I just got the Sony FE 2.0x Teleconverter and tried it on my 100-400GM.
It's a 800mm f/11 which basically doubles the 100-400 @400mm f5.6 (wide open) and therefore loses 2 stops of light. I'm very impressed by the contrast and resolution from this teleconverter. It's about the size of the Canon 1.4x version and IQ is the best I've seen. I would not hesitate shooting this thing wide open.
Here are same samples and crops at 1:1. Sorry not very exciting images. :-)
BTW: All handheld with OOS turned on and AF-C.
That looks great. I've ordered one for my 100-400 and A7R3. I would never have thought a 2x on a slow zoom would give good results!
How was the autofocus on the A7r3?
I am confused. I have read that the 2X was ok but nothing great. And I have seen results that are nothing like this regarding quality. I have the 1.4 and it is great but held off on the 2 due to some negative reports. Did they change something or luck of the draw?
jamato8 wrote:
I am confused. I have read that the 2X was ok but nothing great. And I have seen results that are nothing like this regarding quality. I have the 1.4 and it is great but held off on the 2 due to some negative reports. Did they change something or luck of the draw?
2x teleconverters are always a compromise between reach and IQ and therefore the 1.4x will always do better. However, this Sony FE 2.0x is the best I've seen, especially for its size.
Something to keep in mind is that in order to get sharp results at 800mm or 1200mm require better technique compared to shooting at 400mm.
I have not tested the 2x with moving targets yet and hopefully will get a chance to try this week.
jamato8 wrote:
I am confused. I have read that the 2X was ok but nothing great. And I have seen results that are nothing like this regarding quality. I have the 1.4 and it is great but held off on the 2 due to some negative reports. Did they change something or luck of the draw?
There are a few of us posting 100-400GM and 2xTC shots over on the A9 Image thread https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1492553/33#14465276 . MedicineMan has been using it for some time. I've been using it only a very short time but the quality on the 100-400GM is outstanding. I've had this type of quality from the Canon 2xTCIII also but only on primes and the 200-400 zoom (which is in another league)...it was never a great option on the Canon 100-400II because of a loss of AF. Although I did get some fairly sharp shots focusing in LV with that combo...just not a practical combo.
The consensus I've read is it doesn't do well on the 70-200/2.8 GM which is surprising as you'd expect it to do better on an f/2.8 zoom lens. The 100-400GM and the 70-200GM are the only two lenses that support the 2xTC at this time. Of course the upcoming 400 f/2.8 GM will support it and I'm sure will be excellent as even Nikon's often criticized 2xTC works very well on their 400 2.8.
The limitation with the 100-400GM and 2xTC is that PDAF is only supported on the A9. CDAF would be what the A7 series cameras would use and I'm not sure how well the AF would be. On the A9 it feels almost as fast as the bare lens but I do notice a bit more inconsistency in a long burst of shots compared to the bare lens and the 1.4TC which rarely miss a shot in a burst. Still I think the consistency with the 2xTC is as good as most DSLRs with bare lenses.
arbitrage wrote:
There are a few of us posting 100-400GM and 2xTC shots over on the A9 Image thread https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1492553/33#14465276 . MedicineMan has been using it for some time. I've been using it only a very short time but the quality on the 100-400GM is outstanding. I've had this type of quality from the Canon 2xTCIII also but only on primes and the 200-400 zoom (which is in another league)...it was never a great option on the Canon 100-400II because of a loss of AF. Although I did get some fairly sharp shots focusing in LV with that combo...just not a practical combo.
The consensus I've read is it doesn't do well on the 70-200/2.8 GM which is surprising as you'd expect it to do better on an f/2.8 zoom lens. The 100-400GM and the 70-200GM are the only two lenses that support the 2xTC at this time. Of course the upcoming 400 f/2.8 GM will support it and I'm sure will be excellent as even Nikon's often criticized 2xTC works very well on their 400 2.8.
