I think the samples I showed make it pretty clear. Have you run into issues with converters before? Or have a similar story to mine?

@anishakarna7740

2 жыл бұрын

Similar🥺

@jpgo

2 жыл бұрын

I think at the end depends on the final use of your pictures, I used to have Fujifilm and I love my Teleconverter, I do not print my photos, just as a hobby to share on social media like Facebook and Instagram, also learning photography still...

@mavfan1

2 жыл бұрын

@J HappyFotoApe so sorry, saw your last photo, not good!

@tayloriginals999

2 жыл бұрын

what about using one for macro? If the shot is in controlled well lit conditions could a 2x or 1.4x converter be worth it?

@froknowsphoto

2 жыл бұрын

@Chris Cassata at least it didn't murder your durder.

My photos are not for National Geographic and I can't invest in 600mm or 800mm prime lenses. TCs give me the reach I need without spending the money, or dealing with the weight of primes. I am satisfied with the results that come out of using TCs, and so are the few people who follow my work. Not ALL of us fall in the same category.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

If it sounds to be too good it probably is, but in either case do yourself a favor and do some research. When I bought my Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS, I opted for the F2.8 rather than the F4 because there would be times when the AF would work with the F2.8, but not the F4. Eventually, I bought the teleconverter for it, but I knew that I'd be losing 2 stops of light and that it wouldn't autofocus as the aperture got tighter. Also, the one I've got won't work with all lenses, there's a rubber bit inside that blocks stray light, probably what prevents that foggy appearance that won't clear all lenses, so you have to check out whether or not it works with a particular lens. But, that being said, it was a pretty decent result. It's probably not as good as having a lens that's actually 400mm, but it does a decent enough job of it to be worth the money. I just wouldn't suggest getting it if you're needing the best AF, shutterspeed and focus as that's probably not fair.

@steven871

2 жыл бұрын

@@bngr_bngr I had not heard that. I use the 2X on the 70 -200 2.8 version two. Seems to be fine but would love to know if anyone out there has seen different results

@kennyj604

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly.

@IDIturboDiesel

2 жыл бұрын

@@steven871 2X converter on my Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM II lens has decent quality when used with my 6D and 5D Mark IV. On 7D Mark II and 5DSR is when it's pushing it and softness starts showing up.

@steven871

Жыл бұрын

@@IDIturboDiesel thank you

Guess I'll just walk closer to the moon then.

For anyone watching this I would say to take this with a grain of salt and consider the usage case. Jared says get closer, nature photographer's will tell you the opposite. If you are shooting birds the closer you get the higher chance you spook it and then it flies away. Shot gone. Safety also comes into play, if you are shooting a safari trip for example getting closer to the animal could potentially put the animal and your life in danger. I can safely say I would rather a loss of light rather than losing a limb if things went wrong by getting closer. Also consider this advice comes from the person, who until recently, advocated for you to never crop your photos. I enjoy Jared's content but get your information/advice from more than one source before applying to yourself. P. S. I am not a nature photographer and of course take what I say with a grain of salt too.

@pnwbjj

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. His advise is as sound as a politician sometimes.

@Patrick-mq9jc

2 жыл бұрын

The key takeaway I got was that a cropped image with no teleconverter may end up looking better than the non-cropped image shot with a teleconverter. While he isn't a fan of cropping, in this scenario it may be the better option. I recently bought a 1.4x teleconverter to use with my 70-200 for a little extra reach and now I'm wondering if cropping may be the better choice. His pics sure show image quality loss with the 2x teleconverter. I plan to test it out and compare.

@tomubashir

2 жыл бұрын

Agree with you.

@MicheleGuzzini3

2 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with Phil. There are plenty of use case when a TC could make the difference between a usable picture and a rejected one. Jared is not a real world photographer, he is a youtuber, so he really doesn't know how is the life out there, especially for wild life and BIF. He is sitting on his desk and his conclusion to not use a TC is based only on pixel peeping.

@flaviomarchi

2 жыл бұрын

Huh? What do you mean, the only thing he says is that the quality will be better if you crop instead of using a teleconverter... so if x mm focal length isnt enough, putting a teleconverter on there will not help (because the quality will be worse as he showed in the video) so ultimately the only option you have is getting closer or buying a lens with more reach..

Summary of the video: button line: it’s ok to crop ! Jared crops his pictures now !

@davecrissinger8967

2 жыл бұрын

McCroppity Crop! 😂

@JoelRiveraMD

2 жыл бұрын

@@davecrissinger8967 hahaha

@user-go4el5lw1p

2 жыл бұрын

No way!!!!!!!

@stuartsmith945

2 жыл бұрын

I spent a lot of time trying to decide between full frame/APS-C and finally decided full frame because I could always crop to get the same result as the APS-C crop factor. From there the decision to go canon R5 over R6 was easy. I can crop an R5 image and get the same result as the R6 with alonger lens without sacrificing pixels. Having gone full frame, the wide end of the spectrum is much easier as you don't need to go extremely short focal lengths to get the same result.

