Jump to content
chardinej

Sony 2x teleconverter is really great

Recommended Posts

Nice shot, but it does have, to my eye, some loss of critical sharpness.  I had the 1.4x and it performed nicely.  But at my age, hand holding these long lenses is getting difficult, both in terms of weight and steadiness.  I seem to do best with my 100-400 in the 300mm range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tinplater said:

But at my age, hand holding these long lenses is getting difficult,

You're supposed to adjust for additional focal length by shortening the exposure time, in order to avoid motion blur. Some advise to take four times the focal length as the reciprocal of your exposure time. That would require a 1/3200th  (or shorter!) at 2x400 = 800mm. You may want to give that a try.

You may also re-visit this section of the user guide, related to "steady shot", for better results. (Adjust for the body you're using),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the 1.4x and 2.x teles and have used them a fair bit with my 100-400 and 70-200 with A9 and A7RIII. I think Sony’s teleconverters are very good but in my experience the 2x slows the AF noticeably and affects the image quality. I only use it when I have no choice whereas I feel very comfortable with the performance of the 1.4x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 2xbass said:

the 2x slows the AF noticeably

Sony  informs about conditions, when the fast phase detect AF can't be used. Of course, this is not advertised as prominently as the cases, where PDAF does work.

Although the linked article does not specifically mention the a9 series, it can be inferred that there must be a similar threshold for the a9 as well. Considering that a 2x increase in focal length goes along with a factor 2x on the selected aperture value, you are likely to reach that threshold quite early, as using the 2xTC on the 100-400GM lens gives you a widest effective aperture of 9.0 already. In that case, you'd be stuck with the slower contrast AF. This much for the observed slowness.

Regarding the image quality which can be achieved, I did some tests using a combination of tripod mount, manual focus and focus peaking at lowest intensity. I found the depth of field to be exceptionally shallow at the full 800mm focal length, using the 100-400GM and the 2xTC. So shallow in fact, that the AF did not deliver satisfactory results, and the manual focussing requiring an extremely steady hand, where even the tiniest twist on the manual focus ring made a very considerable difference. But the achievable sharpness was stunning nevertheless. Albeit not with AF whatsoever.

Edited by Chrissie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever use the 2x on the 100-400 with the A9 where it’s my understanding that the PDAF works to f11.

Edited by 2xbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. So the aperture "window" for the availability of PDAF with the combo of 100-400GM and 2xTC is indeed quite narrow, with a value range from 9.0 to 11.0 only.

It would be interesting to see the full EXIF data of @chardinej's posted image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, the TCs only work with those lens but of course any of those lens and teleconverter combinations will work with either the full-frame or APS-C cameras like the A6500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2xbass. Thanks, that is more what I expected as a “GM” lens surely refers only to the optical grade and not the mount type. So, effectively, either TC could work with both FF and aps-c cameras be they using prime or zoom lenses. Unless I still misunderstand, of course.

I’m interested as I use the Sony 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 FE lens as the ‘best reach’ zoom that I can find for my a6500 but I’m still searching for a little more zoom without breaking the bank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PeterMac said:

2xbass. Thanks, that is more what I expected as a “GM” lens surely refers only to the optical grade and not the mount type. So, effectively, either TC could work with both FF and aps-c cameras be they using prime or zoom lenses. Unless I still misunderstand, of course.

I’m interested as I use the Sony 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 FE lens as the ‘best reach’ zoom that I can find for my a6500 but I’m still searching for a little more zoom without breaking the bank. 

I have owned the 70-300, 24-240, and currently have the 70-200 f4 and 100-400 GM  Of all of those zooms, I really disliked the 24-240.  At 240 it was very soft, the zoom was very stiff, and overall image quality was not very good.  IMO it's only virtue is its huge range, but I just didn't like the images it produced so I sold it after one month of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PeterMac said:

2xbass. Thanks, that is more what I expected as a “GM” lens surely refers only to the optical grade and not the mount type. So, effectively, either TC could work with both FF and aps-c cameras be they using prime or zoom lenses. Unless I still misunderstand, of course.

  • All e-mount lens will work on both Full-Frame and APS-C cameras.
  • Put a Full-Frame lens on an APS-C camera and the focal length of the lens will increase x1.5 (ie. a 50mm FF lens will be 75mm when mounted on APS-C camera).
  • Put an APS-C lens on a Full-Frame camera and the resolution will drop as the lens will project a smaller image to the sensor.
  • TC's only work on the white GM lens I mentioned earlier and can be mounted to both FF and APS-C cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right LiveShots..... your points 1, 2 and 3 are well understood thanks.  It remains your point 4 in which the “WHY” is still totally obscure and which I would appreciate being clarified. Can you throw some further light on that please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PeterMac said:

the “WHY” is still totally obscure

Have a look at the SEL20TC product page and you'll see, that the TC has a cylindrical black "barrel" which extends into the lens body:

Image source: https://www.sony.com/image/8ddb3298a0a048c168750f45feefdbcb?fmt=pjpeg&wid=1014&hei=396&bgcolor=F1F5F9&bgc=F1F5F9

Left side of these images face towards lens, right side towards body.

 I would assume, that no other than the white GM lenses have enough room inside the lens body to accommodate for this black barrel.

Edited by Chrissie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LiveShots said:
  • Put a Full-Frame lens on an APS-C camera and the focal length of the lens will increase x1.5 (ie. a 50mm FF lens will be 75mm when mounted on APS-C camera).

Please stop spreading this confusion / misconception. A 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens, no matter what body you mount it on. The focal length is a property of the lens, not of the body. You make it sound like a 50 mm fullframe lens behaves differently on an APS-C body than a 50 mm APS-C lens. This confuses a lot of people who are just getting into photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pieter said:

Please stop spreading this confusion / misconception. A 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens, no matter what body you mount it on. The focal length is a property of the lens, not of the body. You make it sound like a 50 mm fullframe lens behaves differently on an APS-C body than a 50 mm APS-C lens. This confuses a lot of people who are just getting into photography.

Agree...I try to explain this to folks with a simple analogy...the lens projects its image on a screen (sensor).  Changing the size of the screen does nothing to the size of the projected image.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice analogy Tinplater, I'll keep that in mind when trying to explain this to people.

Sorry for off-topic but in my opinion the RX0 is a serious offender here as it states on the lens 4/24, which is just wrong any way you look at it (it has a 7.7mm f/4 lens). People new to photo-/videography have no concept of fullframe equivalence so a converted focal length is meaningless to them (as it is to people who only ever used an APS-C camera and therefore only know an 'APS-C equivalent' field of view). Experienced photo-/videographers on the other hand know perfectly well how to apply a crop-factor for their reference so writing a 'FF-equivalent focal length' on the lens as if it is a fact is nonsensical for them as well: they might think the camera produces a FF-equivalent field of view of a (24mm x 3.1 = ) 74mm lens. It would be much more informative to write the actual focal length/aperture accompanied by the sensor size on the camera instead. Sony adds to this confusion by doing it differently on the RX0 vs the RX10(0) (where they state the actual focal length on the lens rather than a FF equivalent).

Edited by Pieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...