2x Teleconverter with 70-200 GM II and A1

[-ST-]

This is mainly for folks who know that I had wanted and just got the 2x teleconverter. If you are wondering how things are going with that new adventure - here's where I am now.

TLDR - after testing for seven days, I returned the 2x teleconverter.
As I headed back to the store, I fully intended to get the 200-600. When I got there, I put the big lens on the A1, checked it out again, got all the way to the check-out, changed my mind, and left empty-handed. I stopped at my favourite camera store on the way back. They had the Sigma 150-600. That was impressive, 30% less than the Sony, but it had an extendable zoom, weighed 200 grams more, and is limited to only 20 frames-per-second on the A1. I may get a 200-600, just not today.
Edit: About a month later, I got a great deal on the 2X teleconverter. I posted an update in this post. The short version: Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have returned the 2X teleconverter.

2x Teleconverter impressions
Pluses

• Easier to fill the frame with distant subjects, and this was fun and very satisfying
• I enjoyed experimenting with composition in the new focal range 140-400 mm
• Experimenting with zoom 'compression' at 400 mm was fun
• I liked looking for new photo opportunities at the long end of the 400 mm

Minuses

• Field of view at 140 mm (the wide end) felt limiting, so I had to do more zooming out with my feet and vertical-shot-stitching
• It was harder to locate subjects in the viewfinder in a hurry (I'm sure that would have become easier with practice)
• It was harder to keep birds in flight in the frame (that too would come with time)
• I found it challenging to put on/take off the teleconverter on the go (in the cold)
• The camera with 2x teleconverter and lens would not fit in my ready-to-shoot hip bag. That's nit-picking, but it would eventually mean having to rethink a bunch of things

Interesting

• I learned that I'm more interested in larger birds, animals, landscapes, and oddities that nature deposits on the beach than small birds
• In good light, the difference between F2.8 and F5.6 was immaterial.
• There was very little difference in the depth of field of F2.8 at 200 mm and F5.6 at 400 mm in the shots I took
• I learned a little about chromatic aberration and purple fringing that is visible at times with the 2x teleconverter. I had not seen or noticed it without the teleconverter
• I ended up carrying two cameras because the 140-400 mm was too constraining for opportunistic shooting. I wouldn't do this for my regular two-three hour walks, but with the inclement weather, I was taking shorter walks anyway
  • A1 with 70-200 GM II with 2x Teleconverter
  • A7 IV with PZ 16-35 F4 or 24-105 F4
• I learned that I can tolerate more overall carry weight than I had previously thought
• I found out that I don't like changing lenses in the field
• I got a much better sense of how much of the frame I need to fill to get a decent shot after even extreme cropping, with and without the teleconverter
• Without the teleconverter, I can still get a better look at distance subjects with APS-C mode (I have this programmed to a custom button).

Observations and Learning
For the most challenging situations (small birds in the distance), the 2x teleconverter didn't make enough of a difference compared to extreme cropping, thanks to the 50-megapixel sensor on the A1 and the sharpness of the 70-200 GM II lens. Here are a few examples - note: I wouldn't consider any of these shots keepers.

With 2x teleconverter
Peering at Purple Martins

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2) + 2X Teleconverter (SEL20TC)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 800

without 2x teleconverter

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2)
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 100

This shot shows how far away these nesting boxes are (cropped to about a 50 mm view)

• ILCE-7M4
• Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G (SELP1635G)
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

And a look at the cropping (2x teleconverter on top)

Still reading?
At 6:00 am this morning, I was happy to keep the 2x teleconverter. Today was the last day I could return it, and I didn't think I would. I enjoyed having things in the distance fill the frame more with the teleconverter. But the past week has been challenging with uncharacteristic cold and snow, so I hadn't really done any head-to-head testing. I set out this morning to do that, and you can see the results above and below. Once I saw these, I realized I could do without the teleconverter, but could reconsider the 200-600.

New nesting boxes for Purple Martins
With 2x teleconverter

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2) + 2X Teleconverter (SEL20TC)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 1250

Without 2x teleconverter

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2)
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 1000

Looking at the differences up close (who would do this?). With the teleconverter, you can see the Robertson head screws - good Canadian construction.

