bettyberg wrote:
I'm viewing on a large iMac and sharpness between the images is indistinguishable, although maybe that's due to image compression on the forum? Regardless, I am convinced the 2x TC is a viable option to start with. Appreciate you sharing your images (which are fantastic) and knowledge.
I'm glad this helped...
The 2x will do the job, it will let you down if wildlife photography becomes a long term passion. If you get hooked into wildlife photography, there are a lot of great options in lenses that can fill your "wants/needs" bucket.
Masque wrote:
I loaned my 70-200/2.8Sii + 2.0TC to a friend when we went to the Oregon Air Show a couple of weekends back. She's over at @whenshesawlight on Instagram, though I can ask for permission to post some full-size samples here.
I can say that her 24MP shots and my 600PF-fed 45MP shots were similar enough in sharpness that I'd have delivered either to a client. Heat shimmer, angles, timing, and focus accuracy were far bigger factors when picking between ours.
With heat shimmer visible with the 70-200 w 2x TC?
Not a knock on Bruce's shots, but the compression required to host them here renders them rather meaningless for critical sharpness inspection. You'd need to see the uncompressed full res for that (i.e. embedding from Flickr or similar).
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'm glad this helped...
The 2x will do the job, it will let you down if wildlife photography becomes a long term passion. If you get hooked into wildlife photography, there are a lot of great options in lenses that can fill your "wants/needs" bucket.
bruce
That might happen. I recently captured a golden-mantled ground squirrel at 200mm and it was fascinating how it sat there and looked straight at me.
RoamingScott wrote:
Not a knock on Bruce's shots, but the compression required to host them here renders them rather meaningless for critical sharpness inspection. You'd need to see the uncompressed full res for that (i.e. embedding from Flickr or similar).
Thanks Scott for the disclaimer...
You are 100% accurate when it comes to sharing image quality on a forum, Facebook, or whatever platform you choose. One must see the full res work to know if the compromise in quality is acceptable. With that stated, I'll offer the following:
1. I specifically stated in a follow-up comment that if you are going to invest yourself in wildlife photography, you will eventually outgrow the limits of the 70-200 + 2x converter as your sole wildlife lens. For my own kit, the 70-200 f2.8 w/ and w/out the 1.4x offer a level of optical acuity and performance that pairs well with the 400mm f2.8TC. If I were to plan on going light instead of heavy, I'd bring the 180-600 w/ the 24-120 and call that good enough. When I bring the 400TC, the 180-600 stays home.
2. Most... 90% of the nature photography community never prints, and if they do, it's once or twice a year. If you are going to be sharing work online and that is your primary objective, most of my gear is overkill. My 400 2.8 offers me shallow depth of field and the opportunity to drop my ISO, but for FB, IG, YouTube, FM, etc... by the time you squash your image to 2000px at 72dpi, the quality you get from the top primes can be re-created in post for a small digital presentation. My high quality optics stand out when I print, and I print my work in house and go larger than 24" via a small boutique print shop.
3. I hope that my work throughout the Nikon forum and my website speaks for my integrity when it comes to making suggestions about gear. I have fully acknowledged that the 70-200 + 2x has limits, but if you are looking for an economical entry into photographing wildlife and want to find out if that genre is for you, the lens and converter is a great place to start.
bettyberg wrote:
With heat shimmer visible with the 70-200 w 2x TC?
Yep. Hot sun, and an airport on the plains with a hot runway. It wasn't a factor for close passes, but for approach shots, 100%.
Also to Scott's earlier point, the comparison I posted uses photos I'm hosting outside this site, so you're getting actual uncompressed-other-than-camera-JPG output.
I should probably do a better comparison at ISO 64. Maybe I'll do that next sunrise over at Mt. Hood or something.
RE Atmospheric softness due to temperature differences between the ground and air above are not a lens specific phenomenon. You could have the most expensive lens in the world and a cheapo zoom, both would show a decline in sharpness at equivalent focal lengths... In fact, the images will be mushy and unusable for just about anything but an Instagram pictures for a phone.
The longer the focal length, the more profound effect due to the narrower field of view that is often referred to as "compression."
