Extenders

>>2989727
F4 is the maximum you can use them on for a x2

>>2989727
I have a 1.4x TC. It works with AF on f/4 lenses, primes usually outresolve even with the TC.
My older Tamron 70-200/2.8 "Macro" works well with it but I use that lens mostly at f/4 anyway.
Still looking for a good 300/4 for better reach.

>>2989727
Depends what you're shooting, they lose 1-2 stops of your aperture and don't give much in return that cropping won't give you, or having two lenses (one heavy and one light)

That F4 lens becomes a F5.6 with 50% loss of light and shutter speed to gain 40% zoom (less than the lost stop)

In general it seems the people who actually like the extender are those who have it bringing a F2.8 lens to F4.
At F4 they can still manage sports or birds during daylight, and non-action stuff in less-than-daylight.

If you start with F4 and extender changes it to F5.6, it's a pain in the ass how limited it is. It becomes too slow a lens for sports/wildlife and suffers during imperfect lighting.

Treating it like a F4 and trying to fix the shots in post will just get lower or same quality as simply digital cropping to get the exact same 40% zoom area with the no-extender wider aperture. With the added penalty that the extender doesn't allow you to choose the location of the cropping later.

They're very expensive for how limited they are (I have one lens that works with my extender, none of the rest of my collection) They don't necessarily improve quality, or save weight. I guess the one and only upside is having extra choice between close or far zoom.

Sure, a 70-200 F2.8 with extender might weigh 835g less than a 300mm F2.8, but the extender combo is only F4.
The 300mm F4/L IS is 525g lighter than the 70-200 with extender.

The weight difference between having a 70-200mm + extender versus carrying a 300mm + a 50mm prime isn't really significant. Nor a significant difference in space. Nor in swapping, you won't get wide-angle shots with the 98mm minimum on the zoom if you don't take the lens off to remove the extender, and it's just as fast to replace the 300mm with the 50mm and get much wider view. Or switch to 85mm or 40mm or whatever you want.

This is probably why gear-a-holics talk about the extender but I almost never see real pro photographers use them really.

THESE ARE LIKE PENIS EXTENDERS AMIRITE

PENIS COCK LMAO

>>2989960
You have much to learn, young one.
2x Teleconverter AF on center point at f/8:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNM3nx-LQOA

It is not a 1D X or D3/D4 only feature anymore.

>>2990129
you can go choke on a dick if you think anyone is impressed with a shitty f/8 max

>>2990174
A 600/4 on a 2x TC will be a 1200/8 with AF on the center point only.

>>2990182
>1200mm with the fucking long shutter of an F/8 no-light lens.
in short, absolutely useless garbage with no real world use.
It's too slow and low quality for birds or wildlife or any sports, every image will be shake-blurred garbage with such a narrow field of view and such a long shutter time.
So you got a hands-off tripod-only lens that can't move, the only subject which would be landscapes, that nobody will ever give a fuck you spent $500 on a piece of shit extender when a 600mm lens would have looked as good or better from the same tripod.

>>2990976
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/a-field-day-with-the-canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-and-600-f4ii/

Haha faggot

>>2990976
Way to show that you're poor /and/ know nothing about TCs.

>>2989727
TCs are ideally used with high speed lenses. In choosing a TC, you have determined the loss of image quality and light is "acceptable", and in return, you gain flexibility.

70-200 2.8 is popular because you get a 70-200 2.8, and a 100-300 F4 or 140-400 F5.6. If you shoot at 400 often, then you'd probably consider a 100-400 IS II/80-400 AFS VR simply because the optical design is better optimized. Others might only shoot occasionally at that length, or need the extra aperture at 2.8 for low light shooting.

At the same time, there's the super telephoto argument. You might be able to afford one $10000 lens, but you probably can't afford two. A 400 2.8 and a 1.4x gives you that "versatility" in the same sense as the 70-200 2.8 + 2X does.

>and then an absolute madman comes along with a 200/2 and 2X

>>2991684
200/4.5
My cheap Tamron 70-200/2.8 would like to have a word with you

>>2991810
>My cheap Tamron 70-200/2.8
>$1,000 lens
>cheap

kek

You've got your head so far up your gearfag ass that you think the average DSLR user is walking around with an f2.8 lens. News flash; most of the people on here and most DSLR users period will never have a telephoto faster than their 70-300 f5.6 kit lens

File: 7904164248_398f812f21_o.jpg (394KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1000x664px

I used a 1.4x (TC14E2 IIRC) often when I was on Nikon. It was pretty good, I had a bunch of shit published with it. I usually paired it with a 70-200 VR1 and also a rented 200-400 or 500/4 when doing events.

This was shot with the 70-200 and 1.4x, can't remember which body but the EXIF should tell.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	420 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:31 21:14:12
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	280.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 7904162674_66da525260_o.jpg (265KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1000x665px

>>2989960
On the contrary, back when I was a sports shooter I saw TCs all the time.

A 70-200 with a TC might be slower than a 300/2.8 and heavier than a 300/4, but as a pro you're already going to be carrying the 70-200 and a TC is a hell of a lot lighter than carrying a whole separate 300mm, especially if you're already carrying a 400 or 500 prime.

When doing motorsports work I found the APS-C body/500mm/TC combo very useful for getting cool and unusual long shots, or I could take a break from lugging the 500 around for a few hours and put the TC on my 70-200 for a lighter package, as I did in >>2991845

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:31 21:14:05
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 8332058606_616bf26cc4_o.jpg (90KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x665px

>>2991848
Shit I mis-remembered, that was the "bare" 500.

I've posted this one too many times on /p/ but I'm pretty sure it's the combo.

I really need to dig up my archives and find some other past glory to post.

>>2991844
I got it for $500. Jelly?