Teleconverters | MUST-HAVE or WASTE of MONEY? Are you better off cropping?

[@csb65536]

To me, this was the best video on the subject of using extenders that I have watched.I shoot with full frame Canon DSLR cameras. I use my 400mm F2.8 is lens for my bird photography as well as other wildlife photography. I often use the EF X1.4 III extender. I can use it with excellent results in most situations, including large bird photography. I rented an EF X2 III extender recently and found it to not be acceptable for me as far as shooting birds in flight. However, I was impressed with the results when shooting many other subjects. I was able to shoot Bison, and get some awesome close up shots of just their heads. These Bison are not fenced in, so you do have to limit how close you get. After using the X2 converter, I have ordered one for myself. I know the limitations it has, but I am definitely excited about the benefits it offers. Your video hit the nail on the head.

[@CamillaI]

I have both the Sony TC's but try not to use them ! I would only use the 1.4 with the 200-600mm, but the 600mm f4 takes both no problem as you would expect ! I do a lot of BIF shots and 840mm is a lot of reach ! Try and use my legs rather than TC's but sometimes you don't have a choice ! Previous Nikon TC were nowhere near as good as the Sony I would concur ! Awesome work Jan !

[@jan_wegener]

Yes! It was actually one of the reason I always went and stuck with Canon back in the day, Their extenders were way better than the Nikon ones.

[@axelhildebrandt]

Very interesting comparison, Jan! What I found most surprising was that 100-500 and 2x TC had so much more detail than bare 100-500 cropped to the same size. I usually stick with the 1.4x TC, seems to be the best compromise for me. The one thing that would be interesting to address is zoom lenses with TCs for birds in flight. The equation seems to change quite a bit in favor of bare lenses.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, for BIF, I would prefer no extenders, although lately I had some success with them

[@八大山人-z7h]

Agree. TC seems to slow down AF in my experience.

[@tpreston8]

Thanks

[@jan_wegener]

Thank You!

[@pratyayr]

Great tips as usual. Another good use of an extender with 100-400 or 100-500 is to get greater magnification in macro-like shots. Because these lens can focus super close and the minimum focusing distance does not change with the extender on, it can give a huge magnification without having to use a macro lens. I have got some cool insect shots using this combination.

[@nordic5490]

I have the 100-400 L ii and use the 1.4x 50% of the time. The minimum focus distance increases 1.4x with the 1.4x tc on. I have observed this 100s of times. Thus, the maximum close up magnification is allways 0.31x, with the 1.4x on or off. I still use this lens as a macro lens with the 1.4x on. Great for shooting critters on flowers.

[@pratyayr]

@@nordic5490 That is not quite true. TC does not change MFD.

[@nordic5490]

@@pratyayr really mate, is that your experience, or, are you just making that up ? I have tested this many times. My 100-400L ii has a mfd of 98cm (to the sensor). And then, surprise surprise, when I fit a 1.4x tc, the mfd is increased to about 1.4m from my R5s sensor. This is my actual (not made up) experience. The close focus magnification factor of this lens will not change regardless of how many TCs are fitted. Ie, if the mfd didnt change, then the magnification factor of 0.31 could become a true 1:1 magnification ration macro lens with a 3.2x TC fitted. Only problem is, it doesnt. A 0.31x mf lens will allways have a 0.31 close focus magnification ratio regardless of how many TCs you fit. Prehaps you can post me a link to testing other than mine that shows a different result to mine ?

[@pratyayr]

@@nordic5490 Yes, I have shot at 560mm (400mm + 1.4 TC) and focused at a distance of 98cm (approx) from the sensor many many many times. You don't have to believe me, just Google something like "minimum focus distance and teleconverters". You will find many many results talking about this. If you are interested you may even read about the maths/physics part to understand why this happens. And yes, you do achieve bigger magnification by doing this. In fact this is a very common technique people use. I am surprised that someone talking about macros and 0.31x mf did not know about this.

[@nordic5490]

@@pratyayr you sir, win the internet today. I just did some testing 5mins ago. 100-400L ii bare = mft of 94cm to the front of the hot shoe + EF 1.4X tc iii = mft 97cm + EF 2x tc iii = mft 99.5cm Thus, you sir are correct. This is good to know, and explains why I was taking such good 'macro' images @400mm + 2x on a club macro shoot. Thank you for being pepersistant. Chz

[@garyknight3019]

Hey Jan… I wanted to share with you something that I have found with my setup. I have an old Canon non IS 600 f4 that I have traditionally used a 1.4tc on..since using the R5 I have been getting 90% soft images. Was thinking it was just my technique and getting frustrated with missing shots. Recently I found an article where it suggested to turn the IS off with the version 1 IS lens….I gave it a go and bang sharp images again..also the auto focus was super fast again. Seems like the R5 just can’t deal with these older lenses… thought I would share this just in case others are having the same issue

[@jan_wegener]

I think in this case it's the other way around. The old lenses cannot deal with the R5, or in this case probably the IBIS. I didn't know about that. Thanks for sharing.

[@Shawns_snapshots]

I also started turning off OSS on my Sony 200-600 if I’m shooting high speed action at 1/2000s or faster shutter speeds.

[@frankdhermain8996]

@@jan_wegener Same thing with the R6 and 500 f/4 MkI. It's surprising how better the R6 is with 100-400 MkII than with the prime lens MkI. I first bought an hybrid to get a new start with my old lenses without spending a lot of money... now I'm considering buying 100-500 RF and converters ;=)).

[@edkaminski6355]

Under dark, ugly conditions, I prefer no extender with my 100-500. If it is bright and/or sunny, I rarely shoot without the extender (1.4x). I don't really like the results under any conditions with the 2x on my zoom lens. Nice work as always Jan.

[@jan_wegener]

It can be great and it can be not so good. Sometimes it's hard to know why it works and others times not so much. I had outstanding results and some subpar ones with the 2x

[@Mikkidk2400]

@@jan_wegener But would you choose the x1.4 over the 2x?

[@billsstudio2528]

The last bit of info is priceless. Name brand tele-conv's are expensive. Also you make even one poor buy with a lens and you're out thousands. Re-sell is tough. Jan does the heavy lifting! Thanks man!

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@efrkool]

Thank you for this video! It is just at the right time, I was playing with this exact question this weekend. The shop where I buy my camera gear could only give me some very basic advice without any real insights, this makes it so much clearer I have the 800mm and 100-500mm. I already have the 1.4x extender, but I was doubting what to do, keep the 800mm or replace it with the 2x extender for that little bit of extra range. I really like the 800mm lens, but since I have the 100-500mm I see that I almost never use it anymore, indeed due to the flexibility. I generally put the extender in my pocket and use it when needed. I use them with the R6, so low light is less of an issue then needing to crop a lot.

[@jan_wegener]

Glad I could help :)

[@michaelricco81]

Elze, I have both lenses as well and I have the 1.4 extender. So far, I''ve been using the extender with my 100-500, but I have not been impressed by the results. Btw, I love the 800mm. It works so well with the R6 (I also have the R5) and I've been very happy with the results of that combination.

