Hi Jeroen, for me the use of a teleconverter (extender in Canon) is something that I rarely use. As has been mentioned elsewhere, they are better used on a prime lens rather than a zoom. Years ago when I was considering the purchase of an extender I was told by a knowledgeable photographer that if I needed to use an extender then my lens was too short. The best way of getting the finest results is to get closer to the subject. Obviously that is often easier said that done. There is no way any combination of lens and extender can be as good as the equivalent focal length. A 300 f2.8 with a x2 extender (f5.6) will never be as good as a 600mm prime. A 600mm f4 with a 1.4x extender will never give results as good as the 800mm prime. Camera manufacturers would never be able to sell a £13,000 lens if simply adding an extender to a shorter lens gave equal results, even if the shorter lens was a very high quality. A very big consideration is what will the final images be used for? Extenders are useful when you absolutely need the increased focal length and are prepared to accept the loss of light and quality, for instance in surveillance scenarios where the requirements are to remain at a distance, be unobserved by the subject and where the final results simply have to be of sufficient quality to identify the subject. In those situations I have used both the 1.4x and 2x extenders on a 800mm prime attached to a crop sensor body and gained suitable results but believe me, I wouldn't want to hang a print on the wall! However, for quality wildlife images I would never consider their use on a regular basis and rarely use them at all.
Well said Robert. I never tested it properly. So for me it just remained a question. Seems that the whole world was already in the know, except for me, haha. I hope that a prime 400 or 600 will one day be in reach for me... Then I might have a use for that extender again :)
Interesting, I should test for myself. I own the 1.4x tele and use with my 200-600mm. For sure its soft wide open, I shut my apature down to F11 and gets a huge boost in sharpness, I just make sure when im using the converter that its strong light for hand held, or be ready to use really slow shutter speeds and tripod when overcast. I feel with a softer photo at f9 you will still end up with a higher quality image with the teleconverter after you sharpen the image because you might pick up more fine details on the bird by having more pixels on the bird.
Hi Jeroen, I'm using the 1,4x teleconverter with the Sony A9 and I have to say that it works really well, better than magnifying and cropping an image.
Thank you for this video! I have tested the 1.4 converter also with my Sony 200-600 lens and came to the same conclusion ! My bird images are much sharper and more detailed without the converter. Thanks so much!
Must admit I used a 1.4x TC with a Sony 200-600mm on may A7riv last summer for several months and thought there were several advantages with using the TC: 1) The image is larger in the viewfinder so you can see better if the image is in focus with the viewfinder. My experience is the focus is so slow on the A7riv that for action shots eg BIF you have to wait to see the camera has attained focus before you press the shutter. So having the larger image helps to know when pressing the shutter 2) The depth of field with the TC is smaller - this helps with subject isolation . 3) Post-processing software works better as you have more pixels on your subject to play with. To be honest the only fair test is to include post-processing on both photos - both denoise and sharpen - and then compare the two. If you do that you will see which has retained the most information. I also have the 600mm F4 and it is extremely sharp with the 1.4x TC and I definitely don't hesitate using it with that lens providing there is enough light.
I get good sharpness on the 200-600 + 1.4x and A7R5. I think you have some image shake in both samples, as even the image without the converters looks pretty soft to me.
I have your setup and thinking of getting the 1.4x. Are you still using the teleconverter? With it I would hope to not finding myself cropping every image.
Thanks for this Jeroen..... I also use the Sony 200-600, but I only shoot video on the Sony a1. I bought the 1.4X convertor when I got my kit last year, but now I don't use it at all. I have found that shooting 8K video and exporting in 4K gives me a 'free' 2X zoom in editing without any loss of quality or the need to sacrifice an aperture stop when filming. I still keep the convertor in my bag for those occasions when I might have the chance to capture something very far away (such as a tiger or dhole hunt) and am prepared to sacrifice some quality for the extra reach of a longer lens first and enlarging in editing. Just one other thing, my feeling is that my video is much sharper at the 600mm end of this lens than the 200mm end. I wonder if stills photographers have the same observations.
I was about to buy a 1.4x teleconverter for the Sony A7R and FR 200-600 lens I have on the way......but this video convinced me that this is the wrong thing to do. I will stick with what images I can get from the raw lens and then zoom and crop post shoot as needed. Thx Jeroen.....very useful.
I've found if you're using a prime such as a 400 2.8 500 f4 600 f4, 500 f5.6, they work great. If on a zoom like a 6.3 or 7.1 +, they aren't as worth it unless in very good light.
I have no prime like that, unfortunately :) But I guess the high quality of those lenses will allow more room for adding a teleconverter. Still I think it would be interesting to see a similar test with a prime...
Thanks for this. I have this exact combination of camera/lens and, like you, cannot perceive any difference in image quality between no TC and cropping the image and with TC and no crop.
This is very helpful, thank you! I've been debating between the 100-400 and 200-600, thinking I'd add a teleconverter for more reach. It seems that just cropping further gives a better result. So I think the 200-600 wins for the better reach without a teleconverter!
I use the 1.4x TC with my 600mm f4 most of the time since I mostly shoot small birds. I literally see any loss in image quality. I think they are designed to work with prime lenses than zoom lenses like 200-600. Yet some people have found it useful with zoom lenses as well. Good video as always!!
I won't be using it anymore for photos with the 200-600... I have yet to test for video... As that is sized down from the high pixel A7Riv sensor it might be doable...