@Mozingotube

2 жыл бұрын

Coming from the guy who screams fill the frame don’t crop for 5 years before this video 😂

I have been using 1.4 and 2x teleconverters for decades with success, so I would not be so fast to dismiss them entirely. However, you do raise 2 key points aperture and pixel count. My Sigma 70-200 f 2.8 and dedicated 2x extender worked well with my original Canon Rebel at f8 because the camera had a bare minimum of pixels before cropping. So, I was comparing tele shots with cropping that caused the picture to pixelate. With me R5, I have more than 3 times as many pixels to start with (in 1.6 crop mode for apples to apples comparison), so I can afford to throw away some pixels and avoid the loss of sharpness and light in lieu of using the tele to get a bigger image size. In short, faster lenses and fewer pixels work better with converters than slower lens and high pixel sensors. So, results vary.

@yanniksteiger7286

Жыл бұрын

Check this out: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iaGaxbaEYKmbeKQ.html

I'm happy with a 1.4x on a zoom followed by cleaning up in LR and Topaz. Especially for wildlife. If you aren't printing massive prints, save yourself $10,000 for the 600f4 or 2.8....and buy a 1.4x and use software in post.

TBH I was quite pleased with my $50 teleconverter. I use it like you said with a 300m 5.6 (worst rated canon lens) and a canon sl1 crop sensor. It was a small investment and a great learning experience. I wasn’t expecting anything spectacular or super sharp images. I guess I’m still in the amateur realm of photography where I just like to shoot whatever I find interesting.

@yanniksteiger7286

Жыл бұрын

Check this out: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iaGaxbaEYKmbeKQ.html

I've been using teleconverters... very selectively... for st least 35 years. Some combos work well, while many others don't. My first good experience with a TC was using a 1.5X on a 300mm f/4.5 lens. I had to try about a half dozen different converters to find a pairing that worked really well. Now many years later I have both 1.4X and 2X in my Canon system. I only use the 2X on 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 lenses. I've used the 1.4X on those, too, plus: 100mm macro, 135mm f/2, 180mm macro, 300mm f/4 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom. It works very well on all of those. You started out saying "don't use teleconverters", but later qualified that saying limit their use to very high quality lenses and especially avoid using a TC on mist zoom lenses. I agree with where you ended up... But not with where you started. Not everyone has a 45MP or higher camera that allows them to crop the way you suggest. A teleconverter may be some peoples' best solution and make images that meet their needs, though some slight post processing might be needed. Like everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Don't expect much from a $100 teleconverter on a $400 zoom lens... But a $400 TC on a $1500 prime or $2500 zoom might be worth a try.

I am happy with the RF100-500 and my 1.4 x extender. It does degrade the image quality slightly but it is still acceptable and in the real world nobody looks at two images side by side zoomed in all the way to pixel-peep and spot the difference.

@gavinjenkins899

5 ай бұрын

But the point of the video, which is correct, is that if it degrades the quality anyway, why not simply shoot at 500mm natively, then crop 1.4x and expand the image in photoshop? You will lose a bit of quality, but you ALREADY did with the teleconverter. Meanwhile, you save a few hundred dollars not buying a pointless converter and also can shoot wider aperture. Your very own logic that people don't pixel-peep explains why you can do fine WITHOUT the TC.

@TechnoMasterBoy

4 ай бұрын

@@gavinjenkins899 99% cases a teleconverter will be better because it's physically zooming in, rather than digitally. Digital zoom isn't zoom, you're literally just throwing away information.

@gavinjenkins899

4 ай бұрын

@@TechnoMasterBoy No, because you're ALSO "literally throwing away information" with a teleconverter used on any lens that doesn't have more un-resolved sharpness available. Which is almost all lenses. Same thing. If the lens is already resolving as sharply as it can, and then you blow it up, you're gaining zero new information, and throwing away the outer information. Exactly like in digital.

@TechnoMasterBoy

4 ай бұрын

@@gavinjenkins899 Except that it depends a LOT on your camera, lens and teleconverter. Presenting it as a fact that teleconverters are bad is straight up moronic. There's PLENTY of people who use teleconverters and get amazing results, like Simon d'Entremont. A glass is capable of bringing out more details, cropping however isn't. This is basic physics. Again if you use some shit equipment, of course the teleconverter might look worse, but so would using a shitty lens or a camera. And if you have a low mp camera, there isn't much cropping you can do either way.

@gavinjenkins899

4 ай бұрын

@@TechnoMasterBoy Good thing I never said "teleconverters are bad" then and in fact have been arguing that they can be great this entire time...? Are you confusing me with someone else? However, your second statement is incorrect: BOTH glass AND cropping can bring out more detail. For cropping, it has to be pixels you weren't otherwise using, though. Whether that be because the size you were printing or sharing the image at was down-rezzing them anyway, or because you had fewer pixels in your sensor at that crop (e.g. changing from a 24MP full frame to a 24MP APS-C, you're getting now 24MP in the cropped area instead of 9MP, so you can resolve more detail if the lens delivers it, without a TC). That depends on your situation or requires buying a second body though, which may be more expensive than a TC

Man who “never crops” crops. Oooookay.