And street signs - half a kilometre away.
With 2x teleconverter

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2) + 2X Teleconverter (SEL20TC)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 1250

without 2x teleconverter

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (SEL70200GM2)
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 640

And a look at the cropping (2x teleconverter on top)

@evacguy Ed - I'm sorry - I completely forgot to test the 2x teleconverter with the 20-700 GM II on the A7 IV. I think you may get more use out of the teleconverter than I did. If your photo store allows returns, I encourage you to check one out to see if it does anything for you.

@GlynRDav Glyn, Since you already have an A1, 70-200 GM II, and 200-600, I don't see the 2x teleconverter doing much for you on the A1, but maybe - just maybe on the A9 II.

 

[Landshark99]

You might want to try the TC1.4

 

[-ST-]

You might want to try the TC1.4

Thanks for the thought, Bob.

I didn't feel there was enough benefit with the TC2.0 (compared to cropping). The goal was to get maximum reach, or at least to get some experience with working at 400 mm. I'm not sure the TC1.4 will make enough difference. And for some reason, teleconverters are very hard to find around here.

I'm considering going all in with the 200-600, or maybe go in a completely different direction. The new 50 mm 1.4 GM is getting great reviews. And as much as I'm having a ball with the PZ 16-35 F4, it's a challenge to consistently get good results in the available light indoors.

 

[GlynRDav]

Thanks for all the work you put in to show us this. I have sent the A9 back and swapped for a A7IV. I also don't like swapping lenses in the field and maybe the 70-200 + 2x TC on the A7 and keep the 200-600 on the A1.
BTW, the 200-600 is a really great lens and i am very happy with it. I did try the 1.4 TC on it but loss of another stop was an issue being out early with not so much light. So I gave it to my lady to use with her 100-400 lens (superb) and she is very happy with it

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

If indoors shooting is what you are aiming for with that 50mm GM idea mate, I think you may be better off looking at the 20mm G or the 24mm GM.

 

[-ST-]

If indoors shooting is what you are aiming for with that 50mm GM idea mate, I think you may be better off looking at the 20mm G or the 24mm GM.

Thanks, Clint.
I'll start a new thread for this after I collect my thoughts.
Cheers!

 

[evacguy]

This is mainly for folks who know that I had wanted and just got the 2x teleconverter. If you are wondering how things are going with that new adventure - here's where I am now.

TLDR - after testing for seven days, I returned the 2x teleconverter.
As I headed back to the store, I fully intended to get the 200-600. When I got there, I put the big lens on the A1, checked it out again, got all the way to the check-out, changed my mind, and left empty-handed. I stopped at my favourite camera store on the way back. They had the Sigma 150-600. That was impressive, 30% less than the Sony, but it had an extendable zoom, weighed 200 grams more, and is limited to only 20 frames-per-second on the A1. I may get a 200-600, just not today.

2x Teleconverter impressions
Pluses

• Easier to fill the frame with distant subjects, and this was fun and very satisfying
• I enjoyed experimenting with composition in the new focal range 140-400 mm
• Experimenting with zoom 'compression' at 400 mm was fun
• I liked looking for new photo opportunities at the long end of the 400 mm

Minuses

• Field of view at 140 mm (the wide end) felt limiting, so I had to do more zooming out with my feet and vertical-shot-stitching
• It was harder to locate subjects in the viewfinder in a hurry (I'm sure that would have become easier with practice)
• It was harder to keep birds in flight in the frame (that too would come with time)
• I found it challenging to put on/take off the teleconverter on the go (in the cold)
• The camera with 2x teleconverter and lens would not fit in my ready-to-shoot hip bag. That's nit-picking, but it would eventually mean having to rethink a bunch of things