[@Duade]

Another great video mate, I have my 1.4 on my 500 95% of the time and it works great. For me the price of the RF1.4 is ridiculous at $900AUD. It is also a real shame the design of the 100-500 means you lose the wide end but 700mm on a zoom is a bonus. The benefit of say an R7 would be the lens becomes a 160-800 f7.1 FF equiv compared to the 420-700 f/10 on a FF with a 1.4. Ultimately always good to have the options. Cheers, Duade

[@jan_wegener]

I bought them in the US, just like memory cards, some things are just too pricy here. Yes, not being able to zoom back is kinda annoying

[@Bayonet1809]

If you are talking in FF equivalents then you need to apply the crop factor to the aperture also, so the 100-500 on a hypothetical R7 would be 160-800 f11. An APS-C crop from an R5 would be the same. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[@Duade]

​@@Bayonet1809 Thanks, yes the DOF will be impacted by the crop but I don't think the exposure does, the R7 will be shooting wide open at f7.1 whereas the FF will be at f10 with a converter. My understanding is the R7 will be able to use a higher SS or lower ISO due to the 7.1 opening. Cheers, Duade

[@Bayonet1809]

@@Duade Correct the exposure is not affected by the crop, but the total light is, thus the noise is greater, which means that to reach equivalent image quality one would have to use a stop lower ISO with APS-C, and therefore the shutter speeds will be the same between shooting at f7.1 on APS-C and f11 on FF. The only benefit of APS-C at the image level is the potential for greater magnification (reach) due to greater pixel density (e.g. with a 32MP R7), which achieves the same effect as a teleconverter which magnifies optically. This is the beauty of equivalence.

[@thethreeislands]

@@DuadeWe need to see the t stop info 😀

[@rherteux]

Awesome video Jan! For me, I have given up on extenders with my R5 and 100-500. I get better results just cropping in then I uprez the photo with Topaz Photo AI or Gigapixel.

[@8bitorgy]

I was taught that the extender is a necessary compromise if your subject is too far away. You should never use one unless you have to... but that's the thing... sometimes you HAVE TO.

[@georgeandreou695]

This was a really interesting video. Especially about it depending on what lens you're using it on, and the subject distance; expectation management is not things KZbinrs tend to mention, so thanks! I had a 2x converter with my EF100-400 and the IQ was awful. I'm currently trying out a 1.4x converter with my RF100-500 and I can barely tell the difference. So you're right that things have come a long way. But I'm probably not going to get one and the reason is it's a hassle to attach it and remove it out in the field. Plus if you're shooting birds in flight it you lose the ability to zoom out with the physical zoom range limit in place.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, on the 100-500 the extender is good, but annoying to use!

[@chelseadaddy7061]

I never use 2x extender on any lens > f5.6 at the top end. Alternative to extender is to use a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor. The built in crop of 1.5/1.6 effectively extends the focal length by 1.5/1.6 with less degradation.

[@MVBirdphotos]

Jan, very helpful video. For bird photography, I am shooting with a R5 / RF 100-500 / 1.4X extender, almost exclusively, with very satisfying results. I realize that the lens is now a 420-700 but that seems to work perfectly for me.

[@MikePearcePhoto]

Excellent, useful and well-presented - thank you. Your tip about stopping down when using an extender on a zoom lens really works for me. Using a Canon 1.4x extender with an EF 100-400mm II on a 5D MkIV and stopping down to f11 shows a noticeable improvement in image quality even at the relatively high ISO needed for the UK at this dull time of year.

[@jan_wegener]

Glad it was helpful! On that lens in particular the stopping down had a big impact :)

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@6:50, that is not just acceptable, but freaking fantastic !!! I have ordered for rent, an RF 100-500 + 1.4 and 2.0 TC's, to be tried on my R5.... And I'm totally worried about how much I might like it ! $$$ ! Exactly the video I needed to see though. TYSM :)

[@seraphin01]

Thanks for the video! I must say with the New bodies extenders sure got a lot more interesting. I used to shoot birds with my 100-400 4.5 5.6 II with the x2 extender on my 1dx II, only because basically it was my work gear and I couldn't afford the extra 12k for a big prime just for hobby to be fair.. It allowed me to have a few really great pictures, even handheld in low light, deep forest situation (albeit not many) but without that I simply wouldn't have had a picture at all So to me extenders are still a good investment, pretty cheap and can make photos happen that would be otherwise missed But most important tip was at the beginning of your video: if the bird is too far off to begin with without the extender then don't bother slapping the extender, I learnt that the hard way, so many useless pictures! Also to be able to use the extender, better have at least a r5 (or equivalent for other brands), since you'll probably need high Iso and from experience on the 1dx II you dont get auto focus except in live view mode! So yeha shooting manual with such a setup is hell, while now with r5 you get great Iso management AND auto focus, that's pretty incredible Anyway looking forward for more cockatoos photos!

[@jan_wegener]

The R5 can easily autofocus with the extender. That's another great advantage of mirrorless

[@jonerikrolf2029]

Thank you for your well reasoned presentation on teleconverters. I agree that not all zooms can use them. The Nikon 200-400 f4 zoom was great for safaris but was not capable of producing decent images with any teleconverter (TC). Jan, I think that your discussion of depth of field (dof) with teleconverters could be expanded. As you mentioned, adding a TC increases focal length and reduces depth of field. The latter can be somewhat restored by reducing the shooting aperture (making it smaller) which requires higher ISO. Crop sensors (1.5, 1.6, 2.0) when used with teleconverters are more adaptable to bird photography than full frame sensors because the crop sensors inherently have greater dof at any given focal length. M43 sensors are a boon for those of us who photograph or video-graph birds at 600mm to 1200mm+. We can keep entire birds in focus while the backgrounds are still nicely blurred. And yes, Jan, the qualities of the lens (sharpness, micro-contrast, focus breathing and aperture constancy) all determine if a TC will work well with the lens. With regard to the Olympus m43 telephoto lenses I use (40-150mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, and 100-400mm 1.25x f/4.5), the Olympus 1.4 and 2.0 TCs were intentionally designed to work with these very high quality internally focusing, constant aperture Pro-grade lenses. The 1.4x TC produces images with these lenses that are not optically degraded in any way that matters to me. The 2.0 TC can produce excellent images with both zooms and especially with the prime (1200mm equivalent at f/8). Certainly, the 5-7 stops of image stabilization helps at the very long focal length. It is great to be able to get frame-filling 1200mm images of Eagles where the entire bird is sharply in focus and not just its eye and head. In sum, I am a big fan of TCs on my m43 cameras as I can get a large proportion of my modest limit of 20MPs on the bird.

[@jan_wegener]

This was one of the main drawbacks for Nikon for me for a while that their extenders never seemed to work as well as Canon & Sony. Yes, I usually stop down, but for this example it showed the DOF difference best. I usually find I have to stop down to F11 to get similar DOF compared to bare lens. Thanks for sharing your Olympus experience

[@KellyPettit]

Fantastic comparisons and thorough vlog. thank you Jan. My question is, what is your experience using Lightroom enhance or Topaz Gigapixel etc, and can that be a third alternative?

[@jan_wegener]

It can work, but I wouldn't wanna use it all the time

[@Mudly71]

I love the combo ×1.4 with the RF 100-500mm coupled with the R5 it's a beast.💪😍

[@silvavaughan-jones7121]

That's a great feedback on teleconverters Jan, I have the R5 but I have only just received the 100-500mm rf after waiting months, only had it a few days, so your video was great timing. I have the 1.4x cv but was deliberating on the 2x, after your talk I now think I will just wait and see how much I need the 2x cv. Your feedback has been really valuable. I have commiserated on whether I should have gone Sony with the 200-600mm but have been Canon for so many years that the menu and buttons are almost instinctive and the versatility of the 100-500mm more appealing. So I also really like your positive opinion about versatility. I am also really interested in doing your editing course.

