New Telephoto vs. Telephoto Extender

[billtils]

The "normal person" often thinks a selfie done on a cell phone is a good image...

????

[rpcrowe]

I suspect that the very popular Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 lens for Sony might be even more popular if Tamron introduced a compatible TC for that lens.
However, for a very long focal range, Tamron's new 150-500mm might be just the ticket. AND the cost of the combination of the two Tamron lenses is less than the cost of a Sony 70-200mm GM lens and a teleconverter.
I think that the same might be true for the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and Tamron 150-600mm for other mounts such as Canon or Nikon.

[William W]

I am an amateur photog with some good gear, currently shooting with a Canon 5DMk4 and I have Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens...This brings me to the idea of a Canon 2x extender for the telephoto I have. That will take me to 400 mm on my full frame, but the cost is just about 1/2 of the current pricing on a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3 "contemporary" or similar choice.

. . . if you have any advice to share, I will appreciate it.

Hello,

Have you made your purchase?

WW

[rpcrowe]

BTW: although I have read that the latest Canon 2x converter and the latest 70-200mm f/2.8L lens mesh together quite well, I have never been satisfied with the results of a 2x converter on any lens I have tried one with. However, I have had very good results using a Canon 1.4x TC Mark-2 with several L-class telephoto lenses. But, I still prefer a native longer focal length lens one modified with a TC.

[DanK]

BTW: although I have read that the latest Canon 2x converter and the latest 70-200mm f/2.8L lens mesh together quite well, I have never been satisfied with the results of a 2x converter on any lens I have tried one with. However, I have had very good results using a Canon 1.4x TC Mark-2 with several L-class telephoto lenses. But, I still prefer a native longer focal length lens one modified with a TC.

I routinely carry the Canon 1.4x II as a substitute for lugging my 100-400 when I don't know that I'll need the latter. I did some pixel peeping early on and could clearly see some degradation when using the 1.4x II with the 70-200 f/4 L IS (original), but not enough to loose sleep over. I haven't had occasion to use it with the 70-200 f/4 II, which I snapped up when Canon announced that they were going to stop producing it.

[Thlayle]

I happened to drop in on the CIC forum today and noticed these two later comments posted December 20. Some months later after the original post, I will say I went with a new telephoto lens, the Sigma 150-600. I still have some interest in the Canon teleconverters for my 200mm lens. But I already feel I've gotten ahead of myself with the last purchase. I am finding the Sigma lens to be a challenge for me in many ways, not least of which is its weight. I haven't forgotten the "heavy as a howitzer" comment from Trev. I went with the lighter lens, the "contemporary" and it is a difficult weight for me to use very much.

The teleconverter, either the 1.4 or 2x, may have been good enough for my purposes, but for now I'm still intent on seeing if I can put the Sigma lens to good use, and be happy with not just the results, but the whole experience.

[William W]

. . . I went with a new telephoto lens, the Sigma 150-600.. . . I am finding the Sigma lens to be a challenge for me in many ways, not least of which is its weight.. . .

Do you use a Monopod and a Monopod Head?

WW

[Dave Humphries]

Do you use a Monopod and a Monopod Head?

Hi Randy,

Bill asks a good question, back when I was birding, even without the weight of glass being discussed here, I found a monopod exceedingly helpful to share the weight, especially when waiting for that perched or wading bird to take off. That said, one problem I had was weight balance, I had no tripod socket on the lens, and was reliant on the camera body, so I still had to provide some lens support to my telephoto.

Going back to the query at the beginning of the thread, I tried one of those 'bridge' cameras with an 'equivalent focal length' of up to 1200mm (due to the much smaller sensor). That plan didn't work out well either, while it was cheaper and lighter than a 150-600mm, the AF (on my model) was so slow to acquire lock that it was unusable - and on a warm day, heat haze began to be an issue shooting too distant birds.

That brings us back to your comment above about 'being a good birder first and foremost' helps - i.e. being able to get closer than the average 'bod on the street' unfamiliar with the necessary skills. Or with the patience to sit in a hide (blind) for hours on end. I never got there.

Cheers,
Dave

[Tronhard]

To follow up on Bill's comments and my own. I generally shoot hand-held, and I reinforce the benefits of doing physical training to be able to handle the gear without fatigue if possible. Not only is it good for one's photography, but for general health as well. That said, I recognize that there are times when one wants support with a heavy lens.

