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."
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 ?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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 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. 👍
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I’ve never tried it. Based on what I have used, I would imagine that the 17 plus the 2x would not be as good as the 24 quality-wise, because in my opinion the 24 is a better lens than the 17. But, we’re taking about first class optics on both lenses so they’re both great and the differences are minor.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ?
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
DO NOT put the extender on the camera and then on the lens. Bad things can happen electronically to ruin your camera. Put the extender first on the lens and then attach it to the camera. Take it off the same way.
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.
at 5:50 if I zoom on this TH-cam 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.
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.
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.
When you crop the image, you're doing 'damage' to the pixals...if you use the teleconverter, you're protecting the pixals but just increasing the length of the lens (mm's). (No pixals were hurt in the making of my comment!!)
It depends how much youre cropping...more than 2x? Just get a teleconverter. Or invest in a high-res crop sensor body like a 90D and crop even more. If youre only cropping like 1.5x on a 5dIV or EOS R for example those pixels are nearly negligible for your end product. Unless you want to blow it up on a billboard, who cares Teleconverters also hurt your image quality to an extent, especially a 2x one. What was a razor sharp image would turn into something thats only acceptably sharp.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
I watched the video at 1,5x speed, no exposure problems at all! ^)))
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.
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
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
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
you lost me when the Disney setting came into the frame. And I will never return.
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.
What about doubling resolution in ACR?
Excellent job on this video. Right to the point with the information that is needed, no fluff. Thanks
Thank you!
I have Canon prime lens 300 mm F4 , I want to purchase Canon 2x teleconverter , its work properly
Yes that combination will work
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!
If this extender works with canon 18-200 mm lens ?
No, the 1.4x and 2x extenders are not compatible with that lens
@@BillEricPhotography Thank u very much. Actually ur video helped me a lot about the matter . This is kingshuk Aich from India.
I assembled a teleconveter from macro rings.
An aspherical lens is used.
Compatible with all lenses and focal lengths.
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.
Confusing... 100x2X = 200mm / 100x1.4X = 240mm ??? how come ???
No, 100mmx1.4x=140mm
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!
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
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!
Tc and cropping from the camera are reducing image quality. I tested on R5.
Yes, both options are going to reduce image quality somewhat
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!
Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison.
Happy to help 😄👍🏻
Just curious can you put 4 and make it 8x? So my 600mm will become 4800mm
Technically it might be possible to stack them but you’d end up losing too much light
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
Extenders are good only if good sunlight exists
Yes you definitely need more light
Great video 💯
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
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!
Awesome, thanks. Wondering if you used the II version of the 2x, any difference from the III? Thanks again, nice video.
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!
As someone who owned a 5dmark4 and now r6… i cant tell u how i miss my 5d. U cant crop on r6😂💔💔💔
Yeah I know what you mean
@@BillEricPhotography i would choose 5d mark iv than my r6 if i ever have a chance to switch🙂
Crop is not the same as a physical zoom via lens
That is correct
Even more close with 5DS.
True!
Have you ever used your 2x with your 17mm TSE? If so what was your findings? I'm wondering if you had a similar findings as if you used your 24mm TSE.
I’ve never tried it. Based on what I have used, I would imagine that the 17 plus the 2x would not be as good as the 24 quality-wise, because in my opinion the 24 is a better lens than the 17. But, we’re taking about first class optics on both lenses so they’re both great and the differences are minor.
Both!
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
Great experiment. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
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!
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!
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!
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.
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 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!
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
Why do you get closer zoom on the uncropped image at 1:1?
Which image? There are shots with and without the teleconverter, which magnifies the image.
@@BillEricPhotography Never mind. I just re-watched, and I misunderstood what you were saying the first time.
Very helpful thanks
Happy to help
are you Dutch? Thank you for this review...
No, mostly Scandinavian so close. Thanks!
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
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.
Great video, very well analysed. Thanks very much.
Thanks for watching!
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.
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
I think if you already own some long lenses, it’s a small investment to make to keep some extenders handy.
Great point!
Thanks, this video made up my mind... its not worth the money + unconvenience ... or, not for me at least
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!😊
I think the real advantage of a teleconverter is being able to see/read/identify what you're shooting.
Very interesting, often wondered about this myself now I know. Thanks
Happy to help Peter!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
Nice video. The lens is a beauty and a beast.
better contrast on the uncropped version, and cropping obviously degrades any images where extenders don't.
But cutting the photo will reduce the size of photo and get blurry when zoom in i think extendor worth it at this point
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
you never took mp into account from the camera. Try a high mp camera and the convertor is even worse.
From what I understand, it's the t-value that's reduced by the teleconverter, not the f-value
The f value is reduced by the teleconverter, which results in a smaller aperture which results in a slower t value
DO NOT put the extender on the camera and then on the lens. Bad things can happen electronically to ruin your camera. Put the extender first on the lens and then attach it to the camera. Take it off the same way.
Good tip, thank you!
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.
at 5:50 if I zoom on this TH-cam 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!
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.
I use a sigma 1.4 TC with a sigma 150-600mm lens - but I find that the combination autofocus struggles in low light ...
It’s reasonable, that’s a big lens. I’ve never had any trouble with the AF using the Canon lenses.
You will almost certainly get better photos without the TC. That lens is f6.3 at 600, so it is already strained for light. Just crop in after.
Yes I find that I can still crop in quite significantly
Disney Image Makers I find that it really struggles in dawn dusk and overcast low light condition ... as Tex Mex below indicates ... crop in
I mean the extenders cheaper then a new lens.. but I still feel like they should be cheaper lol
You’re right they are pricey. But, hey they’re white and in Canon, white=expensive!
Worse comes to worse you could also resize your image to get more pixels for print using Topaz Labs gigapixel.
True, a little too much in-computer work for us though.
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!
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!
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.
When you crop the image, you're doing 'damage' to the pixals...if you use the teleconverter, you're protecting the pixals but just increasing the length of the lens (mm's). (No pixals were hurt in the making of my comment!!)
Haha yes. Like clone troopers, pixels are expendable!
It depends how much youre cropping...more than 2x? Just get a teleconverter. Or invest in a high-res crop sensor body like a 90D and crop even more. If youre only cropping like 1.5x on a 5dIV or EOS R for example those pixels are nearly negligible for your end product. Unless you want to blow it up on a billboard, who cares
Teleconverters also hurt your image quality to an extent, especially a 2x one. What was a razor sharp image would turn into something thats only acceptably sharp.
Prime teleconverters are they any good
Canon recommends to couple the teleconverter to the lens 1st, then attach to the camera body (not putting the teleconverter to the camera 1st)
Será que faz diferença ?
Thanks! Great video. New York accent?
Yes sir!
im having alot of difficulty with it focusing
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.
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!
👍
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
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.
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.
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.
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.