Lets talk doublers

[boneaddict]

Tell me about it.  The fact I think I ripped a tendon in my elbow or something this November and smell constantly of ICE HOT now.....

[huntnphool]

Which lens is that?

Sweet pics!

Canon EF 500mm f4 IS

[Alchase]

That thing is huge!

All I want for Christmas is one each of these
 EF 800, L 5.6 IS USM and EF 1200, L 5.6 IS USM, LOL

[huntnphool]

That thing is huge!

All I want for Christmas is one each of these
 EF 800, L 5.6 IS USM and EF 1200, L 5.6 IS USM, LOL

A good start is a Canon 70-200mmL f4 IS and/or a Canon 300mmL f4 IS.

[popeshawnpaul]

Buy the lens you need and don't rely on a 2x teleconverter.  They degrade the image quality too much for quality work, in general.  The only one I know pro photographers use is the new Canon 2xIII.  It's about $500 but does a reasonable job if you have good light and can stop down a stop or two.  In the end, it's just easier to sneak closer or buy the lens at the focal length you need.

[Alchase]

Cool thx Pope

[Tom Reichner]

Alchase,

Doublers can be very, very effective . . . or they can degrade image quality to the point where they're useless.

The key is to know when to use them, and what equipment to use them with.

I would not use a doubler (or any converter) with my 100-400mm zoom, or any of Canon's non-L lenses, with the exception of the 400mm f4 DO.   I would also shy away from using them on any slower zooms.   I had a 70-200 f4, which was a great lens, but I never liked the results when I used any converter on that lens. 

I use a 400 f2.8 lens, and do not hesitate to put the 2x (version II) on it when the conditions are right.  One of the "right"conditions is when I am rather close to the subject, and the subject has direct sunlight on it.  Results in these situations can often be striking, with no apparent degradation of image quality whatsoever.  Unfortunately, the time people usually think they need a doubler is when they are far from the subject . . . sorry, doublers usually don't resolve detail well when longer distances are involved. 

Another situation in which I often use a doubler is when shooting skyline silhouette images.  I do not hesitate to throw the 2x on my lens when shooting an image that is intended to be a silhouette, and the subject is too far away to allow for an effective composition.  Why?  Well, it's not so much that the doubler performs well in these situations; it's because these types of images can be processed more heavily without looking weird.  If all you're looking to get is an outline of the subject, and you're not looking to capture any hair or feather detail, then you can go ahead and move that sharpening slider up way past where you normally would.  So, in such situations any softness caused by the doubler can be "fixed" by sharpening the image.  I would never do any significant sharpening on any "regular" types of images, as sharpened hair or feather detail usually looks terrible and fake.  But silhouettes are usually far more forgiving.

Everything I've said so far applies only the the 2x converter, aka the "doubler".  I use the 1.4 tele-converter quite often in a wide variety of conditions, and can rarely, if ever, notice any image degradation whatsoever, even when viewing the images zoomed in tight on a large monitor. 

For those who are interested, below I am attaching an example of a doubler being used in the right situation.  The Tom was close, and I didn't particularly want a full body shot.  The light was nice - direct morning sun on the turkey, so I put the doubler on, rotated the camera to a vertical orientation, and filled the viewfinder with the gobbler's head!
 
The first image is just how I shot it - uncropped and unsharpened.  The second image is a tight crop of the first image, to better show how well the doubler was able to resolve the fine detail.  Besides the cropping, no other changes were made.  No sharpening whatsoever.  I think the fine detail is resolved very well, and, in my opinion, images such as this make a strong case for using the doubler when conditions allow for it.

The final image posted is just an example of the type of skyline silhouette shots that often use the doubler for.  That image has been sharpened.

[Alchase]

Wow, that's awesome.
Thanks Tom, I have learned allot from this thread.

[quadrafire]

Wow, that's awesome.
Thanks Tom, I have learned allot from this thread.

I was wondering what the 2x would do. I have a 70-200 f4 IS and use a 1.4x quite frequently. I think it works pretty well with this setup. When I put it on for a photo outing it stays on, until I get home. Maybe I need to start playing around with and without it some on the same trips to do a good comparison.

[huntnphool]

Wow, that's awesome.
Thanks Tom, I have learned allot from this thread.

I was wondering what the 2x would do. I have a 70-200 f4 IS and use a 1.4x quite frequently. I think it works pretty well with this setup. When I put it on for a photo outing it stays on, until I get home. Maybe I need to start playing around with and without it some on the same trips to do a good comparison.

Canon 70-200 f4 IS with a 1.4X

[quadrafire]

 
Do you remember how close you were for that pic? I think that has been a lot of my problem is distance. I tend to use a monopod as well which helps.

[Tom Reichner]

I was just watching an instructional B&H video on YouTube, with the legendary bird photographer Art Morris.  In the video, he discusses using Canon's 2x converter with the long super-telephoto lenses.  When he first started speaking about "the doubler", about 4 minutes into the video, I remembered this thread. 

He says, "The 2x is a really important tool."  He also says, "If you're not using the 2x tele converters, you're not getting the full advantage (of your lens)."


It's a really good instructional video for those interested in photographing wildlife and birds.  Here's the link:
 
Lenses for Bird and Nature Photography: Birds As Art Style

[quadrafire]

Thanks Tom.....Nice