@davecrissinger8967

2 жыл бұрын

I know, try getting closer to a Bird in flight. The man was anti Sony, Presets and Cropping 4 years ago, now look at him. He flips more than Pancakes! 😂😂😂

@veganpotterthevegan

2 жыл бұрын

@@davecrissinger8967 To be fair, Sony cameras WERE junk. And you typically only flip a pancake once🙃

@Bad_Wolf_Media

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's not like he was trying to do a fair, side-by-side comparison to demonstrate the point he was making or anything. What a poser!!!

@davecrissinger8967

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bad_Wolf_Media Compare a Stop sign to a Flying birds? WTF

@sh8736

2 жыл бұрын

Next he will be promoting shooting jpeg…… 😂

Great video, Jared. You're telling the fine print that's not even there in the teleconverter's printed manual that only says (in 7 languages) that I shouldn't put in my nose. I applaud you filling the information gap. Some information is simply missing on the internet even after this much time has passed since the internet and teleconverters were invented.

Papperazzis be like: "I use five 2x teleconverters on my 600mm lens. All scandal photos are blurry anyway."

@dannydanquah3681

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@scrap.catastrophe

2 жыл бұрын

"well you can obviously see here Mickey Mouse is touching Grimace"

@KhalandarNawalSheikh

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

Don't crop Crop Don't pixel peep Pixel peep Um, confusing much.

@D3HuC

2 жыл бұрын

What’s next? Shooting JPEG’s?

@mcunner

2 жыл бұрын

@@D3HuC 😂

@johnbanks9392

2 жыл бұрын

The guy is an arse.

Great topic JP, I did this exact exercise when I picked up a Nikon 2X TC that I use with my 70-200mm for extra reach until we get Z mount long glass. My conclusions were very similar to yours. In short what I found was that if you have enough light and can open up your lens almost fully (f/5.6 in my case, because I lost 2 stops), and you have a slower subject you can use the TC at lower ISO values. If you don't have those conditions you're rolling the dice on quality. My work around is under expose (lower ISO and faster shutter) and pull up the raw in post but it's still risky. Cheers

Here's something that I did recently where I used a teleconverter; 70-200 is a great sports lens. However, when you are stationed in an arena in the last row of the Loge (lower) sections shooting a hockey game, a 70-200 is nothing. 300mm became standard for hockey photos. There's no need to crop for photos, you get clean images straight out of camera at 2.8. Now me, not having $6k to spend on a lens and having a 300 2.8 rental cost put me in the minus for profit for the shoot, I brought a 1.4x teleconverter turning it into something more like 100-280 f4. This allowed me to get images that are ready straight out of camera, and although it was F4, the depth wasn't noticably different considering the subjects are so far away and it is being shot aerially with the ice being the background. The arena lighting was good, and I had no issues. I was able to get full-res images that I would otherwise have to crop substantially on an 18MP camera like the 1DX which looks way worse than the lack of sharpness it may give. Point is, don't buy a teleconverter thinking it's god's gift to budget photographers. Do buy a teleconverter if you need to provide timely full-res photos from long distance and don't have the equipment for it. It's not about providing top notch photos and getting more out of your lens, but being able to get that range can make you a versatile photographer and can allow you to provide editorial photos quickly without needing a 300 2.8.

@vickosis

2 жыл бұрын

Very well put Tyler 👍🏼

Yet other pros say to use a teleconverter instead of cropping. Go figure. My teleconverter works very well and gets great results, btw. Perhaps I should watch the video though.

@froknowsphoto

2 жыл бұрын

maybe

@MoniJohnson

2 жыл бұрын

@@froknowsphoto I must admit though that I don't typically take my teleconverter with me. I just don't like carrying gear I don't need. So basically, (with the R5) I end up cropping in and sometimes I even enable digital stabilization and that crops in even further. Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone.

Granted, whoever sold you the lens should have been upfront about the f-stop. But my X2 teleconvereter works great with my 70-200 2.8; I get sharp images and the autofocus is fast enough to catch moving animals. It'd be more ideal to have a longer lens sure, but for now when I want that extra zoom, X2 teleconvereter will get me what I need.

Thanks Jared. It's a good reminder video. I found that adding more glass and cutting through more atmosphere humidity did in fact brought more hazyness to my pictures. I still use the 1.4 converter with my Canon EF 100-400 by knowing it's limits. I got rid of my 2X exactly for the reasons you provided here.

Good video, which reflects my own observations. So should I sell my teleconverters, or do they have some niche use, where they do actually help?

"A warning to photographers using budget zoom lenses: Dont buy a teleconverter" I use a 1.4x (generally dont bother with the 2x) on my telephoto primes and it works well. They have their place, especially for lower MP bodies where you dont have 50+MP to crop with

@longliveclassicmusic

2 жыл бұрын

The megapixels don't have a single solitary thing to do with the points he's making in this video. Even if you have fewer megapixels, the image quality will still be better cropping the photo than using a teleconverter. Because focusing is better without one, lower ISO, less glass in front of the sensor… You seriously need to stop typing comments and actually watch the video. He provides clear as day examples.