[@jan_wegener]

Happy to help :) I am sure you will enjoy my Masterclass :)

[@L.Lyubomirov]

I ordered a cheap extender Vivitar 2x just for the test to complement with my Sigma 70-300,i will use this combo only for landscape/slow photos etc.From what i've read if my lens is sharp at f8,i must now set it to f16 to compensate...hope that the image quality is not that bad stopped down !

[@bestpix100]

Thanks for another enjoyable and informative video. My 1.4tc lives on my RF100-500... I haven't taken a shot without yet but I am very satisfied with the results I am getting

[@jan_wegener]

You're welcome! Must be annoying to store it away with the TC attached :D

[@bestpix100]

@@jan_wegener it fits in my bag just fine, which is a Lowepro 300aw with the 1.4 attached and the hood reversed.

[@earlteigrob9211]

We’ve been using both the Olympus 1.4 and 2x on the 300mmF4 and the results are much better then cropping. My lab tests also confirm this result. The 2x may have a bit of impact on saturation but post processing can easily fix this. The 1.4 lives on this lens for shooting BIF and the results are very very good.

[@photoapeal]

For Birds in flight I almost always use an extender since they are generally further away, I usually stick with the 1.4x. If it’s perched & far away I may throw a 2x on it & maybe if the stars align it won’t fuzz out. On my 600 f/4 II I can get good results on that lens with the 2x but the hit rate goes down in comparison with the 1.4x. If it’s a small pond where the subject is closer I’ll use the bare lens. That’s the situation where the 100-500 is intriguing especially for mammals sometimes the 600 is too much in closer situations or when birds are overhead & need something quickly that is lightweight to handle or hike with. I have it on order with a 1.4x probably will be months before I see it. Most here probably know that 1.4x extenders you lose one stop of light, 2x you lose two stops. If you don’t stop down accordingly you’ll get blurry photos.

[@jan_wegener]

Great summary. I hope you get your lens, soon!

[@nightcoder5k]

I have the Tamron 150-600mm g1 on my Canon 77D. When I use the Tamron 1.4x converter, the AF is hit and miss unless there's a lot of sunlight. Post-cropped photos seem to have slightly better quality and I get more keepers without using the converter.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, on a lot of these 150-600mm zooms, the extenders don't work that well

[@alexku3348]

Dear Jan, thank you for what you do for us! The question is: (Canon R6 + RF 100-500 + 1.4x/2x extender) vs (R7 + RF 100-500mm). Many thanks!

[@jan_wegener]

R6 or R6 II?

[@alexku3348]

@@jan_wegener the first one

[@josephkarpinski9586]

Excellent video! I use the Canon R6 800mm f/11 with the 1.4x extender shooting wildlife and birds in flight. Getting some excellent results. Have two custom settings setup, one without crop mode, one with crop mode. For stationary subjects, crop mode gives even more reach and works really well with the 1.4x extender. Birds in flight without crop mode is easier to acquire fast moving subjects. But when the subject is far away, say a Bald Eagle in flight, crop mode plus the 1.4x extender works very well.

[@nordic5490]

I would like to try the RF800. I reckon that would be a great walk around or cycling lens

[@jan_wegener]

It is

[@jan_wegener]

Interesting. That lens with the extender is certainly pushing the limits a lot, but I also had some decent results

[@nordic5490]

@@jan_wegener thanks, I did go and get one, and am loving it. I dont love the restricted focus area though.

[@jan_wegener]

@@nordic5490 yes, bit annoying

[@leej.l.3688]

Your video on extenders is exceptional. It is the best “maybe” answer I have ever heard. I would really appreciate it if you would take this discussion another step further. I shoot some wildlife (25%) and a lot of sports (50%). My camera of choice is the R5, so that I have plenty of pixels to work with. I also purposely shoot a little wide so that I can get the action and crop later in post. Lately, rather than using my 1.4 extend, I have been using the in-camera crop feature and have set my controls to change from full frame to 1.6 crop with a single button. I am not sure if this is helping or hindering the overall photo quality. It does allow me to switch back and forth quickly and easily depending on how close I am to the action. My concern is that I may be just as well off shooting full frame and cropping in post.

[@jan_wegener]

you would be, there's no IQ difference between shooting in crop mode and cropping, it might help you and the AF tho to have the subject larger in the frame

[@billgedeon3656]

I've used both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on my 100-500mm for several months now mostly with BIF. I have found little difference between image quality in both teleconverters and I would say both are excellent vs teleconverters that I have used in the past. I returned the 1.4 converter because on the RF 100-500 at 700mm you are only losing 1/3 of a stop of light, if I'm remembering correctly, with the 1.4 vs 2.0 because of the the native lens aperture at 500 with the 1.4 vs 350 with the 2x and on top of that you have the 700-1000 reach with the 2x that are unavailable with the 1.4. Between 500 and 700mm light loss varies in favor of the 1.4 but because I'm primarily a BIF shooter, I'm shooting usually between 700 and 1000mm with the 2x most of the time. Additionally, with more pixels on the bird, I have not found a case yet where the native lens outperformed the 2x in detail (even with the high ISO values up to 12.8k because of DXO noise reduction) for BIFs which are usually at some distance. I've found the animal AF to be responsive with both TCs with the R5. I do use the native 100-500 in iffy lighting conditions and when birds, etc. fill the frame reasonably well. I'm extremely happy with this lens and 2x setup and if you have avoided TCs in the past, you should reconsider given the RF mount with the new RF TCs and the exceptional RF100-500 lens. The R5, RF100-500mm, and Jan's commentary over the last 8 months or so has lured me into the Canon camp from being a Nikon shooter for 20 years. It's a great time to be wildlife photographer! Thanks Jan!

[@jan_wegener]

Aperture is F10 vs F14, so decent difference. Thanks Bill, glad you are really enjoying this combo. The AF with the 2x extender is surprisingly fast for sure.

[@billgedeon3656]

@@jan_wegener You are exactly right if the lens is max'd at 500 mm with both extenders. But at 700mm (500x1.4) the 1.4x is F10 and at 700mm (350mm*2) the 2x is F11. This is only 1/3 of a stop at 700mm (only). This is because the of the variable aperture of the 100-500mm. Since I shoot in the 700-1000 range with BIF mainly and can't discern noticeable image quality or marked focus acquisition differences and get the benefit of the extra reach 700-1000, I've settled on the 2x when not shooting natively.

[@jan_wegener]

@@billgedeon3656 ah yes, gotcha now.

[@kilik92]

Hey Jan! In this video you talk about the DOF changing a lot when using TCs on the big primes. And I agree at first glance. But keep in mind you are shooting the 600mm F6.3 (Stopped down 1 and 1/3 stop) vs 840mm F6.3 (stopped down only 1/3 of a stop). Both are at 6.3 yes but the bare 600mm is stopped down a lot more. It would be more interesting to see they stopped down equal amount or both wide open. Do you still have shallower DOF and the nicer background now? Andy

[@johanolsson6502]

Love the 1.4 on my 200-600, seem to even stand up alright on the 61Mp A7RIV...and you are only a button press away from a 26Mp 1260mm APS-C shot. Also "fixes" that focus breathing, or rather focal length loss as the 200-600 doesn't really breathe much, when up close.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, I liked it on that lens :)

[@michaelricco81]

I have both the RF 100-500 and 800 lenses, as well as the 1.4 extender. If II had to choose 2 out of 3, I would go with the two lenses. The 800mm is an awesome lens. Yes, it suffers under low light but it works very well. Yes, it is a big lens, but it is so damn light that I would find someway to include it in my bag. Another consideration is that out in the field, I actually find it easier to swap out one lens for another than to add an extender to the 100-500.