The limitation with the 100-400GM and 2xTC is that PDAF is only supported on the A9. CDAF would be what the A7 series cameras would use and I'm not sure how well the AF would be. On the A9 it feels almost as fast as the bare lens but I do notice a bit more inconsistency in a long burst of shots compared to the bare lens and the 1.4TC which rarely miss a shot in a burst. Still I think the consistency with the 2xTC is as good as most DSLRs with bare lenses....Show more →
I used to use the Nikon 20Eiii on the 300/2.8 and thought it was outstanding, obviously AF not at 100% but very good quality. Everything I've seen from Sony's 2.0 puts it at that level or above. As soon as my payout from a maturing investment comes through I'm buying the 100-400 but am still undecided on x1.4 or x2. I'm veering towards the x2 as I think the A7rii has enough MPs without the x1.4 to crop to a virtual 560mm.
One point re. AF. I used to use the Pentax AFA x1.7 TC on a number of lenses from 300 - 500mm. The AFA virtually converts MF lenses into AF lenses too. It wouldn't AF all the way, it was case of manual focusing to roughly the right area and then let the AF take over (a bit like the TechArt when used on a 100mm+ lens).
It worked really well most of the time so I'm wondering if that would be the case here with the Sony 2.0 on an A7rii / A7riii or A7iii or will it still focus at f11 only much slower than on the A9 ?
Frogfish wrote:
It worked really well most of the time so I'm wondering if that would be the case here with the Sony 2.0 on an A7rii / A7riii or A7iii or will it still focus at f11 only much slower than on the A9 ?
Hopefully Fred will give us some feedback on this (hint hint). I suspect that it might not be too bad. The only thing that has me hesitating is potential noise at the higher ISO. When you have a slightly softer image combined with slightly higher noise, I wonder if you wouldn't be better off using the 1.4 and cropping (up-rezzing) more to get the equivalent reach. In other words, how do shots of a bird taken from the same distance and displayed at the same size compare between the two TCs?
kimknapp wrote:
Hopefully Fred will give us some feedback on this (hint hint). I suspect that it might not be too bad. The only thing that has me hesitating is potential noise at the higher ISO. When you have a slightly softer image combined with slightly higher noise, I wonder if you wouldn't be better off using the 1.4 and cropping (up-rezzing) more to get the equivalent reach. In other words, how do shots of a bird taken from the same distance and displayed at the same size compare between the two TCs?
That is a question I ask myself every day and not just about the Sony TCs but about my Canon ones and Nikon ones. I think the f/11 ISO hit is only worth it over cropping the 1.4 if you are in very good light or can keep your shutter speed low enough to keep ISO jumping too high. There is probably some sort of cut off point where it isn't worth it based on the ISO jump....however I'm not sure what level that would be....3200 to 6400?, 6400 to 12800?, 12800 to 25600?...and of course that depends on the camera you are using. At this point, I believe it is still worth going to the higher TC most of the time especially on Canon and Sony and if using a lower MP body like an A9, 1DX, 5D3. With my Nikon gear I'm finding the 1.7x to be the ideal and the 2.0x I'm not sold on if it gains me anything. On my higher pixel density Canon sensors like 5DSR and 7D2, I wasn't happy with the 2.0TC a lot of the time and often stayed at 1.4. But really I don't know what the real answer is. But I think some of that was over reaching to distant subjects (relying on the pixels and 1200mm) and falling prey to atmosphere.
Crop sensor verses a 1.4X TC: The 1.5x crop sensor is only 40% the area of FF. So it is typical to lose a stop of High ISO performance. So a rule of thumb is a 1.4X sensor and a crop sensor, when combined, have about the light gathering power of a FF sensor with a 2.0x TC.
Other factors to be considered; Pixel density and blurring noise reduction (baked in for the higher ISO JPEGs). Unfamiliar or “soft” subjects are less critical of super sharpness and higher contrast (some contract and sharpness can be recovered in post).
Finally: Realize that as ISO rises DR and AF performance drop. Another reason to use a 2 stop loss rig carefully.
As far as AF performance and noise increase, I would think the 2x tc would work better with a f/2.8 lens than a f/5.6 in the case of the 100-400GM. With the latter, we are really stretching but it's still possible to get clean and tack sharp images as long as light is appropriate and shutter speed is not too high. It feels wrong to be shooting at f/11 though and as far as I know this is only possible with a Sony body. (Sony A9 being the best option here)
I will still test this further and will add a 1.4x + crop vs. 2x comparison.
