The Poor Man’s Super-Telephoto - Outdoor Photographer

Canon Extender EF 2x II

The lens of choice among the serious pro wildlife photographers I know seems to be the 600mm ƒ/4 super-telephoto. It’s great for subjects that won’t let you get close, is incredibly sharp, and autofocuses quickly and accurately. However, it costs over $7,000. That being just a bit beyond my budget, when I really need “reach,” I turn my $1,200 300mm ƒ/4 lens into a 600mm ƒ/8 by attaching a $300 2x teleconverter between the lens and camera body.

Also known as tele-extenders, teleconverters are available from the major lens manufacturers for their long lenses, and offer three major benefits.

First, as just cited, they’re an economical way to get superlong focal lengths. And they’re not just for the budget-challenged. Pros use them, too—a 1.4x converter turns that monster 600mm into an 840mm; a 2x converter, into a 1200mm.

The second benefit of the teleconverter is that it doesn’t change the lens’ minimum focusing distance. Add a 2x converter to a 300mm lens that focuses down to five feet, and you have a 600mm lens that focuses down to five feet. (For comparison, my camera manufacturer’s 600mm super-telephoto won’t focus closer than 18 feet unless you attach it to an extension tube; but then it won’t focus out to infinity.)

Sigma APO Teleconverter 1.4x EX

The third teleconverter benefit is lack of bulk. A 300mm lens with a 2x teleconverter is much more compact than a 600mm ƒ/4 super-telephoto lens. (A 600mm ƒ/8 prime lens also would be smaller than the 600mm ƒ/4, but currently no one makes a 600mm ƒ/8.)

Of course, teleconverters do have some drawbacks, the biggest being that they reduce the amount of light transmitted to the film or image sensor—by 1 stop for a 1.4x converter, 1.5 stops for a 1.7x converter, and 2 stops for a 2x. Add a 1.4x converter to a 300mm ƒ/4 lens, and it becomes a 420mm ƒ/5.6. Add a 2x converter to the 300mm ƒ/4, and it becomes a 600mm ƒ/8. TTL metering automatically compensates for the light loss, but the necessarily slower shutter speed reduces action-stopping power.

Why the light loss? Because the focal length increases while the maximum aperture diameter doesn’t. For a 300mm ƒ/4 lens, the “wide-open” aperture diameter is 75mm (300mm focal length divided by ƒ/4). Add a 2x teleconverter, and the focal length becomes 600mm, but the maximum aperture diameter is still 75mm (600 divided by 75 equals ƒ/8).

This loss of light not only requires longer shutter speeds, but also slows or cancels autofocusing, depending on the lens/converter combo and the camera body. For example, using the 2x converter with my 300mm ƒ/4 lens on my Canon EOS 40D switches off autofocusing, while the same combo on the pro Canon EOS-1D Mark III will autofocus, but noticeably more slowly than the 300mm lens alone (and much more slowly than the 600mm ƒ/4 prime lens).

Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II 1.4x

Pro-Optic Teleconverter 2x C/AF

(Teleconverter manual-focusing tip: If your D-SLR has a Live View monitor, that image is much easier to focus than the dim SLR viewfinder image.)

The last teleconverter disadvantage is that it does reduce image quality—by a very small amount when you’re using a quality converter with lenses it was designed for; by a lot if you use a poor-quality converter or a good one with a noncompatible lens. For best results, use a converter made by the manufacturer of your lens, and check that the manufacturer recommends it for that lens.

If your lens has a built-in stabilizer, it will function normally with the converter attached, and I’ve produced some sharp images handholding my stabilized 300mm/2x combo, but I’d recommend mounting such long focal lengths on a tripod for maximum sharpness.

10 Comments

The Canon 40D is not a full frame camera. A 300mm f4 lens would actually be a 480mm lens(multiply 300mm by 1.6). With the 1.4 extender from Canon and when multiplied with the 480mm’s, you have 672mm’s @ 5.6, losing that 1 f-stop. Having a 600mm f/4 lens would be ideal. But it is awfully heavy to be lugging around. So I chose the combo 300mm f/4 with the 1.4 extender II from Canon. Under good lighting conditions, the degradation from using the 1.4 is very minimal and even unnoticed to the average Joe. It is in low lighting conditions that will affect you more. Even with the Image Stabilization. Having to raise the ISO so you can keep a high shutter speed and an aperture that will give you your needed depth of field will play into the final quality of that photo.

High quality Cisco,HP,IBM, Oracle and other Certification exmas training materials are provided here at Pass4sure Pass4sure helps you on your way to your certifications
Click passforsure.co.uk to get more information!

If you’re a keen photographer on a budget, and looking for low-cost super-telephoto options, then there’s a useful review of all the options available here: http://shootingonashoestring.co.uk/2014/09/19/do-big-numbers-mean-big-cash/

It helps seal your camera body off from the elements if you switch lenses in turbulent weather. Having just returned from the Costa Rican jungle with 95%+ humidity and sporadic torrential downpours, not having to worry about moisture getting in my camera was a nice perk. I could change lenses on my teleconverter/extender and never worry about any moisture getting into my camera body. Not living in a humid environment normally I didn’t want to take chances with my camera body while abroad. Worked like a charm and it of course helped bring me closer to my subjects.

Nice write up!

This is something I will be saving for in the future. The less equipment to carry the better.

It adds 1 or 2 stops to the light drop? When writing articles such as these we should all put in specifics for the uninitiated. ie: Without the teleconverter and my 300mm f4 lens mounted on the Canon 40D at 300mm and f4 I need an ISO of 250 in bright sun to acheive a shutter speed of 800 whereas with the tele mounted in the same setting my f4 becomes f8 and requires an ISO of 1600 to achieve the same Shutter speed as before; 800.
Like the great physicist Richard Feynman said if you cannot explain something so that a 12 y/o could understand it, you don’t know it well enough! I read article after article written this way yet, no one seems to want to give real world specifics and results.

I am still not convinced about settling for the cheaper route. And of course the Nikon 300mm f4 hasn’t got a stabilizer or VR as they call it.

Oh that poor neglected 12 year old. If the lad or lass needs further clarification they would benefit themselves immensely to seek out and acquire it themselves rather than wait to be spoon fed. Tele-converters/extenders don?۪t require VR (Nikon) or IS (Canon). According to my experience, shopping around for one has left me wanting, as I have found that the converters don?۪t fit my Canon 55mm-250mm Image Stabilization lens because of the addition of the stabalization.But I?۪ll keep looking.