Sony 70-200 GM comparison shots with extender 1.4x and 2.0x

[sonyshooter]

Today I made a few quick comparison shots using the 70-200 GM without and with extenders 1.4x and 2.0x.

Shots upsized in Photoshop. All shots at 200 mm. On the left original, center is 1.4x and right is 2.0x.

Done at f 2.8, f 4 and f 5.6 and corresponding extensions.

Camera a7RII.

These are 3x magnified Screenshots in Photoshop.

Resolution is clearly improving with converters. The effect is a little more pronounced than these screenshots show. Maybe there is a little change in color signature.

f 2.8:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

f 4.0:

f 5.6:

[LostBoyNZ]

Thanks so much for taking the time to do all that. Very interesting to see The 1.4x looks like the winner there.

[Reinhold_1]

Well done!

 

I agree with "LostBoyNZ".

 

I think I will buy the combination of 70-200 GM-lens and 1.4 extender soon. Thanks!

 

 

 

[JonathanStewart]

Great comparison. Don't know why, but to my eye, the 1.4 tc looks even better than the original. 

[sonyshooter]

Thank you for your appreciation!

1.4x may be the best for general (and well known) reasons. One of them in this particular case could be some loss of contrast with the 2.0x extender.

 

BUT

 

What maybe got lost due to compression is the increased resolution of 2.0x vs. 1.4x.

Compare the following magnifications of one detail on the bottle of the above comparison.

Same order as before (no extender / 1.4x / 2.0x).

 

f 2.8:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

f 4.0:

 

f5.6:

[Cheatah]

I just read an article about using the new Sony 1,4 extender! The guy recommend rather using the APS-C Sony A6000xx cameras, instead an FF Sony with the Sony G-Master 70-200mm f/2,8!

 

I am using my FE 70-200mm f/4 OSS zoom sucessfully on my Sony A6000, having an 105-315mm telephoto!

[Zé De Boni]

The presentation of your test results lack technical precision.

The widest aperture of a 70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x Converter is f/4. With the 2x Converter it is f/5.6. So, when you say f/2.8 with the converters, you mean the widest aperture available, and so on for the other f-stop settings.

If you did not take this into account, then I guess that the FL information is also wrong. When you say "all shots at 200mm" I may understand that you used the longest focal length available at each lens-converter combo, which means 280mm with the 1.4x and 400mm with the 2x.

If so, did you shoot all the tests from the same distance? You don't show the 3 full images, but from the perspective of the labels I may guess so. Comparing resolution shooting with different focal lenghts from the same distance would be another big mistake. This would mean that the images are being shown at different enlargements.

At this point, noting the lack of systematic procedure in your test, I disregard the information on color signature. It looks like the light changed from one shot to the other. What kind of lighting did you use?

Your result is so unreasonable that I suspect that the image taken without converter is a bit out of focus. Unfortunately I don't have the chance to get the same lenses and do my own testing. But, for sure, theory tells us that if a lens improves resolution with a converter or any additional optical accessory, that means that it was badly designed. From the same theory, a perfectly matched 2x converter will, at least, double the imperfections of a given lens. And this has proved practically true along my career.

Your test looks more like illusionism.

[Ben]

I think you are being quiet harsh in your critique. It was quiet clear which image was supposed to represent which configuration. Your arguments cannot invalidate one very interpretation of the test's results and that is: The Sony 70-200GM outresolves the A7rII's sensor. If an image taken with a TC is able to beat the upscaled image that was taken wihout TC, it is a sign of good quality for both, the lens and the TC.

[sonyshooter]

Just for clarification: The tripod was not moved. The (indoor) lighting did not change. For all images the 70-200 was at 200 mm. Of course with the extenders focal length and aperture changed correspondingly, which I did not add to the pictures. I thought it would be self explanatory. My fault. Focusing was done properly, manually. On this very part in the center of the image. The distance was about 18 ft. / 6 m. I find the comparison fair, because when the longer focal length is needed, you either magnify/upscale or add an extender. To me the conclusion of this is, that the lens significantly outperforms the sensor. Otherwise resolution would not increase. This might be different on the borders of the image or at other distances.

And of course this is not a full review, just a quick test to check exactly that.

[Zé De Boni]

"Indor lighting" is not a technical description on which we can rely.

From the original post and your last reply it is clear that you don't know the technical meaning of "Resolution".

This test and the conclusions you draw from it are really nonsense.

I apologize if I sound harsh. Truth may hurt.

[sonyshooter]

Then please ignore everything you see here, adhere to polite language and fill your time with more worthwhile things.

Everybody else please draw your own conclusions. Thanx.

[tinplater]

Thank you for posting this information and images.  I would ignore those who seem to derive pleasure from ridiculing the efforts of others with their ego inflating comments. 

[froglens]

Then please ignore everything you see here, adhere to polite language and fill your time with more worthwhile things.

Everybody else please draw your own conclusions. Thanx.

 

I only signed up to say thanks for the great comparison you did! I find this type of comparison with equal distances to the test subject very informative as I'm trying to decide whether it's worth getting the teleconverter to capture extra resolution vs cropping & upscaling for birds in flight, and your result confirms the 2.0x is a good idea for this camera + lens combination. 

 

Please post more photos!