@doghouseriley4732

2 жыл бұрын

@@longliveclassicmusic From a technical point of view, you are wrong. Go take a 20mp 7D Mk2, take a pic, crop it 100% and look at the mess you have. Then add you 1.4tc and take the same picture. One solution is optical, one is digital. The digital solution will provide you with a lovely blurry image that even the sharpest sharpening AI tool will never recover. If you listen to his comments in the video, he admits that this doesn't apply to cameras with lower megapixels. But I knew so many people would miss that

@blakeparry1983

2 жыл бұрын

@@longliveclassicmusic I've shot high MP bodies, crop bodies and low MP bodies, and with and without teleconverters On lower MP bodies, i prefer a teleconverter. the ISO advantage is wiped by cropping, as is the sharpness. Focusing with a 1.4x on a good prime the difference is tiny.

@doghouseriley4732

2 жыл бұрын

@@blakeparry1983 Spot on

@actie-reactie

2 жыл бұрын

@@longliveclassicmusic depends how far your subject is away.... I use it on my 90D combined with a canon 100-400 II lens....I got sharp shots from waterbirds which normally where too far away to crop......even with a 32.5 MP sensor

I photograph birfs and use both 1.4x and 2x iii with my 500 f4 ii and never have any autofocus or image quality issue with R6. However will not use my 400 mm 5.6 with 2x as I noticed focus speed drastically reduced. 1.4 is fine with the 400 no issues.

I use an older Canon 600 f/4 on an R6 and occasionally I'll use a teleconverter. I know the downsides like you said but I found out the hard way. That being said, I keep it in my pack because I use it when the light is bright and it takes good pictures when the conditions warrant it. I purchased a Sigma 1.4.

Thanks. Great video. I don’t always want a bunch of pros and cons and “I’ll let you decide and let me know what you think in the comments below” type video. This is a great example of clear thoughts and reasons and a firm conclusion. I’ve been disappointed with cheap lenses in the past. Now I won’t make the same mistake wasting money on a teleconverter.

I've been using the 1.4 on my 200-500 nikon for filming in winter here in Yellowstone/Grand Teton area and it's been great. Even with 5.6 stopping to over 7 the brightness of the snow and sun support enough light and with proper editing it is just fine for regular photographers and video shooters. I laugh when I watch these videos because how is anyone taking advice from someone who needed a tour guide for Horseshoe bend 😆😆 For all of you who aren't able to spend 10-18k on a prime lense don't worry with post edit software now a first year shooter with the right equipment and passion for creativity will always produce better content than gear heads. The teleconv is only $260 and worth to have in your camera bag 🤙🤙 Clearly I'm a fan of Jared and this comment is in no way throwing shade because I do respect the guy for his time and skill in the industry so please curb the negative replies 😉 #WeAreOneTribe

Teleconverters can be a good compromise. The R5 has great ISO performance. You crank it up when using a RF100-500 with the 2X TC and work well for outdoor events at great distances. The eye/head tracking focus locks better with the subject is bigger in the field of view while you are shooting rather than cropping in post. There are advantages to TCs as well as shortcomings. Maybe this is some of the super-expensive stuff that he is talking about. Even with the Sigma 150-600 with a 1.4X can be the best choice when shooting hard to track action so as to enable the autofocus to lock better when action is quick and you have no way to get closer. Sure if you can get close that is better but pigs can't fly and never will. There are no miracles using TCs but they have some pros as well as cons. Do let perfection get in the way of a good shot that is not an absolute great shot. Perfection is overrated when good is good enough.

@yanniksteiger7286

Жыл бұрын

Check this out: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iaGaxbaEYKmbeKQ.html

thanks for this video. wasnt planning on one in the near future but its somethiing i can take off my list now

One of the best advice on photography! Very well explained.Thanks a lot.

Jared, I do agree that the 2x teleconverter can be a disappointment if you're using it hand held. In my experience I found a few situations where the 2X teleconverter is surprisingly sharp with extra fine detail you can't see without it. But, it does take patience and practice using a perfectly steady, vibration free tripod, enough light to shoot at low iso, silent shutter mode and remote trigger.

It all depends on the lens and the tC, I use a 1.4 TC on my Canon 100-400l and it works find even with one stop of light loss, On my 500 and 600L it works great. Now for the 2.0 TC loss of sharpness is a bigger issue even when using fast lens. my 100-400 with the 1.4 is the one I keep next to me at all times, no compliants.

Thanks for the info. I was planning to buy a teleconverter but could not decide on one. Now I am planning to buy a better lens

I always wondered about teleconverters and you confirmed my suspicions.. Thank you, another great video with information that matters

A teleconverter simply makes the image circle bigger. A 2x teleconverter makes the image circle diameter twice as large and the image circle area 4x that of the original. This has the effect of spreading the same amount of light over a 4x area thus loosing 2 stops of light while giving you twice the focal length. Same math applies to all powers of teleconverters or teleconmpressors (such as the metabone 0.72x etc.) If you have enough megapixels then cropping should give you better image quality since you're not introducing additional glass that lowers brightness and contrast of the final image.