Interesting

• I learned that I'm more interested in larger birds, animals, landscapes, and oddities that nature deposits on the beach than small birds
• In good light, the difference between F2.8 and F5.6 was immaterial.
• There was very little difference in the depth of field of F2.8 at 200 mm and F5.6 at 400 mm in the shots I took
• I learned a little about chromatic aberration and purple fringing that is visible at times with the 2x teleconverter. I had not seen or noticed it without the teleconverter
• I ended up carrying two cameras because the 140-400 mm was too constraining for opportunistic shooting. I wouldn't do this for my regular two-three hour walks, but with the inclement weather, I was taking shorter walks anyway
  • A1 with 70-200 GM II with 2x Teleconverter
  • A7 IV with PZ 16-35 F4 or 24-105 F4
• I learned that I can tolerate more overall carry weight than I had previously thought
• I found out that I don't like changing lenses in the field
• I got a much better sense of how much of the frame I need to fill to get a decent shot after even extreme cropping, with and without the teleconverter
• Without the teleconverter, I can still get a better look at distance subjects with APS-C mode (I have this programmed to a custom button).

Observations and Learning
For the most challenging situations (small birds in the distance), the 2x teleconverter didn't make enough of a difference compared to extreme cropping, thanks to the 50-megapixel sensor on the A1 and the sharpness of the 70-200 GM II lens. Here are a few examples - note: I wouldn't consider any of these shots keepers.

With 2x teleconverter
Peering at Purple Martins
View attachment 33406

without 2x teleconverter
View attachment 33407
This shot shows how far away these nesting boxes are (cropped to about a 50 mm view)
View attachment 33408

And a look at the cropping (2x teleconverter on top)

View attachment 33409


Still reading?
At 6:00 am this morning, I was happy to keep the 2x teleconverter. Today was the last day I could return it, and I didn't think I would. I enjoyed having things in the distance fill the frame more with the teleconverter. But the past week has been challenging with uncharacteristic cold and snow, so I hadn't really done any head-to-head testing. I set out this morning to do that, and you can see the results above and below. Once I saw these, I realized I could do without the teleconverter, but could reconsider the 200-600.

New nesting boxes for Purple Martins
With 2x teleconverter
View attachment 33410
Without 2x teleconverter
View attachment 33411

Looking at the differences up close (who would do this?). With the teleconverter, you can see the Robertson head screws - good Canadian construction.
View attachment 33412

And street signs - half a kilometre away.
With 2x teleconverter
View attachment 33413
without 2x teleconverter
View attachment 33414

And a look at the cropping (2x teleconverter on top)
View attachment 33415

@evacguy Ed - I'm sorry - I completely forgot to test the 2x teleconverter with the 20-700 GM II on the A7 IV. I think you may get more use out of the teleconverter than I did. If your photo store allows returns, I encourage you to check one out to see if it does anything for you.

@GlynRDav Glyn, Since you already have an A1, 70-200 GM II, and 200-600, I don't see the 2x teleconverter doing much for you on the A1, but maybe - just maybe on the A9 II.

Thanks ST, that is really interesting. I think I prefer your 2x TC images compared to your heavy crops. They seem to have much less noise and are sharper. Its a tough call, but I think the TC is giving you better value on the reach compared to the heavy crop. And I think you are correct when you say that the difference would be more pronounced with the lower resolution of the A7iv. Thanks again, that is really very interesting and you may have increased my leaning towards the TC!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Thanks, Clint.
I'll start a new thread for this after I collect my thoughts.
Cheers!

You know the drill, just buy one of everything...

 

[-ST-]

Thanks ST, that is really interesting. I think I prefer your 2x TC images compared to your heavy crops. They seem to have much less noise and are sharper. Its a tough call, but I think the TC is giving you better value on the reach compared to the heavy crop. And I think you are correct when you say that the difference would be more pronounced with the lower resolution of the A7iv. Thanks again, that is really very interesting and you may have increased my leaning towards the TC!

Hi, Ed,

I agree that the teleconverter is giving me better outcomes than the deep crop. However, these are extreme examples, and except for making these comparisons, I wouldn't consider any of these photos usable. I wouldn't crop this far with or without the teleconverter.

At more moderate crops, maintaining image quality that I would use, there wasn't much to distinguish images with the teleconverter over those without.

It boils down to this - was I getting any shots with the teleconverter that I wouldn't get without it? Maybe, but if so, not many.

If I look at the A1 and 70-200 GM II through the same lens - the answer is much clearer.

 

[-ST-]

You know the drill, just buy one of everything...