[@jan_wegener]

Main thing for me is that the extenders fit in my pockets, but there's definitely an argument to be made for the 800

[@videoclint]

Very good video Jan. I am a newbie/prosumer and most interested in video. Even though the photography/camera jargon is still a challenge for me, I followed almost everything you were describing! Thanks a lot!

[@jan_wegener]

Glad it was helpful!

[@foto-dk]

Long awaited video, Jan. Very good. As you point out several times, It's actually a questions about acceptance all the time. I did use it om my Canon EOS 100-400,but not on my Canon EOS 100-500, but I will try it. Thank you for taking it to the limit. Kind Regards, Jan

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you enjoyed it. Always interesting to see what happens when you push the gear

[@bluejesper]

On my recent shoot in Atacama the GF 1.4 TC WR on the Fujifilm GFX 100s turned out to be essential. The extra range from the amazing GF 100-200mm making it a 280mm gave the necessary range to get close to distant mountains. At eur 850 it isn't cheap, but is affordable and practical compared to investing in a 250mm prime. Minimum aperture is down to f8, but for landscape that's not an issue, and with the excellent camera and lens stabilisation, daylight shoots could be achieved handheld at 1/200 at f/11 100 iso. Does the image quality degrade? Nothing that I could notice, tack sharp. Critical pixel peepers should focus on becoming a better photographers :) The 1.4 is a keeper.

[@jean-louisrousselle1794]

Thank you for a very interesting and informative video. All my lenses are EF. When using my telephoto’s 300 f2.8 ll & 600 f4 ll I use both the 1.4 & 2 with good results as long as I stop down and fill the frame with the subject. With my 100-400 ll I never bother with the 2X. I have an R5 since this past March, My back up body is a 5D MKlV. Rather then diving into a lot of expensive RF lenses & converters, I chose the path of the RF 800mm F-11. For an inexpensive lens, it actually offers “in the right conditions” some very acceptable results. I really benefitted from your masterclass and recommend it to any bird photographer wishing to improve and refine their process.Thank you and keep up the great work.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, extenders work well with those lenses. Glad I could help you with the Masterclass :)

[@patricksmith2553]

The newest teleconverter's are really good, especially the new mirrorless TC's. I use a Nikon TC-14E III on both my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL and 500mm f/4E VR FL lenses. By the way Jan Wegener, you don't lose any "depth of field" or "background blur" with teleconverter's. They (2x TC's) make a 400mm f/2.8 into an 800mm f/5.6... all day everyday. If anything at close distances like minimum focusing distance they would give you slightly more background blur or separation because you'd have more focal length, but the same minimum focusing distance. Therefor it would make your subject look bigger, it would increase your maximum reproduction ratio at minimum focusing distance. But teleconverters absolutely DO NOT effect depth of field, but they do effect f/stop, but at an exact focal length to aperture equivalent!

[@jan_wegener]

Did you see the example with the Rose Robin. They heavily affect DOF. I assume because they physically move the lens forward. On a prime lens you get more BG blurr

[@patricksmith2553]

@@jan_wegener There is a mathematical equation to figuring out the “amount” of background blur. You just divide the aperture from the focal length, so for 600mm f/4 you would get 150. The higher the number the greater the background blur or separation you can get. Adding a 2x TC to a 400mm f/2.8 would give you an 800mm f/5.6. Both of those would have a score/amount of 143. Exactly the same amount. Yes, you lose a stop of light or two, but you increase your focal length an equal amount or equivalent to aperture. But what you described about a lens moving it’s focusing elements closer or whatever, would be lens design related, not from the TC itself. You’re probably referring to focus breathing, it sounds like, which actually effects the focal length, usually at close distances. Focus breathing can make a 200mm lens act more like a 135mm at close distances. Adding a teleconverter has nothing to do with that. So I’m absolutely 100% sure you’re mistaken. I know you legitimately think you saw what you did, but it must be related to your settings or distance to subject and or distance of subject to the background. There is another answer or variable responsible for the results you saw or noticed. I’ve been a photojournalist now for 20 years, I’ve also been shooting wildlife for 25 years. Not trying to sound like I’m bragging at all. I just want you to know a few of my qualifications. I do this for a living and I also teach photography classes and do private lessons. I’m an Nikon Professional Services member and I’m friends/colleagues with some of the most respected photographers in the world. I regularly speak to and work with Nikon ambassadors, Canon explorer’s, etc. I can say with certainty that adding teleconverter’s does NOT effect background blur or subject isolation. Like I said it can appear to do the opposite at minimum focusing distance, because your subject will be larger, as your lenses reproduction ratio increases. That’s technically not actually affecting the depth of field or subject isolation. However since you have more focal length at the same minimum focusing distance it can appear that way. Since TC’s stretch the image circle and you’ll get more focal length, but at the same minimum focusing distance. However your subject isolation or amount background blur, does not change based on using a teleconverter. Again it may be something else you noticed while out shooting. You don’t have to take my opinion, even though I know I’m right, you should ask someone who knows more than you. Like call Canon CPS or email Canon or ask someone who you’d expect to know for sure. They should confirm what I’m saying. I wouldn’t lie or say I was positive unless I absolutely was positive.

[@jan_wegener]

@@patricksmith2553 There are calculators like this one to calculate DOF www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator And you can see the difference. at 600 mm it's 60mm at 10m distance and 42mm at the same distance with the extender on. The extender increases focal length and thus also affects DOF

[@patricksmith2553]

@@jan_wegener I think we’re getting confused about what we’re taking about. Teleconverter’s do not effect the equation that matters, the one I already said. You divide the focal length by the aperture. A 400mm f/2.8 divided by its own aperture is 143. It’s the exact same at 800mm f/5.6! Teleconverter’s can only do or at least appear to do the opposite of what you said, at minimum focusing distance. That’s because at minimum focusing distance the focal length does increase, but the minimum focusing distance stays the same. Which gives you a better or higher maximum reproduction ratio and therefor would give you a little more subject isolation. Depth of field is obviously how much of your subject is in focus. So the equation you speak of is not the proper equation for what we’re discussing here. But I can tell, that you don’t believe or agree with me. I’m 100% sure I’m correct and I’m not here to brag, but I’ve been doing this professionally a long time. I’m a photojournalist and I’m regularly shooting major sports events and breaking news. I’ve been a photojournalist for two decades, and a wildlife photographer for 25 years. I don’t make my money doing wildlife photography but I have made money doing so and I’ve won some awards. I used to teach photography and do private lessons. I’ve also been asked by other well known sports photographers to help run and teach at their photo tours/classes. I’m regularly published in the worlds largest well known newspapers, news agencies and sports magazines, etc. I’m only telling you all of this to say when I’m sure about something photography related, I’m sure. I don’t doubt that you believe you are correct as well and you seem pretty knowledgeable about a lot of things. I’ve watched a few of your videos and I subscribed, because I liked the content. I’m happy to just agree to disagree or at least agree we must be thinking or talking about two different subjects. I’ve owned and or borrowed almost every super-tele lens from Nikon and Canon over the years. I’ve owned and used three or four different versions of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8, and I’ve used to also own a copy of the Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR FL. Both have the exact same amount of subject isolation or same ability and amount of blurring the background. The only difference is the 800mm f/5.6 is much sharper than the 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC is. If you use that simple equation that I gave, you’d see that the 600mm f/4 lenses give the most amount of subject isolation or background blur. Most people might assume that the 800mm f/5.6 lenses would be the bokeh king, and I’ve even heard people say that! As long as you’re standing beyond both lenses’ (that you’re comparing) minimum focusing distances, both lenses would have the same amount of subject isolation or background blur. However I will admit I’ve not used the Canon 100-500mm or the new Canon 2x TC. So it’s possible something weird is happening in your case. Such as the TC effecting the optical formula when the lens is zoomed out, or even it could be that the 2x TC is not quite actually 2x? I can’t rule out that something strange like that is happening to you. Even the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR that I used to own is more like a 385mm lens. Many zoom lenses and even some prime lenses are not quite the actual focal length advertised. If you compare the Nikon 200mm f/2 to a 70-200mm VR II at 200mm, you’d see the zoom is more like 135-150mm depending on distance to subject. That is due to focus breathing, so again there are unknown or at least variables at play that could be to blame here. I’m not trying to say you’re lying or even that you’re wrong. The truth is there could easily be some factor(s) that led to your results. But if everything was correct or how it should be, there should be absolutely no difference! A 400mm f/2.8 with 2x TC and an 800mm f/5.6 should have exactly the same amount of subject isolation or background blur. So I stand by that fact and my original statements, but I do admit there could be a variable or variables at play. So we may both be correct, either way I hope you know I wasn’t trying to argue or make you look bad. Take care!