Good tradesmen don't blame their tools. Focus manually, set exposure manually... easy if you're a photographer.

As always, GREAT VIDEO and INFO! I didn't know that about the F stop going up and I'm shooting an indoor recital soon with a 1.8 INSIDE, this would have been a real problem for me lol. Thanks again!

Love your videos, good job .I have learned a lot thanks to you👍👍

Interestingly, I mostly use the 1.4 tele on my canon 100-500 to do lazy macro stuff. It's still not true macro magnification, but improves the naked 500mm (and has good magnification IMO). Plus I can keep my distance from skiddish subjects like dragonflies and butterflies. But yes, due to the light loss it's only useful in extremely bright scenarios for birds and wildlife. For those I either try to get closer or crop.(shooting with an R6)

@vickosis

2 жыл бұрын

Yes the magnifiation gain while keeping similar minimal focal distance was another benefit that was omitted from this video.

Jared, you spoke in error when you said the Sony 400/2.8 with the 2X converter was an F4 lens its F8 and I have been getting excellent results with the new Canon RF 400/2.8 while using the RF 1.4 and 2.0 X TC.. I agree these Teleconverters where really designed for fast 2.8 / F4 long primes

@getawaybus

2 жыл бұрын

Not sure about that. It should be f/5.6 with the 2x.

@frostybe3r

2 жыл бұрын

Tell me you don't own the 400 2.8 without telling me ...

Thanks for this. Also thankful that rental gear is pretty affordable these days so I suggest readers do their own tests in their specific use cases. Try different lenses ,converters, crop bodies, full frame. Pixel peep to your hearts content afterwards and draw your own conclusions.

Thanks Jared, an amazingly timed video. Just got myself a Tamron 18-400mm last week and was thinking of getting the 2x tele-converter (just for use in bird hides and similar wildlife photography) but I think I'll skip it and just crop if needed.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

Do your research, the 2x teleconverter may or may not even work. It really has to be within the same system and it may or may not fit all lenses. The TC I use from Canon has a rubber bit that helps block extraneous light, but in doing so it can knock into the rear element of lenses that weren't designed for it to be there. He is largely right though that you're probably better off just cropping the images by 2x. Modern cameras have plenty of extra pixels and unless you absolutely need to blow the images up to massive proportions that you can look at up close and personal, cropping is probably a better choice. Or, find the money for a more expensive lens.

I tested it myself and using a 1.4x III on my 100-400mm II with the R6 and cropping is worse than the TC. Focus is slower though

@okaro6595

2 жыл бұрын

R6 is a low megapixel body so that makes sense. TCs are good with good lenses and low megapixel cameras.

Good points but on a 70-200 2.8, a converter might still be a good investment if you can’t justify a long prime. For me it’d be more about the compression of a longer focal length to make distant subjects seem larger. Maybe I’m wrong though and haven’t done side by side tests like this. It seemed like there was no compression differences in that stop sign example you had so that confused me a little bit.

@CozyToad

Жыл бұрын

Compression is not from the lens, its from the distance the camera is from the subject, if you stand the in one location and take two shots, one at say 70mm and one at 200mm and crop the 70mm shot so the subject is the same size as in the 200mm shot you will notice the same amount of compression on that cropped 70mm shot, the only thing you lose out on is resolution, but if you have decent megapixel count, as long as its not being viewed in a large enough format it wont really be noticeable.

It is simple when it works and when it doesn't: It does work and does help IF AND WHEN your lens is of such high quality that it resolves much more finely than your sensor can pick up. If so, then when you magnify the image, it STILL has more sharpness available to make up for it. With modern cameras, this is only really true for a handful of extremely expensive, extremely high end pro lenses. It used to be true for more lenses back in the day with film (still wouldn't have been true for a 70-300 kit lens or whatever you mentioned at the start though)

Great video, I learned the lesson the way you did as well. It gave me okay results but I couldn't get it crispy sharp.

I have no problem with my 1.4x teleconverter on the fuji system. I know it reduces IQ, but for wildlife photography it's super helpful to get shots, especially as Fuji's longest lens is the 100-400 they do. Downsides are that the aperture is f6.3-8 and only really usable on a sunny day haha. But I'm still happy with it. And I save a few quid by picking it up on the used money - I wasn't going to pay full retail price for that! haha

@keensoundguy6637

2 жыл бұрын

Canon's f/11 telephoto lenses came in handy for my trip to the sun.

@CliftonCinematics

Жыл бұрын

@@keensoundguy6637 I had a good laugh about your comment

Don't listen to him, you can buy TCs, just not the TC 2x as you're losing too much quality and even AF speed, however the TC 1.4x is fine! When you crop, you would lose the same amount of light anyway, but the big advantage of a TC is that you get the full resolution. So if you have the A9 with its 24MP and use the TC 1.4x with the 600mm f/4, you still get 24MP and 840mm f/5.6 and a very sharp image. If you crop, then your 24MP will become 12MP and your image will be quite a lot worse than what you get with the TC.

