doesn't really suffer but the logistics do. There is no AF with my 6D and i definitely need a tripod, wide open it's F11 I think, it's not ideal! I can't afford the 2.8 version of this lens!
Yeah it tough when using a smaller aperture lens, AF won’t work. And yes, I think it may have been a woodpecker. Bird photography has never been my thing though I don’t think I have the patience!
Thanks! Great video. New York accent?
Yes sir!
Hello, how are you? I know you have EOS R and when i watch your video i get mine R :) now wanna ask did you try teleconventer with R, is it work very well with adapter, any issue? And what about canon 100-400 L II, cause i have tamron 100-400 and when i try take a photo after 300 mm focusing is not good, too slow, killing me and want to change with Canon 100-400 but need advice :) need your help about teleconventer 1.4 X and Canon 100-400 :) thank you very much
I have used the teleconverters with the R and they work just as well, no problems at all. I think the problem you may be having with the slow focus has to do with your maximum aperture. On a lens like the 100-400 your maximum aperture zoomed out past 300mm is already small, and when you add the teleconverter it cuts that down even more. So there is very little light getting through to the sensor for focusing. The teleconverters work much better with the big constant aperture 2.8 lenses.
question for you.. i have a mix of EF and RF glass and im thinking about the 1.4 rf extender. im wondering if the RF extender can be used with my ef lens using the rf to ef adaptor between the lens and the teleconverter? then i would only need one extender.
Yes you can use the adapter between the EF lens and the RF extender it works nicely.
Hi Nice Information, Did you tried ex Converter + 1.4 converter
Yes I’ve tried that, the focus is not great and you can see a slight decrease in the image quality.
@@BillEricPhotography Thank you
Hi Eric, I have a 5DS and will get a 300mm 2.8L IS in some days hopefully. My question is if with the EF 2x II will get the same quality as with the III version? I think the 2x II was introduced in 2001, while the 300mm 2.8L IS is from year 2000. I guess it was designed for it. Some people say the first EF 300mm 2.8L non-IS from '87 doesn't work as well with version III as with the original 2x version. Is the same logic valid when combining the 300mm 2.8L IS with the newer 2x III, probably designed primarily for the 300mm 2.8L IS II? When I use the 2x II on the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS II that's from 2014, the results aren't great.
I have used both the 2x version II and the 2x version III with my 300mm f/2.8 and saw no difference at all
@@BillEricPhotography Thanks for the information!
👍
i was just searching for newer lens and i found them on amazon wanted to see what they do by someone who knows what they are doing
The way to get a true comparison is after you crop to get the same zoom level up size it in photo shop to get the same size image and then look at both at 100 percent and see if you truly gained anything with the tele-converter. I did this on my Canon 70-200mm F2.8II and found The upsized image was better. the 300mm F2.8 Prime is a better lens though so maybe you could get some extra detail.
Yeah that would be a great way to compare
I can barely tell the difference between no converter and 1.4. The 2x is a different story. Normally I only use the 2x when filling the frame with a (relatively) close subject (like a songbird). I have little success trying to bring in something distant. It's almost never sharp. Better to crop in post and use Gigapixel if necessary, but you have to make absolutely sure that there is no motion blur and the exposure is right on.
I totally agree
If you are using lenses from 300MM to as long as 200MM and you got eight a 1.4 or a 2x Converter and want to get good image quality I suggest you set your IOS on your camera on AUTO and make sure you got a mono Pods or a tripod when you are using Heavy long lenses and
Good content.
Thanks John!
I keep hearing this _cropping in photoshop_ option and as a media professional and photographer I cannot understand why so many people think this will work! You're literally cropping and therefore reducing resolution of your photos. A tele-converter is not going to reduce as much aperture as you think.
Cropping a 50 megapixel photo is not going to hurt your resolution very much
I currently have a 90D and a canon 70-200 2.8 IS III, would there be any issues using the 1.4 extender for daylight motorsports use?
Na 90d acredito que 1.4 ficaria normal foco automático ! 2x 👎!
Good topic. Just one comment, while adding a TC into the train you should add the TC to the lens, then add the body.
Good tip thanks!
@@BillEricPhotography Can I ask why this is important?
It’s not really important, just some good comparisons between two different methods to get a similar result.
