I have (and like) a Fuji 100/400. Would like a bit more reach for shooting wildlife, especially out west. Don't want to spend thousands.
I've been looking at the 1.4 and 2x Fuji teleconverters.
What do those who own them think of them?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
I use the x1.4 on the 70-300 regularly and both are part of my “go kit” for the X-S10. The TC generally has minimal impact on IQ, though it does seem to increase the chromatic aberration at times. It also noticeably slows AF tracking response. Still, it’s a worthwhile addition to my travel kit.
The x2.0 does have a greater negative effect on IQ. This sparks a lively debate (often amongst people who’ve never used it) about whether or not one would be better off cropping in post. That being said, I’ve seen some decent photographs from the TC. I’m placing a higher priority on acquiring the 150-600 but if space were an issue, I’d consider adding the x2 to my travel bag too. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of got it!
The 1.4 top notch. The the 2 TC a significant drop off in IQ.
I gave the 2x TC a try a few years back and was not at all happy with the results I got. I ended up returning it. The 1.4 TC, as mentioned by jaberg, is a different kettle of fish. I've found it to have pretty minimal impact on IQ and used it regularly with my 100-400 for years with more than acceptable results. These days, however, it spends most of its time in my bag as I've replaced the 100-400 with a 150-600, and honestly, I have as yet not found much of a need for additional reach beyond 600mm. I suspect you'd be pretty happy with the 100-400+1.4 TC combo, but I'd honestly not even bother with the 2.0 TC. The difference in IQ impact was very noticeable, and for my own purposes, the 2.0 TC did not deliver what I would regard as anywhere near acceptable results. At the very least, I'd give it a try first before committing.
On the 100-400mm, the 1.4x will provide great portraits. I don't recommend it for action as AF and tracking are not up to par. The 2x can produce good photos on the 100-200 yet you will need to get everything perfect or you will be disappointed. Unless you are very good with a long lens, I do not recommend the 2x with the 100-400mm.
Morris
FWIW, the only time I’ve really noticed this in practice is while tracking (or, in my hands, trying to track) BIF. The 70-300x1.4 combination works well enough for polo and other “sports” type action. It hasn’t been a problem on “big game” (bison, big horns) either. I haven’t had an opportunity to photograph an auto race or air show using the combination as of yet.
I now have a 150-600 and rarely use/need the TC on telephotos (except occasionally the moon), but it's definitely helped with macro. I just used it with a 60mm macro and extension tube for this:
I have the 1.4 and generally find it a nice addition. I agree with others that it can impact tracking/focus performance. I've used it on my 100-400 and on my recently aquired 70-300. I find it a bit more responsive on the 70-300, but it's not a large difference. I quite like it on the 70-300, which gets me out past the native zoom of the 100-400 in a nice small/light package.
Word of caution . . . the removal switch is not the most robust. I had my first one break under that switch (thankfully while unattached to a lens). The switch, and some of the parts under that switch, are plastic. I like it enough though, that I bought a second one used. I try to be more slow and deliberate when removing ever since then.
-Matt
Thank you, kindly, for all of the responses. That is exactly the real-world info I was looking for. I think I will buy a 1.4x - they aren't all that expensive - and give it a try.
In general, I am quite happy with the 100/400. It works fine around home in the Pennsylvania backwoods:
Mostly, it works well out west, too.
But sometimes, I want more reach. For example, we came across this big grizzly eating an elk when out bird hunting. I got the dogs back and leashed (did NOT want them going after the bear and then running back to hide behind my legs as they tend to do when a big critter - moose, buffalo, etc - that they annoyed is chasing them). Then I tried to photograph it. I didn't want to get any closer physically and I just could not get close enough with the lens either.
Same deal with these elk in rut - a bit more reach would have helped.
Thanks again!
Greg
I found the 2x on my 100-400 made the images too soft, so I sold it with the intention of replacing it with the 1.4x, which most commenters seem to have good experiences with. But it’s been a couple of years now, and I really haven’t needed it, so I’m questioning the value and probably won’t replace. FWIW.
I scientifically compared the resolution of the 1.4x and 2x against cropping (on the 70-300). Clearly, both tele converters resolve more detail than crops, but by a surprisingly small margin. There is more detail in the 2x than in the 1.4x as well. However, there is nowhere near 1.4 times as much information, nor 2 times, and you lose quite some autofocus speed.
Seeing these very minor gains over cropping, I resolved to sell them. They're not worth the effort for me. (I kept the 1.4x for macro magnification, not tele reach).