Personally, (and I have no financial interest in this apart from paying for it) I really like the IFOTAGE Cobra 2 unit. It is both a monopod and a tripod with a very small format (the tripod is at the foot). It can be configured as a monopod, or a separate small tripod, or the tripod can become the foot with a ball-head connection. I added a ball-head to the top and it is a great unit for using it in galleries and museums, where the light is very low, and I don't use flash. It is originally designed for video work, but that makes it very useful for following animals and shooting stills as well.
iFootage Cobra 2 C180 Monopod (ifootagegear.com)

Do you use a Monopod and a Monopod Head?

WW

[Cantab]

Trev, I had a look at the iFootagegear webpage and video clip. It's an intriguing unit. How much does yours actually weigh? The iFootagegear website says 1.25 kilos but on Amazon Canada I've seen references to 3+ kilos.

Partly because of a gradual but sometimes frustratingly slow recovery from a broken arm, the weight of camera and related gear has become a more serious issue for me than previously. I now carry an iPhone but will not ultimately turn into an iPhone photographer!

I followed with interest the discussion in another thread about weight differences between DSLR's like my 60D and mirrorless cameras.

[Thlayle]

Thanks all for your comments. Bill and Dave - I am convinced I need to look into trying out a monopod for use with my new telephoto. I am completely unfamiliar with monopods. I just never saw a need. Now I do.

And Trev, thanks for your suggestion. I will have to check out the Cobra 2. By the way, I always think back to your 'howitzer' description of the sports version, and I am very happy that I chose the contemporary.

I have lightweight travel tripod that also serves as a monopod. Not know the gear, I am not sure it is suitable for this.

-Randy

[Tronhard]

Hi Randy:
The version of the Cobra 2 that I have is the tallest (they come in several sizes) @ 1.8m (6ft). With the three feet, plus a SmallRig Aluminium Panoramic Ball Head 3034 attached it weighs 1.42kg (3.12lb), so I would suggest the Canadian site confused the metric with Imperial units.

Trev, I had a look at the iFootage gear webpage and video clip. It's an intriguing unit. How much does yours actually weigh? The iFootagegear website says 1.25 kilos but on Amazon Canada I've seen references to 3+ kilos. And Trev, thanks for your suggestion. I will have to check out the Cobra 2. By the way, I always think back to your 'howitzer' description of the sports version, and I am very happy that I chose the contemporary.
-Randy

[Tronhard]

As regards bridge cameras. First, as has been alluded to already, a critical concern is what one intends to produce. If one is just going to output for social media and digital display or modest-sized prints, the choice of gear is much different from that for producing larger hi-resolution high Art prints! Assuming we are looking for at the former than the latter, it might be worth considering a GOOD bridge camera as a possible alternative, if one cannot carry a larger DSLR or MILC body with a big lens. Considering that the best camera is the one you are prepared to carry, then weight and bulk are valid considerations.

Over the years I had used several of the Canon series SX-40, 50, 60 units and they had amazing focal ranges, but were hobbled with their small sensors. TO give you an idea of the range of the SX-60HS, here are some images on a clear, bright day:


View at 21mm Equivalent FoV


View at 100mm Equivalent FoV




View at 500mm Equivalent FoV


Image at 1392 Equivalent FoV

However the super range of focal lengths was offset by the small sensor size, so I went for the Sony RX-10MkIV, arguably the best bridge camera on the market today, despite being four years old - worth checking out the reviews and specs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVizzzImEU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqeezyuifg&t=862s

With an equivalent FoV of 24-600mm, and a much larger 1" back lit sensor, combined with a high-speed processor an Zeiss optics, this unit gives impressive results.

I actually just took the following image with the RX-10 at 600mm Equivalent, hand-held, out of my study, through rather grubby double-glazing of a bird sitting on my fence, about 15m away. It is SooC, and completely untouched:

Completely unprocessed.

The same image, severely cropped and with modest PP:


ALL IMAGES HAND-HELD.

So, if there has to be a balance found between sensor and lens size and weight, and performance, I would consider - depending upon what Randy wants to produce, a high-end bridge camera. I think the Sony is the best in the market at this time, and I did use the Canon PowerShot GIIIx - but it is slower, has to have an EVF connected via a hotshoe (which is more fragile, bulky and renders it no longer weather sealed , while the Sony avoids all of these issues.

Hi Randy,

Going back to the query at the beginning of the thread, I tried one of those 'bridge' cameras with an 'equivalent focal length' of up to 1200mm (due to the much smaller sensor). That plan didn't work out well either, while it was cheaper and lighter than a 150-600mm, the AF (on my model) was so slow to acquire lock that it was unusable - and on a warm day, heat haze began to be an issue shooting too distant birds.
Dave