@@Bloody1369 in the tele manual "Mounting and dismounting the ExtenderFirst attach the Extender to the lens, then attach it to the camera. To detach it,follow the same procedure in reverse.To detach the Extender from the lens, slide the lens release lever as shown bythe arrow, then turn the Extender counterclockwise." Some cameras don't recognize the extender in the train if put on the camera body first.
Great point!
Thanks for the video. Would love to see a similar test to this for 4K video. I would assume that the converter would out perform cropping in on a video clip. Great vid!
I can test that but I’m sure that you would be correct, the using the converter wold be better than cropping for video.
are you Dutch? Thank you for this review...
No, mostly Scandinavian so close. Thanks!
So, here is the thing, I am not sure whether I just got a lemon or the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter is really much worse than the Canon equivalent. I have just started shooting birds, may be for a year and recently I just bought a Sigma 150-600mm. Great lens for the money. But, the guy at the shop sold me the factory combo deal together with the 1.4x teleconverter. So, this is what happened, the lens straight out of the box was very sharp, much sharper than expected. I was very happy with it and eventually I tried it with the extender. Boom and my dream was shattered in an instance!! (sounds a little dramatic I know, LOL). To begin with, the hunting was ridiculous. No, pardon me, to begin with, the actual focusing speed was much slower and yes then subsequently followed by the hopeless hunting. Simply put, it just couldn't focus. You see, what I found was the example you demonstrated in the video might not be totally true in the real shooting world pending on the subject you shoot. So, after I encountered the problem, I also tried to do something similar by shooting at a tin of paint from 50ft away. When you are looking at wordings, somehow it kind of lessens the blow as long as you can read the wordings. But, as you put it into real use if you will like in my case by focusing it on the leaves of a tree or a bird, it was literally deemed unusable. Not only it couldn't focus, even when it (sort of did), the focus was still off. Even based on the paint can, I would say anything up to 300mm (420mm extended) is OK or 400mm max (560mm extended, as long as you don't crop in is barely acceptable), but from that point up, you can forget about it. Having said that, I do use an APS-C body, a Canon 90D with a 32.5 MP sensor, so in effect, at 300mm I am actually shooting at 672mm which is much, much shorter than if I had used the lens without the teleconverter wide open at 600mm or 960mm in my case. My conclusion is, again pending on the subject you shoot, don't use an extender. Just use the lens as it is and crop in as long as it is still sharp and the quality is still there. Beyond that point, it simply becomes irrelevant or just don't shoot beyond a certain distance in order to maintain that quality. Or may be, just don't use it on an APS-C body and pretty much treat the 1.6x crop factor as your own teleconverter if you will. Or perhaps a teleconverter is best used with a full frame camera.
Thanks for sharing! You definitely shouldn’t see that much of a decrease in quality though.
@@BillEricPhotography Yea, I need to look into that and bring it back to the shop. But, an interesting thing to note is on the instructions, Sigma listed a table of lenses that can be used with the 1.4x teleconverter. In essence, there are only two, one being the 120-300mm and the other the 150-600mm. But, in the 150-600mm columns, it listed both the 1.4x and 2x TCs requiring MF or manual focus. And under the 1.4x TC, there is a footnote that says you should be able to shoot it with AF at f/8. If I knew it was this dodgy to begin with, I would have just bought the lens alone and never bothered with the TC.
Yeah those TC’s can severely limit the AF
@@BillEricPhotography The thing to note here is doesn't it sound kind of worrying when Sigma only made its TCs to work on only 2 lenses (or technically 4 including their Sports versions) out of their entire line-up? Now that I am seriously looking into the matter, there seems to be a fair bit of complaints from the users.
Yes that is kind of strange
Can I use like 2xCanon Extender EF 2x III with a 400mm together?
Yes the 2x extender works perfectly with the canon 400mm lenses
If its the 400 f5.6 you loose AF. 5.6 becomes f11. Even with a 1.4 you could loose it , depending on what body you have.
Unless it is a very top end lens where you still have "untapped" sharpness, or where you can see when zoomed on your image that the lens could produce(not the best word choice) a little more sharpness, better off just cropping.
I think if you already own some long lenses, it’s a small investment to make to keep some extenders handy.
Great point!
That WAS helpful. I'm getting ready to move from APS-C to full-frame (80D to R) and thinking I'll miss the "reach" I'm used to.
The R is going to be a great move!
