The Siemens-star test-targets are shot at a distance of 40x focal length i. But performance of lenses also depends on the shooting distance. Therefore I present another series of test-shots of a city-scape around 1km away. Processing was done in Lightroom 6. I used AF in live view at the largest aperture and did not change focus for other apertures. You can click on each image to access the large original. Please respect our copyright and only use those images for personal use.
The main image shows the complete scene to give you an impression of the angle of view. You can access the respective shots at different apertures via the links beneath the main image. All shots with the 1. VR was switched off and I used mirror-up and electronic first curtain to avoid any vibration from the camera. The performance with 1. Shooting at the same focal length but with the 2.
The image is still usable but you can easily see how much sharper the shot at f8. Stopping down to f8 did not improve the image quality by much so you can shoot wide open and enjoy the benefit of a shorter shutter speed. Or if you came here reading that review already head back to the last chapter in it: Sample images. Both the 2x and 1. Hopefully it can give you a rough indication of image IQ as well as how the focal range of both lenses change.
Here is a brief summary:. XFmm and XFmm - Both absolutely stunning lenses. XFmm with 1. XFmm with 2x teleconverter - IQ really good, maybe a tiny drop off. XFmm with 2x teleconverter - Surprisingly good IQ in focus area but out of focus areas start to go a bit ugly. Still very useable and will definitely be helpful. In due course I'll upload a minimum focusing distance gallery but right now this will have to do far too long sitting in front of a screen The actual distance doesn't change when a teleconverter is added so you simply get the benefits of the increased reach, thus giving you a tighter crop on your subject.
This is a great teleconverter, particularly for those with the XFmm F2. It does work with the XFmm F4. The fact that it is weather resistant WR is great, meaning that if your lenses and cameras are WR sealed then you should be fine in inclement weather. Having abused WR protected X-Series cameras and lenses for most of last year in tropical rainforests, I'm confident that this teleconverter will also be up for any challenge.
Overall it is a brilliant accessory to keep in your bag when you might be need of some extra reach. I have no doubt this will find its way into the bags of many photographers. Fujifilm 2x Teleconverter and sibling. XFmm F2. Build Quality Nothing new here - It is wonderfully well built, just like its little brother, the 1.
Good Looking Fujifilm teleconverters. Performance with XFmm F2. The Canon 1. Haven't tried any others except the promasters, I thought the Tamron looks a tiny bit sharper in test shots. From what I've heard, 2x teleconverters are to be avoided, too much loss of sharpness. If you do the "exposure math", you'll find that using the TC does indeed cost one full stop of light.
After confirming this, I brightened both by 1 full stop just because it looks better and makes the differences clearer. No highlights were blown, the sky is not pure white. Sharpness - Obviously this is what everyone cares about when deciding whether to bother with any teleconverter.
But you have to understand something. You will get more feather detail in your bird, or fur on your bear, or camel toe in your celebrity.
The other part of sharpness is contrast So why don't we all use teleconverters every time for maximum reach, then just sharpen in post to get longer lenses for cheap?
Here's the long version: The minimum aperture of your lens is multiplied too. Autofocus works by comparing two versions of the same image that are coming from different angles into the lens. There's a glass element in every AF lens that has two autofocus targets, one near the top of the element and one near the bottom. The AF chip reads those two versions of the image, and moves the element around until the images overlap nicely.
When you close the aperture down to a tiny pinhole, light misses the edges of that glass element completely. Light only passes through the middle of it. So the autofocus chip has nothing to compare. Because temporarily, it opens up the aperture to acquire focus.
Then when it's locked, it closes it again. If you use liveview, you can see this Using a teleconverter forces light into a smaller aperture, and there's no physical way the lens can open up that hole and get light to hit those autofocus targets.
So autofocus ability will be unreliably or just fail entirely. It will just hunt forever and never achieve lock. Now add a 1. Now you need shutter speed just to deal with the slight bit of camera shake we all have. Image stabilization helps Now you gotta lose another one speeding up the shutter to adequate levels.
Everything is gonna be underexposed unless you jack up ISO to horrible levels, or use a dangerously slow shutter speed that results in blurry images. The magic bullet here is a tripod, or any makeshift support you can find like your car.
One that probably will never autofocus even in easy conditions. But if you're using a TC and it's a little soft out of the camera? Well, now you have an awkward choice If you fill the frame and cannot crop away anything, and then make a framed print, and it's soft, nothing you can do aside from PS sharpening will completely fix that. If you accept that you cannot fill the frame, compose nicely, keep some of the background, and both the bird and its environment are nice and sharp, you may have a stunning photo because you didn't insist on "zoom at all costs".
Not to mention your keeper rate will go up because you're not doing delicate manual focus all the time. So, is the teleconverter worth it? I guess it depends on how far you need to reach, how much you care about that extra detail, and how broke you are.
There's no question they work. That's why I did my little test, so you can see exactly what you'll get by using a TC vs. So here's what it looks like when you enlarge the non-teleconverter shot to match the size of the shot with a 1.
OK, for completeness - here's what happens when you shrink the TC shot to match the size of the original. You can that extra detail is still there even when you shrink it.
And it looks less noisy too. The hawk on the left had ISO instead of , but the main reason it looks so much less blotchy than the hawk on the right despite noise reduction for both is because it started out larger, and shrinking an image can actually improve aspects of its appearance like the sharpness or noise level.
You just choose an appropriate setting when shrinking. This 1. Teleconverters in general are of limited use and probably best suited for birding. Using them on birds in flight is somewhat unrealistic due to the loss of autofocus, unless the bird cooperates and keeps circling above you. Your keeper rate will drop hugely with this unless you can mount it on a tripod and do almost hands-free focusing using a 10x magnified live view and very slow, careful turning of the focus ring.
Holding a bulky mm up to your eye and just eyeballing focus through the viewfinder will result in lots of soft photos that negate the small advantage you get in improved detail.
0コメント