Are doubler's (2X) worth it

[Herdfan]

The wife has a Canon 80D and one of her lens is a 300mm. She likes to take nature shots but sometimes the 300 just isn't enough to really focus on something like a bird far away.

If I get her a 2x or even a 1.4X, will she be disappointed?

Or should I just get her a more powerful lens?

 

[Apple fanboy]

The wife has a Canon 80D and one of her lens is a 300mm. She likes to take nature shots but sometimes the 300 just isn't enough to really focus on something like a bird far away.

If I get her a 2x or even a 1.4X, will she be disappointed?

Or should I just get her a more powerful lens?

What’s the f number of that 300mm?
Remember that a TC will reduce it by several stops. So my f2.8 becomes a f5.6 when I use my 2x TC for example.

 

[Eric]

The wife has a Canon 80D and one of her lens is a 300mm. She likes to take nature shots but sometimes the 300 just isn't enough to really focus on something like a bird far away.

If I get her a 2x or even a 1.4X, will she be disappointed?

Or should I just get her a more powerful lens?

Quality will take a hit as will bokeh (the blur behind it), as AF pointed out it comes at the sacrifice of stops of light. Would be curious to know if it's something she likes to do casually or more seriously, even at its best the kit lenses that come with Nikon and Canon are still consumer level (assuming it's in the f/4-5.6 range. Now throw in a TC and you're losing a lot of light, if she takes in more seriously maybe consider spending some money on better glass, it's typically the first step people take when upgrading.

I started out with the Canon 60D with kit lenses and eventually ended up with the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS and on a crop sensor was able to get stunning shots. Remember, it's not just about how far you can shoot, it's also about how much you can crop (bring the subject closer) and having a higher quality lens gives you the ability to have cleaner shots from further away.

 

[thekev]

Past 300 mm, these things are going to get quite large. Even then, people add extenders to them.

This is the compact 400 mm unless they still make the 5.6.

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

Compact, lightweight super telephoto lens that is ideal for sports and wildlife photography.Newly-developed gapless dual-layer diffractive optical elements deliver improved image quality with reduced flare.Large diameter ground aspherical lens and UD lens for even greater optical...

www.usa.canon.com

Once you go beyond that, you have a 600 MM at 13k, which fits the lens equivalent of a trombone case. At some point, most people are going to use extenders when they need them.

 

[Cmaier]

Past 300 mm, these things are going to get quite large. Even then, people add extenders to them.

This is the compact 400 mm unless they still make the 5.6.

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

Compact, lightweight super telephoto lens that is ideal for sports and wildlife photography.Newly-developed gapless dual-layer diffractive optical elements deliver improved image quality with reduced flare.Large diameter ground aspherical lens and UD lens for even greater optical...

www.usa.canon.com

Once you go beyond that, you have a 600 MM at 13k, which fits the lens equivalent of a trombone case. At some point, most people are going to use extenders when they need them.

I went to the Super Bowl in indianapolis (giants beat New England!) and “professional cameras” weren’t permitted. So, if I recall correctly, I brought a APS-C camera (sony nex) with a Leica R-mount teleconverter and zoom. Disassembled, it looked like just a few small lenses. Put together, and taking into account the crop factor, if I remember correctly, it gave me something like 600mm of reach. I’m so tricky.

 

[Clix Pix]

Others have already mentioned how the teleconverter will affect the exposure and reduce the number of f/stops one can use. I don't know anything about Canon, as I've never shot with that brand, but some consumer-quality lenses or bodies will not accept TCs at all, so that is something which would need to be checked out. If she wants to use a TC, a 1.4x would give her some additional reach without quite the same hit on the f/stop and exposure levels as a 2x.

