70-300mm paired with 1.4 teleconverter

Hey guys, I'm headed to Yellowstone this summer, and I'm considering getting the Fuji 1.4 teleconverter to pair with my 70-300mm lens to have a bit extra reach to capture some wildlife. Has anyone here tried this pairing? What have your results been? Are you happy with the teleconverter? Looking for thoughts on this and example shots if available. Thanks in advance!

I'm very pleased with the pairing — particularly for a hand held "travel" lens.

I have been to Yellowstone. I can say this: the wildlife is BIG and can be quite close (like, go for a hike, walk up a ridge, and be 30-feet from a [sleeping,thankfully] bull bison). When I was there, I was normally at about 200mm on an x-T4 (55-200). I left my 100-400 in the Jeep because I really didn’t think that I needed all of it. 300mm is likely a sweet spot to get big animals, “up-close”, but still in their environment. Grab the TC and try it…. Cheap enough and light weight. I like it on my 150-600 when I need to find a bird 1 mile away!

The combination is very nice for portraits. For action, I recommend leaving he TC off as tracking suffers with the TC. There will be times in Yellowstone when the bare lens will be enough yet others when you will wish you had 600mm + a TC. If you are going during the summer, expect to spend a lot of time waiting for traffic caused by wildlife sightings as the park is very busy.

Morris

It's been a few years since I was in Yellowstone but from my experiences at Badlands and TR, I'd have a difficult time declaring a sweet spot. At times I've had a 500mm Canon FD on a MFT body and still wanted more. At other times I've photographed Bison close up with an iPhone…as they passed by the stopped Land-Rover. Careful Jim… Animals might come close, or they might keep their distance. It will vary day-to-day.

If I had to choose one "hiking" lens from my bag for "general photography", I'd probably opt for the 16-80. But if I'm targeting wildlife, it would be the 70-300 plus the TC.

I was more willing to use the shorter lenses before my friend and travel partner Bill passed away. These days I have to outrun the bear.

The 150-600 is on the wishlist.

This is absolutely true.

IMO, it can be somewhat mitigated however if you go to the eastside of the park. “None” of the ‘tourist attractions’ are there and the crowds are very thin by comparison. The hikes are great on the east side too.

We stayed on the east side, just outside the gate. It was a good plan for us. I don’t like the west side in the summer as, if I want to sit in a line of traffic just to get into a parking lot and then walk in a swarm of people to a location, I’d rather go to an NFL football game (seriously). The east side of the park for us is much better.

I just picked up the 70-300 and have only used it a couple of times with the 1.4 ext. I already find it quite handy as it gets you out further than the 100-400 (compared to without the ext. of course) at such a smaller/lighter size/weight. I also have the 100-400, and my first impression is that it might even be a bit more responsive on the 70-300 than the 100-400. Maybe because it's moving less glass/weight on the 70-300, or maybe just my imagination. I plan to test some more, but it will likely replace my 100-400 for most telephoto needs.

With regard to the park itself, I'd agree with what others have said. You can end up all over the focal length range. If you have the ability, you might consider two bodies. Maybe rent if that's a consideration. Something wide/normal on one, and then the 70-300 on the other. Last time I went to Yellowstone, it was early October, and it was still a bit on the busy side with traffic. One evening, it took over an hour to move about 5-10 miles to get out of the West Yellowstone gate. The northern and eastern parts of the park did seem less busy. I can only imagine how crazy summer could be with school out! Almost everywhere you look, you'll want to point your camera and take a picture.

-Matt

Hopefully I can ask a related side question without taking away from the OP's question: how is the close-focus ability of the 70-300 changed with the 1.4 tc added? I use the close-focus quite often on my 70-300 but would like to know if adding the tc will increase the magnification more? Logically it seems like it should. More reach would also be welcome.

When I got my 70-300, I tested it with the 1.4x and 2.0x tele converters, compared to equivalently cropped images. The 1.4x eked out a small bit more resolution, the 2.0x difference was incredibly small.

However, both tele converters do negatively impact focusing speed and minimum focus distance, making tracking moving targets (much) more difficult.

In the end, I found even the small resolution advantage of the 1.4x not worth the cost in bulk, tedium, and loss of focus speed. Cropping is almost as good as the tele converter anyway.

In very rough numbers — handheld X-S10, juggling a tape measure in the other — I got a close focus distance ranging from (again approximately) 18.5 inches at “70mm” to 20 inches at “300” when using the x1.4TC with the 70-300.

I could set up a controlled test if more precision is needed.

Well, it looks like the TC is on sale now, so would be a good time to buy it.