@@weylintracking-worldwide if you have a7riv + 200-600, it’s already a good combo. If wanted more reach crop mode can help or with 61mp you can easily crop in post processing to get that 1.4x crop factor.
Good test Jeroen and not a surprise. I have the same problem with my Cannon 100-400 and the 1.4x. I think it is probably best to stick to using them with primes. Cheers Keith
hello,posssible the second image (with the teleconverter have suffered from slight motion blur,at 1/320 you hawe to have a good technique to do sharp photos,at 840 mm ,even on a tripod,(in the nature you also have the wind.. ),you sould make more pictures,and even tested stopped down a little (F11 ).
Interestingly, many people are reporting that a 1.4 with a Nikon Z9 is much better than with previous Nikons. They definitely work better with primes than with zooms. I'm also interested in your video testing results. Thanks for your work.
Dear Jeroen, altough your test is quite good, you are testing a TC on the low end 600mm part of sony. Test it on the F4 lens to be realy sure, you can't just say a TC is bad compared to cropping when you use a G lens which is not considered the top of range. Test it on a realy high quality GM lens, then you can realy say if the TC does make a degrading difference. Now you can just say it does make a difference on the 200-600.
To my defense I think I did mentioned that Adriaan. I also mentioned that the 1.4x is generally accepted for use with the 200-600. And that is what I tested indeed....
I changed title and thumbnail to be more clear about this. That this is indeed about using it with the 200600G. In the video I already mentioned about using it with primelenses. I think it does make a difference there as well, it has to. But the difference might not be as noticable as the quality of those primes are just superior.... But I have to be honest and say I don't really know as I haven't tried that myself.
I tested my 2x teleconverter with my 70-200 2.8 long before I owned my 200-600 and had the same results as Jeroen on both. I was so disappointed with it I ended up selling it recently. I could never achieve a crisp, in focus image, even when manually focusing and moving the ring incredibly gently and slowly, there was just never a point for me when the focal plane was in focus. I assume because of the extra layers of glass.
@@samknight8695 I hardly used it on the 200-600mm much and never used it on 70-200 because I haven't owned that lens ! But both converters work well on the 600mm f4 ! Diffraction comes into play at 840mm & 1200mm and reduced light means a marginal reduction in focus speed in good light ! Probably no help but there we go my four pence worth !
At 9:11 when you are talking about IQ and sizing you are not considering the aperture on the TC image and the subsequent difraction. Of course the image with less glass is best. Always will be. But the thing is now you CAN use a bigger OPTICAL zoomed image and, to a certain limit, clean noise and sharpen the result with editing software. Also, because aperture is less, and since you are shooting a still subject, you could have extended the shutter time, to avoid ISO noise. If it was a bird in flight that would not be advisable but also, instead of shooting at 1/4000 you could shoot at 1/3000 for the 1.4x TC os 1/2000 for the 2.0 TC. Remember that direct comparisons are NOT fair.
hey Jeroen, I use the 1.4x with the 200-600 on the A9 and yes I loss some light, but the image is fairly sharp...maby it depends on how much mgp (in my case 24) your camera has?
Really designed to be used with the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. On the 200-600mm at f6.3 it becomes f9 at the long end ! A limiting factor, it really is just how much light reaches the sensor ! 🤔 Interesting video though ! With the 600mmf4 it works very well with both converters. Diffraction and camera shake are your enemy then !! 😢
@@weylintracking-worldwide I recommend the 600mm for your photography ! Just for that extra reach - the 400 mm becomes a 560mm f4 with teleconverter ! Worth the extra money when you are in this price bracket ! Depends on what you shoot but having followed you for a while now that is the one I would go for ! The 600 f4 becomes an 840mm f5.6 ? With the 2 times converter the 400mm is still 800mm f5.6 still short 40mm. Also you can not do the 600mm 2 times 1200mm f8 ! I hardly ever use this last option I must say !
I just sold my 2x teleconverter. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't get a sharp, in focus image across any of my Sony lenses inlcuding my 200-600 and 70-200 2.8. I had better results cropping into an image without as well. Interesting to see others comments here though.
The Sony teleconverters are so expensive if I am desparate for more focal length I go apsc with a6300. With Topaz sharpen you can get great sharpness from most combinations.
I have a different question. Which option is better: a Sony 7Aiii with teleconverter or a Sony cropcamera (e.g. Sony 6400) without teleconverter. The magnification would be similar, the megapixels as well.
Hi Jeroen, interesting if disappointing as I’ve just bought a 1.4tc for use with my 200-600! I noticed that you were using the A7Riv for the test which has lots of MP for the cropping. Did you also consider checking the effect on your A7iii to see if the results were similar for the smaller sensor? I tried to do my own test this morning using my new A7iv but I’m struggling to compare the images as Preview on my Mac doesn’t yet support the new RAW file format of the A7iv and I use Luminar AI and Neo but haven’t worked out how to do a side by side comparison of two separate files yet.
Hi Jeroen, as you suggested, I used Preview to compare the jpg files and when blowing them up to the same size, found it very difficult to tell the difference, to be honest.
i must say that low shutter also kan give you that, undsharp picture, i say too foks, after vi have soo many pixels, i have said my shutter too the dobbelt, ass when ist wass before, and ie have allways my 1,4 on det 200-600mm, i can send you som files best regards Torben Callesen Denmar