I had a Nikon 2X converter with a straight Nikon 300mm lens and it worked well enough for my moon shots. At the time this converter was said to only work on certain lenses, and not on telephoto lenses. They also warned about the f-stop issues. I do agree that any lens without the converter should give better images, I also agree that it would also cost 3X more. You can wish for more power, but we all know that it us not always worth it. I wound up selling the complete setup because I was not interested in moon shots and the distance alone created issues on hot, humid days anyway. Short story, if you need that much power, you will have to realize all lenses will give up something. But, with sports or other things, the straight lens will always be the better choice, if you can afford it.

Thank you for this video. I have been searching for years about the effects of teleconverters, but never got a clear answer.

They have come a long way since you were 14

1.4x converters are 1 stop less light and the loss in image quality is so minimal it's not even really noticeable till you pixel peep. A 1.4x is something that is always in my kit, I usually dont use it but when that reach would help with framing and avoiding cropping I dont hesitate to throw it on.

@patricksmith2553

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah the Nikon TC-14E III is absolutely amazing, I see no loss in IQ or AF speed on my 500mm f/4E VR FL lens or my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL. I do still prefer a D500 or crop sensor camera for a teleconverter replacement in good lighting, but if it's low light or I need better AF or higher FPS, I'll use my D6. I've heard the Nikon Z mount TC 1.4x is even better than the excellent F-mount TC-14E III. So this only applies to cheap or slow zoom lenses. Nikon is apparently even going to add a 1.4x built in TC on the new 400mm f/2.8 S!

@skakdosmer

2 жыл бұрын

Depends on the lens, I’d say. On my lenses the loss is certainly noticeable.

Jared makes some interesting points worthy of a listen. As some photographers continue to note, buying ever more hyped and newer gear won’t make us better photographers.

Thanks, jared i am glad i watched this video just in time.. even though I felt like yes I knew all this but still I was going to make that mistake and needed a reassurance. so ya I am grateful.

I have a 2x converter for my Nikon Z system 70-200 2.8 and it's absolutely lovely. Works like a charm, no loss of quality, no issues with focus, no problems at all. Of course, this is the only lens (currently) you can use the teleconverter with but as much as I like these videos, I can't say I've had any issues whatsoever with the tele.

@glennschiffer1742

2 жыл бұрын

no loss of quality with a 2x converter......really

@Illuminationsfromtheattic

2 жыл бұрын

Same, I love my 2x z TC on the 70-200. There night be a loss of quality, but I certainly haven't noticed it.

@dicekolev5360

2 жыл бұрын

@@glennschiffer1742 Yes, Nikon tech is the best quality tech on the market. Don't watch these sonyboys youtubers that are too busy promoting the shitty cameras rather being busy actually using them^^

@Gjallarhorn_Productions

2 жыл бұрын

@@FMJP same here.

@vickosis

2 жыл бұрын

Yes the new Nikon Z teleconverters seem to be the best on the market and the Z TC 1.4x appears to be even better than the TC 2.0x which also has the possibility of cropping in further to more or less match the TC 2.0x ... and unlikley to end up with the crappy results Jared was getting. Happy days!

Teleconverter works great when you need to increase the magnification ratio. I stop down to f/11 or f/16 for macro anyway. Tripod and flash are used.

I only half agree. I never use teleconverters on zooms - that's a waste of time. Ha! I only use teleconverters on my 600mm f/4. And even then it's usually the 1.4x which still looks perfectly tack sharp. You may lose a bit of speed there but the image does not looks like garbage. The 2x shows some quality degradation (and you likely cannot crop) and is noticeably slower, so I seldom use. But that is dependent on the camera body. Using a tele is worth it in certain situations and with certain camera/lens combos. Totally fine/helpful and looks great.

Thank you again and again for your brutal honesty and for always sharing your enormous professional experience.

Well, i use the nikon Z 70-200 with the Z TC2.0x, and works like a charm. Imo teleconverters are only worth it on really high end 2.8 lenses.

@RaymondParkerPhoto

2 жыл бұрын

Yup.

@joshuameadows4165

2 жыл бұрын

I'm very tempted with the Z TC2.0x, the 1.4x works like a charm and all the reviews show the 2x to be excellent... but I've been burned in the past with 2x converters on f-mount. I'm kinda waiting for the Z super zooms and want to see if the teleconverters are compatible. Until then I'll keep using the Tamron 150-600 G2 with 1.4 teleconverter for extreme range stuff, along with the 70-200 with 1.4x.

@sloppy-1-1

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuameadows4165 if you have the tamron, I don't see how the 2.0x tc should be better (only lighter). I didn't have a super tele already, so the 2.0x made sense for me

@joshuameadows4165

2 жыл бұрын

@@sloppy-1-1 The biggest benefit would be no ftz. Also as a general rule I've found the new S lenses to be noticeably improved optically particularly on edge sharpness. (It's not a need).

@sloppy-1-1

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuameadows4165 yeah, the ftz is design wise kinda a fail, with that bulge at the bottom blocking the tripod mount

I put a 2x teleconverter on my new-to-me 300mm 2.8 vrii yesterday for the first time and was very pleased with the results. I did lose a significant amount of shutter speed, but the lens performed great when stopped down to f8 and filled up the frame so I didn't need to crop.