I moved from APS-C to full frame (Canon 7D to 5D) and have to say i have never looked back. With the old camera I never used the converter because it would result in raising the ISO due to the loss of light and the APS-C sensor did not like the higher ISO's. The ISO is not a problem with the full frame so I am able to use the 1.4x converter most of the time and in effect not loose any reach having moved across.
Great point!
@@KGsPhotography I use a 1.4 on 500mm and Canon 70D, if light is not very good, then its the 6D. Photography is all swings and roundabouts.
If you can, hang onto the 80D and add the R. I came from film so went digital with FF and later added APSC. Would not like to be without both formats.
Just a thought. Careful with your terminology. In your opening monologue you say "extenders" to refer to what I believe you mean teleconverters. It's important to note that there are "extension tubes" and "teleconverters", both of which do different things. So mixing the terminology may be a little confusing for folks.
Teleconverters and extenders are the same thing; the name "Extender" is used by Canon. Extension tubes are a different product.
Is it gonna be good? I have Canon 55 - 250mm but i want to buy teleconverter 2x to have 500mm Lens for plane spotting
You’re going to have a very small maximum aperture with that set up. You might want to try it out first to see if it works for you.
Thanks confirmed my thoughts. Just wondering, have you ever tried stacking the extenders? Basically giving you a 2.8x range. Not even sure how that would work? I only have a 2x so I have never tried it.
I have done the stack! Image quality loss is a little noticeable, plus you’re losing a lot of light. But it’s nice to have an 840mm f/8 lens sometimes!
@@BillEricPhotography I have both, on my 500 that would be 1400mm f11, or 2240 on a crop body. WOW.
What about a scenario where you are recording a VIDEO of an owl or a deer at night, with some moon light, using a Canon 5D mk4, 70-200mm 2.8 lens? Is it a similar situation where the increased length with the 2x teleconverter has diminishing returns since it is letting in less very needed light? Would it be better to just use the 70-200mm, boost the ISO to where minimal distortion(lower the better of course) and just crop after in a video editor? I am going to do this experiment, but it would be nice to get your input. With photos there is a lot more digital data to crop in compared to video. The Canon video might have an advantage because the video files are less compressed and are HUGE, so cropping in Adobe premiere might make a clear video image.............. I am guessing the only reason to use the teleconverter is if you are a perfectionist and want the max sharpness zoomed in(even though no one will ever notice or care, haha) or if perhaps you are filming a video for a live stream video and can not crop in post production..... does that make sense?
With the newer cameras you’re better off not using the teleconverter and just cropping as needed. Especially in low light you’re giving up too much light with the teleconverter.
What will be your take on 1.4x III for 100-400mm Mark II
It works nice but focus is a bit slower on the long end.
Does the converter need to be auto focus? Will one converter work for all my canon lenses?
The Canon converters are autofocus, although they work with manual focus lenses also. The converters fit all canon EF lenses, so yes you can use one converter for all of your lenses.
Trying to find an extender for my canon 90d EF-S lens. But not sure which one they do, or if they even make one that will fit an EF-S telephoto lens.
No you would need an adapter to use an extender, and then only with EF lenses
I assembled a teleconveter from macro rings. An aspherical lens is used. Compatible with all lenses and focal lengths. They can change the zoom by complementing empty rings
Thank you for the advise, I was going to buy a converter but after watching this video, I realise I do not really need one.
Glad it helped, thanks for watching!
Many people find that extenders slow autofocus and lower the 'keeper rate'. Extenders work well on full-frame sensors and high-end prime lenses, but suck on crop sensors, zoom lenses and lower-end lenses. An extender between a mid-range zoom lens and a crop-sensor camera is basically garbage.
Great points thanks!
That amount of cropping is entering major levels of pixel peeping. Most people who crop usually do just to change the aspect ratio a bit for composition's sake. A 5dIV sensor should be good enough for most crops. Teleconverters were really only useful during the days of film and early days of digital when sensors were no more than 12mp. Cropping wasnt an option then.
I think you’re right!
Hi i have a canon 7d with a 1.6x which turns my 500mm turns into a 800mm will the extender give me then a 800mm x 2?