You're not helping.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I think the term 'help' is extremely speculative...

 

[Paul stuart]

The 2x looks better than the crop ,as long as you can keep things relative ie not needing to increase your iso by 2 stops all the time to factor in a reasonable shutter speed for sharp images ,the gains are to be had.You may get a better image ,but may need to shoot more to get the better image with the 2x ie longer reach and aperture much smaller may require more iso and higher s/s ,light will need to be optimium unless very static and you can utilize a tripod

 

[Clix Pix]

I just purchased the 70-200 GM II but have no plans to purchase the 2x TC to use with it, as I have both the 100-400mm and the 200-600mm lenses anyway, and also have the 1.4x TC which works very well with each of them, especially in good light. I know I'd never use the 2x TC on either of those lenses and really don't need it for the 70-200 since that range with the 2X is already covered by my 100-400 anyway.

I'm loving the light weight of the 70-200 and the amazing close-focusing ability of it, along with its versatility for general use.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Isn't zoom compression a myth?

 

[-ST-]

Isn't zoom compression a myth?

Hi, Dave,
If you're referring to my comment above

• Experimenting with zoom 'compression' at 400 mm was fun

That's why I put compression in quotes. I had recently read an article - probably this one

What is Lens Compression and How to Use It In Your Photos

photographylife.com

and I knew the term was not accurate but hoped that I could avoid a long exploration of the concept in the bullet point. I should probably have said

• Experimenting with changing the perceived size of foreground subjects and backgrounds, and creating a sense of scale, that you can get with a long(er) telephoto lens and zooming with my feet.

There are also some excellent videos on the subject, and if I can find the one that I had just watched, I'll add a link to it later.

 

[-ST-]

A little update.
About a month after my original post above, I got a great deal on the 2X Teleconverter. That was shortly after I got the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS, and the rationale for getting the 2X teleconverter (despite having returned the previous one) was:

• It would fit on both the 70-200 and 200-600, so I'd get double the utility
• It would be fun to check it out
• Although I thoroughly enjoyed the 200-600, there were times there wasn't enough light (crummy West Coast weather), and occasionally, I found the 200 mm end was too restrictive. So
  • I might like to get more use out of the 70-200 (faster lens, wider at the short end)
  • I could still have some reach with the 2X teleconverter

Here are some comparisons of some very deep crops.

The Derelict Boat that was beached by the tide a few days ago
Without 2X teleconverter on the left, with 2X teleconverter on the right

The crops
Without 2X teleconverter on the top, with 2X teleconverter on the bottom

Guys on the Pier
Without 2X teleconverter on the left, with 2X teleconverter on the right (with apologies for the halos on the left). I didn't notice that I had introduced these with some over zealous sharpening as I tried to improve the lettering on the sign.

The crops
With 2X teleconverter on the top, without on the bottom

Yamaha Waverunner
Without 2X teleconverter on the left, with 2X teleconverter on the right

With 2X teleconverter on the top, without on the bottom

The Warning Sign on the Pier
Without 2X teleconverter on the left, with 2X teleconverter on the right

With 2X teleconverter on the top, without on the bottom

From what I can see, the 2X teleconverter performs well on the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with no significant loss in image quality. For extremely deep crops like the ones above, using the 2X teleconverter can deliver better outcomes.

Now that I've discovered the sharpening and noise-reduction tools in Capture One Pro, I'm more than satisfied with the images I'm getting.

Since I've done a lot of shooting with the 200-600 in the past two months, I've gotten used to shooting with a longer lens. With that experience, my reservations from my first experiences with the 70-200 + 2X teleconverter (in my lead post above) are all resolved.