I agree that perhaps purchasing a different lens, a zoom with longer reach, say 100-400mm, 200-600mm, might be a more effective solution. Presumably Canon has something in their lineup. One issue with longer zooms, though, is their weight and the fact that they can be difficult to handhold, which affects image quality. I have the Sony 100-400mm lens, to which I can attach a 1.4x TC, and I use that as my walk-around lens, although it's not exactly lightweight. I also have the Sony 200-600mm, which I had bought in the wintertime and that first year mostly used shooting from my deck, which was fine as I had the deck railing to provide some support. Didn't take too long to realize that this lens is better on a tripod, as it is just a bit too heavy for me, so now it spends time on the tripod with a gimbal head. In the spring I bought the 100-400 when the time came for walking around the lake and going on other excursions. I can also use the 1.4x TC on the 200-600mm, extending its range to 840mm.

In both cases, though, each of those zoom lenses loses light and instead of being able to shoot at f/4.5 or f/5.6, suddenly I'm at f/8 or f/9 as the widest-open I can go, which is problematic in poor light.

 

[Herdfan]

What’s the f number of that 300mm?
Remember that a TC will reduce it by several stops. So my f2.8 becomes a f5.6 when I use my 2x TC for example.

It is a 1.4 - 5.6. 70-300.

Not professional grade, but better than what you can walk in a get at Best Buy.

From the sound of it, I might be better off just getting her a more powerful lens. Looks like my choices in the sub $1K range are:

1) 100-400
2) 600
3) 800
4) 100-500, but $2900

The rest are in $10K+. She just likes to take nature pics. Off flowers, birds, fungus. She then loads them on a large digital frame.

I like the 600, but it is fixed, so no being able to adjust. Probably go with the 100-400. Not much increase, but some.

 

[mollyc]

I have the Sigma 150-600 contemporary that I really like; I would suggest you look at that. The contemporary version is sub $1k (I think it was maybe $800 when I bought it a couple of years ago? I traded in a body and lens so only actually paid $10 for it). There's also a sports version for around $1500.

As a Nikon shooter, I stick to Nikon lenses, but I made an exception for the Sigma after a lot of research. I don't use it a lot, but if you need that reach, then you need a long lens. It has been a great addition for me and I'm more than pleased with the quality I get from it.

 

[Eric]

It is a 1.4 - 5.6. 70-300.

Not professional grade, but better than what you can walk in a get at Best Buy.

From the sound of it, I might be better off just getting her a more powerful lens. Looks like my choices in the sub $1K range are:

1) 100-400
2) 600
3) 800
4) 100-500, but $2900

The rest are in $10K+. She just likes to take nature pics. Off flowers, birds, fungus. She then loads them on a large digital frame.

I like the 600, but it is fixed, so no being able to adjust. Probably go with the 100-400. Not much increase, but some.

You'll probably get a lot of different advice around this but I would recommend the 70-200L f/2.8 IS, it's a great all around lens for both closer and more distant shots. Here are some examples on my IG page https://www.instagram.com/thurber_shots nearly all of these were shot with this lens, everything from landscapes to hummingbirds (small and dodgy targets) are within the reach of this lens and on the crop factor of your wife's 80D, you'll even get more reach.

They have 3 different versions of it and it can be expensive but you can usually find a used model in the $1K range. You can also pick up a more inexpensive 70-200L f4 model as well, it's still a great lens.

 

[Clix Pix]

I am a firm believer in sticking with lenses which are native to the camera brand. No matter how much a third-party manufacturer tries to reverse-engineer a lens in order to make it compatible with one of the major brands, IMHO it still is just not the same as a native lens made by the company which made the camera body. A few times through my many Nikon years I tried a couple of Sigma lenses and Tamron lenses and was never all that happy with them, so in the end simply stayed with Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies.

Zoom lenses are indeed more flexible in use than a fixed lens, especially when shooting nature scenes, flowers, birds and animals. Birds and animals are frequently on the move and it is often necessary to quickly adjust one's settings or lens position in order to capture them. One can also compose a scene accurately with a zoom, being able to zoom in or out precisely as needed to frame the scene in the way one desires, which can be valuable in a situation where one cannot simply step back or move forward ("foot zoom").

 

[mollyc]

I am a firm believer in sticking with lenses which are native to the camera brand. No matter how much a third-party manufacturer tries to reverse-engineer a lens in order to make it compatible with one of the major brands, IMHO it still is just not the same as a native lens made by the company which made the camera body. A few times through my many Nikon years I tried a couple of Sigma lenses and Tampon lenses and was never all that happy with them, so in the end simply stayed with Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies.