Bck when I started in 35mm cameras I used to use 2x converters and my shots where not so good in lighting .... Good work .

I already knew this 👍🏻 thank you for making sure.

Great video and true. For me it depends on the situation. If you need to get the shot, use whatever you have to fill the frame. If I shoot for quality and not story (documenting) the tele x…is an option to get the desired shot👍

I like how you compare the images between using the teleconverter and simply cropping in tighter. And the comparison images from the baseball game are really telling. I’ve struggled with using a 1.4x on my 70-200 f2.8 in the past, and I eventually got a Tamron 150-600, and I’m much happier with those results.

What a great video. Was just about to purchase a Sony 2x TC - thank you!

Thanks for the video. I thought about to buy the 1,4 Extender for my R6 and my RF100-500, but changed my mind. I use Crop Mode and sometimes pushed up the Resolution again with Camera Raw (7 to 30 Megapixels). Greetings from Germany.

The newest TCs from Z and RF are simply not in the same league as the older ones. Sharpness is unbelievable. Focusing isn't a problem anymore with the newer systems.

@BroadwayNexp

11 ай бұрын

are you saying the Z and RF ones are sharper?

@lekkerpruven887

11 ай бұрын

@@BroadwayNexp yes

"Portrait/event photographer tells wildlife photographers what gear to use." Tools, all gear are tools. You use what tool works best for the result that you want. While fully understanding the benefits and trade-offs of those tools.

@keensoundguy6637

2 жыл бұрын

True as it is, good luck selling that in youtube videos.

@Methodical2

2 жыл бұрын

@@keensoundguy6637 How about that. That was my thought. He must never photograph wildlife. It's easy when your subject is 2' from the camera and cooperative.

Good for you Jared! Thank you for being so honest!! Not allowing us to be sold on this sales and marketing !!

Thanks mate, you just saved me some money. Appreciate it.

I think you hit the nail on the head once again Jared. In this day and age, especially if you have a really solid camera, you can get far better results by just cropping a photo to your desired results provided said camera takes large enough RAW files and has a solid resolution instead of using a teleconverter.

@vickosis

2 жыл бұрын

... although he failed to mention that it's possible to crop in even more using a combination with a quality 1.4x TC which is actually the argument for using TC even nowadays

I only use a 1.4x on my 70-200 2.8 GM lens. I can’t go lower than f4 which is why I picked that, anything higher isn’t worth it. Really depends on the person, their budget, and what gear they have. That $400 adaptor saved me from buying another lens. So I’m good.

@jackstephenson5238

2 жыл бұрын

For me its not about the aperture, it's all about the sharpness. I'd have to test it myself in order to see how big the difference is but unfortunately not all lenses (including mine) are compatible with teleconverters so I guess I'll never know...

@stevocem

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is not the loss of light, it is the additional magnifying glass which leads to loss of sharpness. Your combo might still work perfectly fine, of course. However, the outcome is certainly less sharp than without 1.4. Probably negligibly less in this case.

@KevinNordstrom

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevocem thats what topaz is for. Software in 2021 has come a long way. I'd rather use a 1.4x on a zoom and then clean up in LR and Topaz and its worth every penny to avoid a $10,000 600 f4

@stevocem

2 жыл бұрын

@@KevinNordstrom Sure

@Beezzzzy_

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackstephenson5238 the Sony 1.4x barely loses any sharpness. I’ve compared images so many times in different conditions that I’m happy with my purchase

Great review and information Jared!

Thanks for the video. You make some very good points.

Your title is way too simplistic. Yes what you are saying is true for entry level zoom lenses.... but to me quite false with a Nikkor Z 70-200 2.8 + Z TC2.0 (and even more with TC 1.4). Too bad you didn't spend the required time to try out those ones and make a great Nikon's point. Yes you can do it once in a while, i know that !! 😁

@csc-photo

2 жыл бұрын

I noted the Z teleconverter & 70-200 combo above as well, the larger Z mount is likely the best results we'll see from a teleconverter setup.

@ArnaudLerondeau

2 жыл бұрын

@@csc-photo exactly ! That would be fair Jared to mention this Z superiority ;)

Hell has frozen over, the Fro is recommending cropping ;)

so glad i watched this, just purchased a Rf 100-500 and was considering getting a converter

You're so right about the quality of the lens making a big difference in the effectiveness/desirability of using a TC. I've successfully used the Canon 400mm f/4 DO II with a 1.4X or 2.0X TC and reviewed the rankings I gave them in Lightroom after a first pass. The TCs didn't appreciably affect quality on that lens. Good analysis. Thanks.

Was just looking to get one this morning so this is gonna be interesting!

@froknowsphoto

2 жыл бұрын

let me know what you think.

@shotsbystefan

2 жыл бұрын

@@froknowsphoto Well done sir. I knew about the fact that you'll be loosing light but loosing sharpness is a no-go for me indeed.

@janivauhkonen

2 жыл бұрын

Generally speaking, if you put something between the camera and the lens, all areas will suffer. Unless you have the best 2.8 lenses of all then then maybe ... Big maybe ..