[@utkarshbhatnagar39]

I loved this video of yours Jan! You have really backed your points with solid data and clear explanations. Thanks for sharing!

[@jan_wegener]

Glad it was helpful!

[@cathco9]

Thank you Jan. This video really helped me to understand that I need to stop down using the RF 100-500mm + RF 1.4x on my R6. Can't wait to get out there and try this. I need to stop being concerned with high ISO from the DSLR days. I'm really happy I switched over to mirrorless.

[@jan_wegener]

Totally, the DSLR days of bad AF and higher noise are luckily mostly behind us :D The 100-500 wide open isn't too bad from my experience

[@jonashovden]

Nice video again 😃 I disagree on the point about high iso though. The high iso performance is more or less the same the last 10 years, but the software for removing it is getting a lot better. canon 1Dx, Canon 5DIII , Nikon D4/D5, Nikon D800E, D810 where all awsome at high iso. And its important to compare scaled to same size 😃 Can see the value of converters tho, considering buying one for my Nikon 300/4PF 🤗

[@jan_wegener]

Yes and no. I didn't feel comfortable using my 5D cameras at ISO 12800 and ISO like that. I never see the point of scaling images to the same size. If I do that, I could make them all 8mpix and no camera would have noise...

[@frederickmcdonald6636]

Wow - as usual very informative! I tried extenders in the past and never liked them but I bought a Canon R6 recently and may give them another try but of course I'll wait until I can afford a new RF lens as I'm still using EF lenses. Clear and concise comments - you are the best at this! Hope you are well down under - thank you for this - take care and be safe out there....

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks Fredrick :)

[@stretch90]

Extenders work differently depending on the lens. I use Sony and I had horrible results with one of their premium lenses and amazing results with others.

[@stevewhiteley9249]

I couldn't justify the R5/100-500 and what I went with is the R6, 100-400 RF, 800 RF and RF 1.4 extender. That has proved a great compact and fairly affordable setup. The extender is fine on both lenses. OK, I haven't got such bright max apertures but the AF works great and the camera allows fairly high ISO if you need it. It's been giving great quality and is a nice kit for someone like me, who likes to walk a lot and do most of my shots hand held. Although the aperture is quite small, of course the depth of field is still small at such focal lengths and in fact its no bad thing to have the depth of field at say f11 to get more of my bird in focus.

[@falxonPSN]

I just found this video, and this may be what I have to do in the short term. I blew most of my budget on a higher end body, so I gotta hold off on the white lenses for a bit!...

[@spitfire1962]

Great explanations with regards to extenders and cropping. You have gained a new subscriber.

[@jan_wegener]

Awesome, thank you!

[@davidligon6088]

Exactly the questions I have for my Sony and my brother has for his Canon. Curious why you didn’t compare the 100-500 + 1.4x. Not sure you’d miss the extra 100mm and the aperture is more equitable. Some notes on the Sony + 1.4 with the A7RIV. 1) I do see a slight bit of image degradation at full resolution, but have not compared a scaled down image taken with the 1.4x, 2) focus clearly does not pick up as fast with the 1.4x, even with good light, 3) using APS-C instead of the 1.4 TC, yields faster frame rate and faster AF on my A7RIV (uncompressed RAW). All that said, I use the 1.4x often for still, like you show in your review. Thanks for your excellent reviews and advice. They are very helpful.

[@philipgowdy]

Great Vid Jan as ever...I shoot my A9 in crop mode nearly all the time for birds and wildlife because with Sony the focus as you say works better and you can see in more detail the subject for more accurate pin point focus.

[@kevindiossi]

Fantastic video that will have me rethinking how I use teleconverters moving forward. I certainly have experienced the inconsistency that these can bring to the table. It has me debating if I should sell my Canon 1.4 and Fuji 1.4....but then I'll occasionally get those shot where I'm amazed at what it helped me achieve. Thanks for the great content. I'll definitely start using it more for emphasizing already good shots instead of trying to us them to just get extra reach.

[@jan_wegener]

Nothing wrong with using them. Just need to be aware of the potential issues arising. Like I wouldn't have TCs attached all the time.

[@alexphiltcw]

very comprehensively explained, well done!

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you liked it!

[@meibing4912]

16:04 this is a really important consideration which is very rarely discussed - and why I strongly prefer (even need) a high MPIX camera with a long, fast prime for my style of shooting as I can get excellent background extinction while preserving the subject in focus. So Canon - lets get that mythical 80-120 MPIX R5s sooner than later.

[@stevedavis2050]

Very timely video, Jan…. been debating getting the 1.4 extender to go with the 100-500 and my R6. Thanks for the excellent content 😊

[@jan_wegener]

Glad to help!

[@chuckschillingvideos]

If you have light, teleconverters are great. I like the 2.0x, unlike a lot of other photographers. And I'll happily put it on a zoom lens as long as it's constant aperture.

[@KurtisPape]

Thanks for video Jan, been on the fence about getting TC for a while now. With pictures like your Boobook shot, ive found myself with situations like this the closer you get the more it looks like you are looking upto the bird, rather than being eye level so this means the closer you get the more sky will enter your background. Sometimes if I remember I will step back and get a less detailed shot to get the nicer composition, I don't own a converter yet but I feel like I would stay back a little getting more eye level shots and not scaring birds off.

[@jan_wegener]

That's what I did. I walked further back and up the hill with the extender to get a better shot

[@KurtisPape]

@@jan_wegener Yep I ended up getting a 1.4x converter :) just had to re-watch this vid and just tried down sizing some of my higher ISO images shot with TC and it works wonders going from 61MP to 29MP, having those extra pixels on the bird really helps with flexibility of the file. I might even try downsizing some of my older images that filled the frame.