Basically yes
Presently I have used canon 7d mark 11 with canon 500 mm f4 is lens, I want purchase canon coverter2x iii, some one told me 7d mark 11 with TC 2x iii autofocus not working, only found manual focus, please et us know it's correct
It’s supposed to work, BUT you may have trouble with autofocus using that combination
This is in no way meant o offend Disney, only help the people who have not achieved this standing This is a decent idea to make a video on, but I feel a number of details need to be mentioned in an updated video if possible. Aperture: Usually when you use teleconverters, you lose at least a stop of light. I don't know your iso values to get a good reference on this image but noise is always and issue when you loose light. Money: Not everyone can afford 300mm at 2.8 so they lose light out the gate. So when we crop we start with a handicap where 2.8 on a full frame Mark 4 will not so much. ISO: You are also in a well lit situation. A better test is to go in a low light situation and watch the image crumble at 12,800 and handicap you lens to a 5.6 (The usual kit lens limitation) to relate to everyone at the bottom first to show a comprehensive change that everyone can expect to see Handicaps Of Normal People: Then handicapping that lens that's a monster at 2.8 will allow everyone to see the benefits of having fast glass and how that improves using a teleconverter. MEGAPIX: Also Megapixels matter to those that understand the camera that they are using. A 50MP 5SDR will yield totally different results than the 5D Mark 4. Also cheaper cameras like the A7R Mark I II III and IV have way more megapixels that the 5D Mark IV at cheaper prices but not fast 300mm lenses that are readily an option Canon also sells way more crop frame cameras than full frame, so lets talk about the sensor size and possible advantages there. Physical Gear and Technique: Is this a monopod? how much money is that monopod? is it worth me getting fast glass at low iso values or slow glass and save thousands on the megapixel? Lol i'm just getting started. I thought Nikon sponsored disney?!
Thanks for the feedback. This video was really just to demonstrate the difference in image quality between the two methods, not an all-encompassing thesis on every different aspect on the topic. And yes, Disney uses Nikon in the parks, we are independent though and are free to use whatever works for us! Thanks again.
@@BillEricPhotography Lol I understand I'm long winded, but even on the surface level I wish some info was there like iso value, tripod/monopod practical things that wouldn't be in a thesis so I can benefit from the video. Most of us have older lenses and cameras at cheaper values that will show artifacts like noise and a reduction of sharoness. But don't mind me. I don't mean to stress you out. A friend just got the lens and I'm doing research. Have a great day.
I wonder what the result would be had to first enlarged the original 300m image in Photoshop using the best upscaling, then cropped in as far as the 600mm equivalent image with the extender.
I know that’s an option but for most shooters (myself included) they don’t want to be involved in upscaling in photoshop, the more simple editing the better
As far as I know, the tc should change the depth of field, correct me if I'm wrong
No, the depth of field will not change when you add the TC
hello.i have a 70/200 L and use the canon 2x extender and i've been taking photos to eagles and i can't get the sharp focus with the extender, use all focus, use allservo, single point and nothing to do ???
Is your shutter speed fast enough? What are the atmospheric conditions? If you’re shooting through thick air it will make the image look soft.
also if you set your aperture to 5.6 using this you will have no AF depending on your camera of course.
True good point
There is one topic missing, the compression on 600mm is more important then on a 300mm, and this is what should be compared as well.
Using the 2x on the 300mm you will get basically the same compression it’s just magnifying the image
If you have a the 2x on you can still crop and get a good image
Is it possible to stack the converters? To add more zoom?
They won’t stack directly but if you put a 12mm extension tune between them then you can stack them for even more zoom. You’re giving up some image quality though.
They won’t stack directly but if you put a 12mm extension tune between them then you can stack them for even more zoom. You’re giving up some image quality though.
Physically, there’s nothing stopping you from stacking converters. Practically, you’ll run out of light under anything but the brightest sunny days, focusing will be challenging, and camera shake could be a problem.
Totally true!
So if my camera has lower resolution sensor (12/16/18MP) I will get better results with teleconverter because it zooms in optically and if it has higher resolution (24/30MP etc.) , there is not much difference between cropping and using teleconverter. Did I get it right?
Yup you got it exactly right
I think the real advantage of a teleconverter is being able to see/read/identify what you're shooting.
Speed impacted from 1/200 to 1/60 sec, i.e. I asumme this will reduce quality of moving images?
Yes you will potentially get more blur with 1/60th, something to keep in mind when you’re using an extender
I have Canon prime lens 300 mm F4 , I want to purchase Canon 2x teleconverter , its work properly
Yes that combination will work
Which one is better tele con or croping ? Thank
Teleconverters will usually give you a better image, although in most situations you can’t tell the difference.