I've used the 2X teleconverter extensively for the past four days and have come to:

• When I take the 70-200 out for a walk, it's well worth it to bring the 2X teleconverter
  • The main reasons to take the 70-200 instead of the 200-600
    • It's getting warmer, so I'm starting my walks an hour or two before sunrise. That means there's often insufficient light to use the 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS
    • If I walk through town or the local community gardens, the 70-200 is a better choice for street photography. But even if I start there, I often end up on the beach where I appreciate the longer reach (140-400)
• With practice, it's easy to swap the 2X teleconverter on/off the lens, even with gloves on
  • This is due to using the Cotton Carrier system. It allows me to park the lens in the holster and leaves me with two hands free to swap things around. More here: https://www.alphashooters.com/commu...y-harness-for-2-cameras-one-week-review.6362/
• I just did an update to my post about using the 2X teleconverter with the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS

I have the original photos with various crops. If you want to see them, I'd be happy to post them here, but for now, I'll spare you the details and the scrolling.

 

[Gaz]

Swapping in and out the teleconverter, removes, what I feel, is the only advantage of using a zoom lens. 70-200 focal lengths are fully accommodated, and surpassed with wide aperture primes and clear image zoom.

The 200-600 lens has lens dirt attraction features built into that massive sheet of glass. Walk around in a grassy paddock and you’ll see what I mean. Ain’t no way I’m taking that baby off unless I’m back in the car.

 

[-ST-]

Hi, Gary.

Swapping in and out the teleconverter, removes, what I feel, is the only advantage of using a zoom lens. 70-200 focal lengths are fully accommodated,

For me, the 2X teleconverter adds to the versatility of the 70-200. It's not a replacement for the 200-600, but for the size and weight of the 2X teleconverter, it's well worth it to have it with me if the 70-200 is the right lens for a particular outing or event. If gives me options when something interesting is beyond the 200 (plus what I can do in post).

and surpassed with wide aperture primes and clear image zoom.

Clear Image Zoom is interesting, but I shoot RAW, and the precludes using it. However, with the A1, I have plenty of pixels to crop to get similar outcomes.

As for wide aperture primes, I'm not looking at those right now since I'm well covered with these zooms: 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 200-600. Although, I have been considering the 50 mm f/1.2.

The 200-600 lens has lens dirt attraction features built into that massive sheet of glass. Walk around in a grassy paddock and you’ll see what I mean. Ain’t no way I’m taking that baby off unless I’m back in the car.

I walk through all kinds of terrain (sandy beaches, bushes, grassy areas), and I haven't had many issues with dust. I use a blower on the sensor and the lenses several times a week. Interestingly, Capture One Pro just added a feature that uses AI to remove dust spots. It works pretty well.

I haven't found the 200-600 to be more prone to problems with dust. The size of the opening where the lens meets the body is the same for all the E- mount lenses is the same isn't it?

You got me curious, though, so I looked. Peering into the small end of the 70-200 and 200-600 lenses, the area of the glass is much larger in the 70-200 than in the 200-600.

 

[Gaz]

Hi, Gary.

For me, the 2X teleconverter adds to the versatility of the 70-200. It's not a replacement for the 200-600, but for the size and weight of the 2X teleconverter, it's well worth it to have it with me if the 70-200 is the right lens for a particular outing or event. If gives me options when something interesting is beyond the 200 (plus what I can do in post).


Clear Image Zoom is interesting, but I shoot RAW, and the precludes using it. However, with the A1, I have plenty of pixels to crop to get similar outcomes.

As for wide aperture primes, I'm not looking at those right now since I'm well covered with these zooms: 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 200-600. Although, I have been considering the 50 mm f/1.2.


I walk through all kinds of terrain (sandy beaches, bushes, grassy areas), and I haven't had many issues with dust. I use a blower on the sensor and the lenses several times a week. Interestingly, Capture One Pro just added a feature that uses AI to remove dust spots. It works pretty well.

I haven't found the 200-600 to be more prone to problems with dust. The size of the opening where the lens meets the body is the same for all the E- mount lenses is the same isn't it?

You got me curious, though, so I looked. Peering into the small end of the 70-200 and 200-600 lenses, the area of the glass is much larger in the 70-200 than in the 200-600.

I use the mechanical shutter to protect the sensor whenever I want to change lenses, so, I was thinking about the other end. Even with the lens hood mounted I manage to flick up bits of sticks and mud that somehow land on the lens. Walking along with the camera and lens in my hand, on a wrist strap, the lens is down near my calves, so I’m forwever wiping it down.

I love the converter idea, but I’d leave it on all day, once fitted to the lens.