[@Lil-JensStudio]

I use the 1.4x teleconverter on my Canon RF 100-500 in well lit daytime scenes where the subject is stationary or moving slow enough to not require subject tracking in the camera settings. However, for my backyard photo blind, I find that leaving the extender out of the equation did exactly what you emphasized- gave me more options. More f/stop range, lower ISO range needed, better subject tracking, slightly faster autofocus, and a shorter lens with better balance to maneuver within the confined space of the blind. It also helps that my three primary target areas are less than 20 feet from the front of the blind. In that scenario, neither the 1.4x nor the 2x extender would offer any benefit. As for the 2x, I have a hard time justifying the purchase for something that would be used on so few rare occasions due to it's f/stop limitations.

[@jan_wegener]

Thanks for sharing!

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

2x TC on the new Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 is fantastic. I don't notice a significant decrease in sharpness shooting with my Z6.

[@jan_wegener]

sounds nice

[@djack4125]

Very helpful video, Jan. But I believe I will have to watch it again to grasp your recommendation! 😆

[@jan_wegener]

or ask me :P

[@scherge]

Overall great advice. Thanks for the video! :)

[@jameslaskin7668]

Thank you for this very informational video - super helpful. You mentioned a variety of Sony lens, but you did not mention the Sony G 70-300mm F4.5/5.6 lens - going to Kenya and thinking about the 1.4 - opinion. Thanks!!

[@jan_wegener]

Never used that lens. So hard to say how well it would do

[@Tids_]

Really thorough guide. Many thanks, was really helpful

[@jan_wegener]

Glad you liked it!

[@gossedejong9248]

thank you, very well balanced exposé!!

[@jan_wegener]

My pleasure!

[@johnstrachan1225]

Great video Jan - glad you are helping to dispel some of the myths out there (Jared Polin!) about how bad teleconverters are.

[@jan_wegener]

Happy to help. I think it really depends what you are shooting. When you are shooting people (or street signs :D) cropping may very well be better. And with these you usually don't have the issue that they move too far away and you can just go closer if need be. For birds and wildlife there's a lot more factors in play that favour teleconverters I believe. Like smoother background, being able to be a bit further a way from the animal etc.

[@Vighnesh-2017]

Extremely informative, and 'to the point' remarks. You are very talented to dissect out the exact problems related to extenders. I was wondering if you could answer the efficacy of 2x extender in 200-600 sony lens

[@jan_wegener]

I never used the Sony with the 2x. So not sure. I would assume that it would still hold up alright, based on how it works with the 1.4

[@Captain-Cosmo]

Great for video. For photography, it's not necessary, but some may prefer the wysiwyg part of using a TC while others may prefer or do better without it.

[@jan_wegener]

Good point!

[@danthepainter8924]

Thanks Jan!As usually you rock!

[@jan_wegener]

Thank you!

[@harrison00xXx]

I tested the RF 100-500L with a 2x TC and i was not really happy with the sharpness, especially not happy with the aperture. The Sigma 150-600C on the other hand.... if i would still use a full frame camera, i would use for sure the 1,4x Sigma teleconverter. But since im using the R7 for wildlife, the R7 is my extender/teleconverter instead of losing aperture which was the main reason i got the Sigma (600mm F6.3 is still awesome in a zoom lens!) Im very impressed that the 150-600C is sharp enough for the R7, in fact its barely less sharp than the RF 800 F11, in real world conditions the Sigma is normally even sharper since the RF 800 images are in 90% of the cases suffering from heat haze etc, just physical external limits, not the sharpness from the lens.

[@njrmax72]

Use the 1.4tc with the 200600 on the A1 often, results are great. For more reach i assign a button to APS-C mode.. gets me over 1000mm with still excellent results. No need for the 2x TC

[@WilliamJohnston]

Interesting that you notice the extender producing shallower depth of field in the 600 f4 example of the robin, but I noticed that that’s with the exact same aperture of f6.3. A 600mm f4 shot should have an identical depth of field as an 840mm f5.6 because the extender is simply magnifying the middle of the lens and ‘spreading the light’ over the full sensor area, resulting in the darker exposure, but the DoF remains the same. A fairer comparison would be stopping the extender shot down by 1 stop to f9 and bumping the iso by one stop, so at least the images have the same depth of field. I’d be really interested to see how the detail, noise etc compares in that instance between cropping into the bare 600mm shot (which also magnifies the noise), vs an upcropped shot with the extender at a higher iso to compensate for the smaller aperture. Otherwise a very helpful and informative video, many thanks!

[@jan_wegener]

I think what you have to account for is also that lens lens move forward physically, which moves it away from the sensor, which may account for the change in DOF. I usually stop down when using extenders, but this was a good example to show the loss in DOF when using the extender Glad you liked the video

[@Kirkland_Signature]

I was going to mention this, extenders have no impact on depth of field. The lens’s distance to the subject also has no impact on depth of field, the distance from the sensor does. All extenders do is allow you to get more pixels on the bird at the cost of degraded image quality instead of cropping in and maintaining the bare lens’ image quality while losing resolution.

[@WilliamJohnston]

@@Kirkland_Signature I suspected this to be true, the thing I really wonder is which image do I actually prefer in the real world, a cropped bare lens or an extender…. 🤔

[@doug11127]

Thanks Jan for another great video. I’m getting so frustrated now as I’m still waiting for my 1-5 since selling my 1DX2 and 1-4 mk2 and buying an R5 in March. Still no news when they will be in but I’m second on the waiting list at a supplier in the UK. Some stores have 140 people waiting for a copy ☹️ thanks again for some great videos 👍🏻

[@jan_wegener]

That's crazy! They were available pretty well down here I hope the wait is over for you soon!

[@WernerBirdNature]

Hey Jan, Thanks for this well-balanced (and obviously well illustrated!) analysis of how the balance is shifting a little to favor the extenders. In your case there are even 2 more bonus points for the extenders on the 100-500: it's weather sealed and allows focus all over the frame, which the RF800 cannot offer. On my R6 with the EF100-400Lii, the 1.4x extender can work great in the right conditions .. but when I need more range (and upgrading to the 100-500 and RF extender is still too expense for me) then the RF800 might be better than adding an EF2.0. Half a day ago, I commented on Duade's last video he should check your recent ones and get the Rf1.4x instead of dreaming of the R7 with his 100-500. I would assume the R5 with 1.4x should beat the R7 in all areas. In my case a switch from R6 to R7 could be more compelling .. but it won't be a worry until the unicorn is released at last ;-)

[@jan_wegener]

You're welcome :) Good points! The focus area does shrink with the extenders on the 100-500. Not as much as the 800, but it does become smaller by maybe 1/3. Yes, that could be true, will have to see what an R7 can do I suppose

[@WernerBirdNature]

@@jan_wegener Hmm, I'm really surprised the focus area also shrinks with the 100-500, because on my R6 + 100-400Lii with 1.4x it remains 95% of the sensor size (only left & right half the size of spot focus is missing) I used to be a strong believer in the R7 (until you and Duade made me loose my patience to switch to mirrorless for eye-AF hahah), but now having switched from 70D (crop) to R6 .. I see how much easier it is to get a nice creamy background and how much better the low light performance is. Like an extender, a crop sensor normally "costs" you some stops of light. As I don't expect the R7 to put more pixels on the bird than an R5, the main difference would be the bokeh background .. but with the 100-500 you're getting a less flexible 420-700.