Zoom lenses are indeed more flexible in use than a fixed lens, especially when shooting nature scenes, flowers, birds and animals. Birds and animals are frequently on the move and it is often necessary to quickly adjust one's settings or lens position in order to capture them. One can also compose a scene accurately with a zoom, being able to zoom in or out precisely as needed to frame the scene in the way one desires, which can be valuable in a situation where one cannot simply step back or move forward ("foot zoom").

Don't you use Voigtlander? Those are third party lenses. Also, I probably wouldn't be happy with Tampon lenses either. (Yes, i know that was a spelling/autcorrect error, but it's still funny).

I actually was not happy with Tamron lenses when I shot Canon, but that was over 10 years ago, and I think that both Tamron and Sigma especially have made great strides with their quality. Admittedly, I don't think my Sigma 150-600c is quite the same quality as the gold ring or S labeled z mount lenses, but for the price I am more than satisfied with the quality, especially given how infrequently I use it. There's nothing wrong with staying in a budget if you have to, and I certainly could not justify $2k for the equivalent Nikon lens. Don't get me wrong....I do have several $2k Nikon lenses but I use them a lot more frequently than the 150-600.

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes, I have three Voigtlander lenses, all fast manual focus which were designed for Sony. They had an arrangement with Sony in the early days when Sony was just getting started with their mirrorless e-mount lineup and didn't have many lenses of their own yet. They also provide lenses to Leica. The Voigtlanders are beautiful lenses which render colors and softness/bokeh/blur in remarkable ways.

It's been too long ago now since I had those Sigma and Tamron lenses (oops, auto-correct did the "tampon" thing to me, too! LOL! I see now that I didn't catch it when that happened in my earlier post. Should've proofread! DUH....). Anyway, I don't recall what the lenses were, except that I found the Sigmas were always heavier and bulkier than they really should've been or needed to be and the Tamrons just didn't seem to provide decent image quality.

I have been more than happy with my Sony lenses, especially the GM ones, of course, and the G, but even the "non-G" (less expensive) lenses are of excellent quality. Starting from scratch as I did two and a half years ago was a good opportunity to pull together a group of lenses which really suit my shooting style and the types of subjects I most frequently shoot. Now I've pretty much got all bases covered. Truth is, though, I use the 100-400mm and the 90mm the most -- those two are my absolute favorites and they deliver time after time after time.

 

[mollyc]

I wasn't asking if you are happy with your Sony lenses. We all know you are. You've made that clear over the past two + years. But I think it's disingenuous for you to say that you stick to native lenses when you are actually using some third party lenses. Native means same brand, same mount. That Voigtlander makes lenses for Sony, Leica, Nikon and who ever else inherently means "third-party." I think what you might mean to say is that you stick to higher end lenses. Not everyone has the means to do so.

And the camera brand in question is Canon, anyway, not Sony, so your lenses don't help him (or his wife) any. Let's keep the conversation about lenses that work with his system. Sigma and Tamron do have relatively affordable lenses that would likely relevant to his search. He is looking for something less than a thousand dollars, so he is likely looking at something not-Canon.

 

[hulugu]

It is a 1.4 - 5.6. 70-300.

Not professional grade, but better than what you can walk in a get at Best Buy.

From the sound of it, I might be better off just getting her a more powerful lens. Looks like my choices in the sub $1K range are:

1) 100-400
2) 600
3) 800
4) 100-500, but $2900

The rest are in $10K+. She just likes to take nature pics. Off flowers, birds, fungus. She then loads them on a large digital frame.

I like the 600, but it is fixed, so no being able to adjust. Probably go with the 100-400. Not much increase, but some.

I use a teleconverter to push my 70-200mm or 100-400mm out. I carry the TC in my bag and often use it when 200mm isn't quite enough. I lose a couple of stops, but I can under-expose slightly and keep ISO down with the shutter speed up a bit.