The 2x tc will probably be amazing addition to the new 400/2.8 GM. (equiv. 800/5.6)
Fred Miranda wrote:
As far as AF performance and noise increase, I would think the 2x tc would work better with a f/2.8 lens than a f/5.6 in the case of the 100-400GM. With the latter, we are really stretching but it's still possible to get clean and tack sharp images as long as light is appropriate and shutter speed is not too high. It feels wrong to be shooting at f/11 though and as far as I know this is only possible with a Sony body. (Sony A9 being the best option here)
I will still test this further and will add a 1.4x + crop vs. 2x comparison.
The 2x tc will probably be amazing addition to the new 400/2.8 GM. (equiv. 800/5.6)...Show more →
Because ISO would get bumped in order to get the correct exposure. When shooting at f/11 and high shutter speeds, ISO can get out of control pretty quickly. My samples above were with 1/250s which I thought worked well together with IBIS + lens OSS handheld.
Of course, I was shooting static subjects but if your subject motion requires high SS, there isn't a way around it and that's why I think the 2x tc is not as practical with f/5.6 lenses and moving subjects.
The higher the ISO, the lower the DR and resolution so, when using a 2x tc + 1.4 crop, there will be tremendous impact on IQ with less than optimal light and/or subject high shutter speed requirement.
Well Fred, you've convinced me. I've been on the fence with this after getting the 100-400 and the 1.4x since I shoot the R3, but I did test this in-store on the 70-200 a year or so ago, and it was impressive. Your results above confirmed what I thought after the store demo. I think I'm pulling the trigger on the 2x!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Because ISO would get bumped in order to get the correct exposure. When shooting at f/11 and high shutter speeds, ISO can get out of control pretty quickly. My samples above were with 1/250s which I thought worked well together with IBIS + lens OSS handheld.
Of course, I was shooting static subjects but if your subject motion requires high SS, there isn't a way around it and that's why I think the 2x tc is not as practical with f/5.6 lenses and moving subjects.
The higher the ISO, the lower the DR and resolution so, when using a 2x tc + 1.4 crop, there will be tremendous impact on IQ with less than optimal light and/or subject high shutter speed requirement....Show more →
Yes. I thought you meant that there would be an issue with the higher shutter speed. I am surprised at some of the results of ISO 1200 but prefer to shoot at 100 to 320. But I understand what you meant now.
arbitrage wrote:
That is a question I ask myself every day and not just about the Sony TCs but about my Canon ones and Nikon ones. I think the f/11 ISO hit is only worth it over cropping the 1.4 if you are in very good light or can keep your shutter speed low enough to keep ISO jumping too high. There is probably some sort of cut off point where it isn't worth it based on the ISO jump....however I'm not sure what level that would be....3200 to 6400?, 6400 to 12800?, 12800 to 25600?...and of course that depends on the camera you are using. At this point, I believe it is still worth going to the higher TC most of the time especially on Canon and Sony and if using a lower MP body like an A9, 1DX, 5D3. With my Nikon gear I'm finding the 1.7x to be the ideal and the 2.0x I'm not sold on if it gains me anything. On my higher pixel density Canon sensors like 5DSR and 7D2, I wasn't happy with the 2.0TC a lot of the time and often stayed at 1.4. But really I don't know what the real answer is. But I think some of that was over reaching to distant subjects (relying on the pixels and 1200mm) and falling prey to atmosphere....Show more →
I don't have the 2x, just the 1.4x, but the way it looks to me is that all optical magnification is better than equivalent magnification via cropping. And, generally, using my a6300 is better than using the 1.4x on a7rii/iii.
I'm looking at the crop mode images and don't get the point really... The 100% crops from the camera in FF mode versus crop mode would be exactly the same, right? It is after all the same lens and the same sensor in both cases.
So, why would one like to use crop mode instead of using FF mode all the time? Is it to get the 1.5 enlargement in the viewfinder right away instead of cropping in post?
I ask as I don't remember the last time I used anything longer than 180mm...