[@jan_wegener]

@@WernerBirdNature It's not much with the 1.4, but a good chunk with the 2x

[@WernerBirdNature]

@@jan_wegener Any clue this also happens also with the EF2x ?? Maybe extended RF lenses reduce potential AF area in order to ensure faster AF speed. And EF electronics may not provide the R camera with the info to determine such "optimal" AF area. I guess it depends on the use case whether AF tracking speed is more wanted than AF area. A slowly flying heron might benefit from larger AF area (given its eye is usually not in the middle of the bird). A faster flying falcon would prefer the fastest AF tracking. Only some youtube guru is able to find a spot from where he can directly take pictures from the falcon's nest 😛 It would be nice if the camera allowed to select between AF speed or AF area depending what's more relevant for your subject .. By the way: when can we expect a video about the Pekapeka-touroa, or the "bird" of the year of your neighboring twin island ??

[@jan_wegener]

@@WernerBirdNature I assume the outer AF areas are "weaker" than the others and with some lenses/extender combos, it's better not to have them active. I just had to google it...interesting that would be bird of the year

[@nightcoder5k]

Can't wait to see you review the new Canon RF 1200mm and RF 800mm. ;)

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

It would be interesting to see how extenders cope with BIF rather than static subjects.

[@terrybartick1754]

Again…the glass matters. Sony 600mm handles it very well, I find. Not Sony 200-600…it’s okay, grainy and a tad softer using tripod.

[@jan_wegener]

I have used them with BIF, too. 1.4x was quite good, 2x I would probably not use as much, but it does track well

[@stephenburch9178]

Another great video and some superb shots at very high f numbers. Would be interested in your views on diffraction as doesn't this become an increasing factor and cause unsharpeness at high f numbers? I think the diffraction limit for the R5 is only f7.1 so I think this means any shots at higher f numbers will be limited by diffraction. Yet you are clearly getting great results at crazy f numbers like f16 and even higher!! Do you have an explanation for this apparent contradiction?

[@nordic5490]

The R5 camera body is not defraction limited. I have one. My 100-400L ii starts to soften up at F16 (with 1.4x tc) and is noticeable at f22. F10 is my preferred f with the 1.4x tc on. F9 is noticeabley sharper then the minimum f8 (1.4x tc on) and f10 is a bit sharper than f9. No noticeable gain in sharpness going to f11. I do sometimes shoot f16 to have more of the subject in focus.

[@jan_wegener]

I have not seen issues in regards to that. I am sure at some point it plays a role for sure like F16 onwards

[@kennethlui2268]

Great video as always. Very informative. Good point about using 2x. I was shooting Sandhill Cranes and used 2x on a prime lens. The heat haze ruined everything. Very soft or sometimes not focused properly. I will use 2x when the subject is close. This is kind of contradictory to the idea that we use 2x for far away subject. 2x amplifies everything good or bad. RF 100-500 with 1.4x is good even for BIF. But I would use it with 2x for bird portrait.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes exactly. The 2x is weirdly more for things that are close rather than too far away

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@jan_wegener and for my general shooting, it is almost always tiny birds which are reasonably close. About the only time I ever shoot anything really far away, is so that I can them zoom in on it, for identification. My camera sees better than I do 🙂 But I never expect to process and post those shots.

[@AZProspectWatch]

Another great video - the analysis at end couldn't have been better. But will add a comment - the problem of atmospheric distortion. At some point, even with the best gear, the subject will be far enough away that atmospheric distortion can significantly decrease the IQ of a photo. Can't tell you the number of photogrphers who ask me why their setup isn't performing as expected. When you look over their photos they are shooting from a hot field, over cooler water/vegetation, back over hot ground. - or - shooting from cooler vegetation (in forested area), over a hot field, for a subject in cooler water. And doing this with 1000mm or higher. For me, if I need anything more than 800mm (prefer 600 or lower) - I'm either walking closer to the subject or taking a photo knowing it will probably not meet my standards. With this in mind, if I need an extender, use the 1.4x 95% of the time. It has a nominal effect on IQ. The 2.0x on the other hand is noticeable, even in the best of conditions. Only use the 2.0x on the 300/400 prime lenses and with the 70-200mm 2.8 to achieve a 140-400mm with a constant 5.6. Once again - atmospheric distortion can be a major problem independent of gear. Even using a 400 2.8 prime, with 2x converter, on a 1.6x crop body (1280mm at 5.6), sitting on a tripod with plenty of light - might get you some extremely soft photos due to atmospheric distortion. Atmospheric distortion can also mess with the AF system as well.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, that's one of the main factors of bad images

[@mstrathmore]

Thanks for a great video, Jan. Years ago I had the 100-400 and tried a 1.4xTC: very disappointed and decided then to give up on TC’s with zooms. Your recent videos have made me rethink; definitely now looking at the 2x with a 100-500RF. Some consideration for the RF800, but I also lean towards the flexibility of a TC.

[@jan_wegener]

Was that 100-400 version 1?

[@mstrathmore]

@@jan_wegener Apologies Jan, missed your reply! A very belated "yes" - it was the original. In the mean time I am (almost) ready to order the R5 + 100-500, so now it's a case of choosing which TC to go for: 1.4 or 2 - I can't go for both initially.

[@Mikkidk2400]

@@mstrathmore What did you choose? 1.4 or 2.0 and what's your opinion?

[@kellymorvant]

Very good information, thank you!

[@breadandcircuses5644]

Great video Jan! I have a Sony a6700. How do you feel about putting the 1.4 converter on the 100-400 GM or even the 70-200 f4? On APS-C, does the performance suffer even more than on full frame? Or is the benefit even higher, since the a6700 only has 26MP?

[@Methodical2]

The 1.4x is a fixed piece of gear in my bag. The AF is really good and the image is really good, too. I hesitate to get a 2x for the R5 because the older 2x was too slow to focus on the Dslr cameras and unless I am close to the subject the image is not that good. I mainly use the 1.4x. I did use the 2xIII with the 600II and R5 in a wood canopy area and the eye AF tracked the bird. I was pleasantly surprised. The R5 changed some of my thoughts about the 2x in a positive way, but I will probably stay away from it. I use the 600II, 300 2.8 , 100-500 and 100-400 for bird photography. I used the 300 2.8, 2xIII and 1D4 and ut is a nice walk around 600 with pretty fast focus and nice images. A lot of photographers use the 2x with 300 and 400 2.8 with really good results. Don't slap any extender on a cheap zoom lens. If you start out with crap, you end up with a bigger piece of crap.

[@jan_wegener]

The one thing that's great about mirrorless is that there's hardly any drop in AF speed with the extenders, including the 2x

[@thethreeislands]

Great video Jan. I REALLY wish that Canon did a 500mm f5.6 L series prime like Nikon has with their 500mm pf f5.6. It's a great price point with being so much cheaper than a 600 or even 500mm f4 prime. A 500mm f5.6 prime to me would be good for handheld birds in flight and would be great with teleconvertors which wouldn't increase the f stop too much

[@jan_wegener]

Canon might think the 100-500 covers this for now. Not the same of course

[@TorstenBecker]

On photo trips I sometimes take multiple bodies to cover different focal lengths - but I wouldn't take a lens off the camera on a photo trip - and I usually go to the bathroom before mounting another lens. I've owned extenders before, but I don't use them, they cost too much light and sometimes dramatically degrade a good lens.

[@nightcoder5k]

What do you think about using something like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and a 2x extender? It's like a nice portrait/landscape lens with wildlife capability when the extender is used.

[@jan_wegener]

It might work, but I am sure IQ will suffer a lot. Would have to stop down 1-2 stops to get better sharpness

[@luxs1965]

I love your clear explanations!

[@jan_wegener]

Great :)

[@tonykeltsflorida]

I got a 2x TC for my 75-300 lens. I got it cheap and I like the look. I get f/5.6 wide open at around 600mm on the tripod. I can read the street sign 2 blocks away LOL.