@shotsbystefan

2 жыл бұрын

@@janivauhkonen Yeah I don't like that 'big maybe' 😁I was thinking to get a teleconverter for the RF 70-200 f2.8 for travel purposes but I'm not too keen on potentially decreasing sharpness. Might just have to haul my Sigma 150-600 around after all or "just" get closer as Jared said 🙂

@janivauhkonen

2 жыл бұрын

and of course keep in mind that this is just his opinion, I actually recommend even renting and trying before buying. for himself, the experiment said the same as in the video. and this again just mine Opinions.

Plus you can use Lightroom's "Super Resolution" function before you crop or after (which ever gives you the best quality image).

Excellent video, very well explained.

Thanks for this information I know some of it but some was new to me.

I just received mine RF 2x :) I mainly use it for Wildlife!

I didn't see any difference in sharpness between those baseball pictures with and without teleconverter

@TheMirolab

2 жыл бұрын

I thought the difference was pretty clear..... were you watching this on a small monitor??

@mipmipmipmipmip

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheMirolab yes, but if I need a 40 inch 8k monitor to see any difference then maybe both images are fine ;)

@doghouseriley4732

2 жыл бұрын

@@mipmipmipmipmip lol

You are absolutely right Jared. A teleconverter gives more magnification but loses at least 1 stop of light , introduces its own abberations and magnifies abberations in the lens its being used with. Yes it's possible to get good results with teleconverters but only with a lens that has staggering quality to start off with and with a matched converter for that particular type of lens. I've seen pics not far off prime lens quality but they've been off lens like an Canon EF 400mm f 2.8 L and the like with good camera technique. Sticking one on a regular everyday zoom is a no-no.

Thanks Jared. I just purchased a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 lens and WAS thinking about adding a 2X teleconverter for additional reach. You saved me money, I appreciate it.

Well my tele converter for wildlife and sports is amazing. Sony that is. So yeaaaaaaa I can’t agree with all of this. Some great notes but people shouldn’t be turn off by them.

@cropperson5583

2 жыл бұрын

Can we see your pics?

@JermaineHortonStudios

2 жыл бұрын

@@cropperson5583 www.Instagram.com/jhsportspix

@benbroll9491

2 жыл бұрын

He also said that not everyone has lenses that are f2.8 or f4…with my 2.8 70-200mm with a 2x teleconverter works perfect but if started with 5.6 (budget lens) good luck auto focusing.

@JermaineHortonStudios

2 жыл бұрын

@@benbroll9491 understood. But even the 70-200mm. But I certainly understand that part

I was out at a Wildlife Refuge yesterday, and more than half of the people were using Nikon DSLRs, Canon user's were about 30 percent, and 10 percent was Sony. Maybe 30 percent were using a Teleconver. Nikon and Canon user's had the big guns out. So I am finding that just because KZreadrs love to bash Nikon and Canon, majority of real Photographers love DSLRs, some with TConveters and some without them.

I mostly regret buying my RF 2x teleconverter. I find reasons to use it once in awhile, but Jared is right - for birds and such its easier to shoot without and just crop.

Thank you so much!!! I was thinking of getting of a converter but after watching this… I’d rather save the money and get a better lens!!

I can’t hear this over my handheld shots taken with the Olympus E-M1 Mark III & 300mm w/ 1.4x TC.

@briero

2 жыл бұрын

I’ve seen some fantastic pictures taken with the Olympus 300 f4 on some of the MFT facebook pages.

@spanksen

2 жыл бұрын

It´s an amazing lens in combination with the 1.4

4:55 both looks fine to my eye. In Other examples there is a huge difference b/w pictures Maybe the youtube algorithm might have compressed both the shot together and is averaging from both the images.

Hi there you just answered my question I've been asking myself as to why my 1.4 converter on a 500mm f4 prime is not sharp, I think I'll take the converter off and crop in. Fantastic and very helpful video 👍

Great info. helped me to decide !!

You just opened a can of worms....because you know that every photographer "knows it all"

I dunno man, when the last space shuttle launched my buddy and I were there, he shot with a 500/4L on a 1D3, with a 2x and a 1.4x tc, so about 1,820mm f/11 with the crop factor lol....he def got some good shots from about 5 miles away lol

Just glad I came across your video at a critical time. I was considering adding the Sony 2x to my Sony 70-350 to shoot , pictures, of wild life. Guess I'll start looking at the bigger lens. Thanks for saving my money!

Was thinking about getting the 2x converter for my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens. And now Jared dropped this video.

A WARNING to all Teleconverter-manufacturers: DON'T WATCH THIS VIDEO!

@larock0wns

2 жыл бұрын

I was seriously expecting a call from Madison K in this video.

To summarize this video, buy a high resolution camera to allow cropping without too much sacrifice to image quality.

thanks for that info , i actually did think about getting one , but i heard bad reviews of people getting the cheap ones stuck on their lenses , & like you said , getting bad pictures , so i don't think i'll bother now .

Canon was making a lot of sense when attempting to convince me to buy a converter.... you make so much more sense when dissuading me. Thanks so much, you just saved me £400!