I also compared them on different lenses. That was fascinating: I found the resolution gain of the tele converters highly dependent on the lens! From that I conclude that both tele converters are actually extremely sharp, but the only magnify what is there. On the 70-300, resolution is already more or less maxed out, and there's not much left to gain.
But other lenses might fare much better! On one adapted Tamron 100-400, the 1.4x was much more effective than on the 70-300.
I own both. The 1.4x delivers excellent results with the 100-400mm at 400mm in the center, a bit of softness on borders. The 2.0x in my experience gives below average results with this lens. But works well with the 50-140mm and the 80mm macro, with the XH2s. With the XH2 not so good.....
If you travel with a limited number of lenses having them in the bag gives some more versatility
EG : I shoot sport indoors with the 50-140mm, and if it reveals sometime to be a bit short adding the TC does help a lot.
I would suggest you start with the 1.4 Tc only
Forgot the use with the 70-300mm : IMO only the 1.4TC with the 2.0 the aperture starts at ... f11... !
I also have both the Fuji 1.4X and 2X extenders. The 1.4X works well with the Fuji 100-400; I usually shoot that combo at f/9 but sometimes at f/8. The 2X does not work as well with the Fuji 100-400 and I don't use it. Both work well with the Canon 100-400 Mk2 via the Fringer Pro EF-FX adapter. The RAW image files with the 2X and the Canon are usable, but you are shooting at f/11 at that point and focus on the X-H1 is a bit slow.
I also experimented with all of these combinations on the X-H2 and for that body there is little reason to use the 2X extender, the higher MP density can adequately compensate for the difference between the 1.4X and 2X in FOV. I did not think the 1.4X on the Fuji 100-400 was worth it when using the X-H2.
Might that also be true with the 40MP XT5?
In terms of resolution there is absolutely no difference between the X-H2 and X-T5 - so both the TCs' IQ will function identically. It is true that as sensors maximize density the difference between the TC and cropping gets less apparent.
Just received the 1.4x yesterday and tested it on the T5 with the XF 70-300 and Fringer-adapted Canon 100 f/2. I suspect that I'll be a bit more impressed with the adapted 100 - not surprising given the faster aperture and prime advantage.
I was hoping that the TC would take a bit of the poor bokeh edge off of the 70-300, but that seems unlikely so far - not surprising (presumably spherical aberration overcorrection isn't easily remedied - especially on an already fairly slow lens that you wouldn't want to stop down much to soften the hardness). It is very possible, though, that overall look of the XF and 1.4 at 300 (215mm X 1.4x) will be a bit better than the XF alone at max 300; and the actual light loss is "only" about two-thirds of a stop due to the variable aperture. It does look like the overall sharpness will be fine up to around 280 (effective 400).
Anyone who is planning to go the adapting route, please be aware that the Fringer cannot account for existence of the TC (as its mounted on the camera side, of course) - so EXIF assumes native lens specs - and you get under-correction of OIS/IBIS which is still way better than no IS at all. With the native lens, the camera does account for the narrowed FoV and proper aperture shift.
Nice touch to have a serial number actually painted onto the lens barrel in the same way as the other permanent printing. Nice not to have a label slapped on for a change.
What body were you using and what were the lighting conditions?
Morris
Both good questions. X-S10 is the body. The light has been variable, but I’d say generally reasonably good.
What exactly are we talking about? A TC is supposed to lower IQ, even an optically perfect one, and the higher the magnification, the more it will do that. What it is supposed to improve is SQ, or "subject quality", not full image frame quality or the quality of pixel-level views. One can not expect to stand 2x as far from a subject with a 2x TC, and get the same IQ. That would be an expectation of magic, as you need 2x the shutter speed when 2x as far away, to have the same subject-level stability, and you have 2x the diffraction blur size and aberration blur size, relative to the subject size, with the lens wide open, and there is also about 2x as much atmospheric pollution between you and the subject. These are all results of being 2x as far away, not the results of using a TC! A TC's main practical purpose is to avoid undersampling of a subject that you get with heavy cropping, not to overcome the other issues with distance, through magic.
We have had cases in the past where a manufacturer's 2x TC had more contrast loss than their 1.4x, which is a true TC flaw, but modern OEM TCs tend to be very good these days. With DSLRs, TCs would often create small back-focus/front-focus offsets in AF, or fail to focus or refuse to even try because of the open f-ratio, but with sensor-based AF, these are much less frequently a problem, and the worst issue is usually just slower AF in poor light or low subject contrast. although sometimes a TC will make AI AF that identifies things like faces and eyes easier to see with smaller subjects.