[@hamptonblues]

I agree with your preference to have the bird smaller and crop rather than loose DOF but have a larger bird in the image area. I still prefer extenders only with prime lenses and only when I can't carry a prime to cover the affective focal length of the prime + 1/4x (IE, using a 400mm + 1.4x vs 600mm). My 400mm f/4 DO is just much more portable with and without a 1.4x vs the 600mm f/4. And I can handhold the 400mm DO with and without the 1.4x as well. I can hand hold the 600mm, but for like for 3 seconds and then I have to take a nap!

[@jan_wegener]

thanks for sharing :)

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

As for my own use of teleconverters, on the Olympus m4/3 cameras I would recommend staying under f/11 after adding the teleconverter. If you can't do that because the base lens is at f5.6 or higher, you're probably not going to be happy with a 2x extender. I have the 100-400mm zoom and the 2x extender puts it out at almost f/13. It's not good out there. Too much diffraction. On the other hand, with the Sony 200-600mm lens and the 2x extender, you can kind of get away with it. Not gonna work with birds in flight, but for static objects that are far away with good light...it's worth it. Better to use that 2x extender on the 600 f4. Even the 100-400mm at f5.6 is a stretch for the 2x extender. And remember, as you extend any lens, you lose depth of field.

[@peterk_hh]

Hi Jan, thanks for that video! which software are you using to watch the photos on the computer monitor? Thanks Peter

[@debraboucher1876]

Jan, I am a newcomer to your channel and I just love it. I try to practice the things you talk about. I have the 100-500 and the 800. I would like to know how you meter a white bird with spot metering. Are you looking at the histogram to make adjustments or do you use the cameras meter?

[@jan_wegener]

I always shoot full manual. So I rely on the histogram to guide me and set all parameters accordingly. I made a video about exposure a while back. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mprGgYd9h7Fna6c

[@paulus0109]

Very useful information for me. I noticed you'v got a lot of experience. Thnx.v.m. I've got all the answers i needed.

[@jan_wegener]

Glad to hear that!

[@sswildlifevideos]

Excellent video Jan - I generally lean towards shooting wider apertures for mammals (as it is very hard to get the whole body in the plane anyway unless you have good light and separation to stop down a to f/10 or so) so as long as the eyes and face are sharp I'm ok. For birds, however I do try to stop down when possible to get more of the subject in focus.

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, I think the smaller the bird/animal the closer you are and the more impact DOF has

[@The-50-Simmer]

birding with a 150-600 Sigma and a 2x extender at F13 really works great. I use that on a tripod/gimball with a Canon R6.

[@ram9midde]

Very informative video Jan, what about using a cropped body like a6600 with sony 200-600mm instead of extenders. If canon releases a cropped sensor mirrorless body in future would you consider using it with 100-500 and no extenders.

[@jan_wegener]

If the crop body is of similar quality and ability to an R5 I would consider it. Otherwise I think the TC on a better camera will likely work better. But hard to know for sure. But things like great Af can make a big difference in this case

[@ram9midde]

@@jan_wegener Thank you for the reply Jan. What do you mean by similar quality, Is it ISO performance or autofocus. I'm looking for canon to release an APSC mirrorless camera equivalent to 7d-MkII. Rumour mill says that we may see such a camera in 2022. I shoot with a 400mm f 5.6 and EOS 60D right now. Im looking to upgrade if canon comes with a 7d mk-II equivalent and stick to my existing lens for some more time. Eventually I wanna upgrade to 100-500 RF, Can you give any advice to me regarding this? By the way I never saw you using even a 7d-mkII for birding, Glenn used it a lot. Any specific reasons for preferring Full frame only, May be you can make a video on this topic. FF vs APSC for birding.

[@jan_wegener]

@@ram9midde I have used 1D Mark IV and then the 5D III and 5D IV. I preferred the better IQ on those cameras to the crop factor. Quality I meant built quality and AF capabilities

[@SuomiFinland78]

Great work behing, thanks Jan for your efforts! You tried 200-600 with 1.4 and 100-500 with 2.0. How does 100-500 work with 1.4 instead of 2.0?

[@jan_wegener]

It works better than with the 2x. There's one example in the video

[@myf0c4ld1st4nc3]

Thanks Jan. Specially by refering to the 100-400 ii . I have to use my 100-400mm ii with the 1.4x iii extender. Sometimes the 400mm aren't enough... and I try to stop down to F9. I expect to have a bump on quality with the R5. Let's see. Waiting for the next black friday. 😁

[@jan_wegener]

Yes, stopping down is a good idea. Might even wanna test F11 and see if it's even better. The focusing should be much improved with extenders on the R5

[@quazisanjeed6395]

I use my EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II almost always with the 2x extender. Contemplating a used EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II as well. On my 1DIV the latter will produce a focal length of 1040mm FF equivalent. I'm optimistic that if I get an MILC; these combos will work fine!

[@jan_wegener]

they will

[@eaglebeagle1408]

2X mk iii on a 300 f2.8 gives 600mm on my FF. it’s brilliant just depends on your set up and adapting to using it, in good light it’s far better than cropping.

[@chrispowell2126]

Great video Jan, can I just check are the example pictures straight off the camera before any enhancement with software. Thanks for a very informative video.

[@jan_wegener]

almost all of the images are RAW files shown in FastStone Image Viewer.

[@alchemist_x79]

I generally shoot the 100-400GM on the a7RIV. I had the 200-600 for a while, but I'm primarily a landscape photographer and only shoot occasional wildlife so the size/weight of that lens was impractical for me for how infrequently I shot with it. I go back and forth between using the 1.4x TC and the RIV's in crop mode. I've gotten fantastic results from each. I guess, like you said, it just depends haha. I also have had many times where I was shooting with the 135 GM and feel that Sony missed an opportunity by not making that lens to accept TC's.

[@jan_wegener]

Sounds great! Yeah, the 200-600 is quite big. Yes, that would be nice with TCs. Just like Canon's weird choice of not allowing the new 70-200 to take TCs

[@elho001]

Quite similar for me - A7R IV, 100-400GM, 1.4x TC and doing landscape. Just never ever use the crop mode, but crop in post - there iss little reason to throw an inflexibly fixed part of the image away prematurely. The rare cases where you defenitely know that you do not want to crop less lateron do neither jushify designating a custom button nor Fn menu item for it nor spending the extra time to switch without these.

[@MaxRomantiQ]

Very interesting video, Jan will you buy Canon R3? Or you still take photos on R5?

[@jan_wegener]

No plans atm. I am using 2 R5 daily

[@AlexKoro_CinematicTravel]

Many thanks! This video is just the answer to a question that has worried me lately.

[@jan_wegener]

Glad it was helpful!

[@siekoch]

Hey Jan. Thank you for another very helpful and well-prepared video. I love your job. I would love to see the same comparison with the 800mm RF but focusing on the x1.4 RF extender used with 100-500mm. It seems to me that the comparison would be even more reliable, because then we have a comparison of 800 and 700mm and here it was 800 and 1000mm. I have absolutely no experience with RF extenders, but so far I have used the Fuji system and as x1.4 is acceptable there, but x2 extender is very weak. Hence my curiosity and greater interest in x1.4.

[@jan_wegener]

I think it's quite similar and it almost comes down to whether you prefer a second lens or just an extra extender to carry.

[@siekoch]

@@jan_wegener Thx! 👍