Most of the photojournalists are using the 1.4x Canon TC, and the older Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. Eating a stop to really push in on a subject is often worth it.

The sports guys tend to use the $10K range lenses, but most of the rest of us plebs are using the older stuff.

I'd suggest a monopod, as well. Tripods are annoying unless you're trying to do long-term exposure stuff like stars, or time-lapses.

 

[hulugu]

I wasn't asking if you are happy with your Sony lenses. We all know you are. You've made that clear over the past two + years. But I think it's disingenuous for you to say that you stick to native lenses when you are actually using some third party lenses. Native means same brand, same mount. That Voitlander makes lenses for Sony, Leica, Nikon and who ever else inherently means "third-party." I think what you might mean to say is that you stick to higher end lenses. Not everyone has the means to do so.

And the camera brand in question is Canon, anyway, not Sony, so your lenses don't help him (or his wife) any. Let's keep the conversation about lenses that work with his system. Sigma and Tamron do have relatively affordable lenses that would likely relevant to his search. He is looking for something less than a thousand dollars, so he is likely looking at something not-Canon.

Sigma and Tamron make relatively good gear. I've heard very good things about Sigma's art lenses, but the longest throw is 135mm.

 

[hulugu]

I am a firm believer in sticking with lenses which are native to the camera brand. No matter how much a third-party manufacturer tries to reverse-engineer a lens in order to make it compatible with one of the major brands, IMHO it still is just not the same as a native lens made by the company which made the camera body. A few times through my many Nikon years I tried a couple of Sigma lenses and Tamron lenses and was never all that happy with them, so in the end simply stayed with Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies.

Zoom lenses are indeed more flexible in use than a fixed lens, especially when shooting nature scenes, flowers, birds and animals. Birds and animals are frequently on the move and it is often necessary to quickly adjust one's settings or lens position in order to capture them. One can also compose a scene accurately with a zoom, being able to zoom in or out precisely as needed to frame the scene in the way one desires, which can be valuable in a situation where one cannot simply step back or move forward ("foot zoom").

Yeah, as a photojournalist I only use primes when I need to shoot below f/2, and I'm forced to switch to a 35mm f/1.8 or my 85mm. That's fallen away as my cameras can push the ISO very hard to compensate, so I've increasingly just kept shooting with my zooms at f/4. (Below f/4 the difference between accurate focus, and not is really narrow, so against moving targets, there's a lot of missed frames.)

And, I usually spend most of the time cursing my primes because they're not zooms.

 

[thekev]

Sigma and Tamron make relatively good gear. I've heard very good things about Sigma's art lenses, but the longest throw is 135mm.

I haven't paid attention to Tamron in a very long time, but their build quality used to be lacking. I don't know whether it has improved.

 

[Eric]

I haven't paid attention to Tamron in a very long time, but their build quality used to be lacking. I don't know whether it has improved.

I also own the Sigma 150-600 contemporary and I’ve been less than impressed with it. It’s a decent lens but it has a lot of distortion when cropped. I’ve learned to work with it but if you want real quality you have to pay for it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I also own the Sigma 150-600 contemporary and I’ve been less than impressed with it. It’s a decent lens but it has a lot of distortion when cropped. I’ve learned to work with it but if you want real quality you have to pay for it.

You can’t deny the laws of physics!
I have the Nikon 200-500mm and it’s okay. A bit slow. But the next step up to a 500mm f4 is way beyond my budget for photography.

 

[bunnspecial]

Something I think equally important in the TC discussion-

Good teleconverters aren't cheap. I have overall had good results in the past with Canon lenses using Canon-brand teleconverters(back when I still used FD mount equipment, the 200mm f/2.8 paired with a 1.4x was a favorite combo of mine) and now sometimes use a Nikon TC-17II(1.7x) on my 70-200mm f/2.8.

The Canon and Nikons both are made with the same quality as the lenses they will work with, and operate seamlessly. Most of the good teleconverters now have some mechanism-whether physical, electronic, or both-to keep you from using them with lenses the manufacturer didn't deem an appropriate pairing.