Sony 2.0 TC

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

sh1209

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
When I first started with Sony I purchased a used 2.0 TC to use with the 200–600 lens and absolutely hated the performance and image quality. Now that I have several better lenses, I decided to purchase another one from Amazon a couple days ago mainly to use with my 70–200, 100–400 and perhaps occasionally the 600 mm GM. The last couple days I haven’t had the best of lighting or weather conditions but it seems to do really well with a 70–200 and I’m sort of mixed with a 100–400 but I’ll keep messing with that lens, one of the main reasons I bought it, especially with a 70–200 shooting insects. Never really used tele converters much in the past to shoot longer distances only to get the subject bigger in the frame at the same distance. I’m just curious to hear from people that have had this for a while and used it for a while. Id like to hear your thoughts and if you do find it useful or if it’s just a waste of $600.
 
Member's gallery
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I use the 2x from time to time but only on the 400 and 600GM. If you have the 100-400 why bother with a 2x on a 70-200? The 100-400 will be sharper and same f stop.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
I use the 2x from time to time but only on the 400 and 600GM. If you have the 100-400 why bother with a 2x on a 70-200? The 100-400 will be sharper and same f stop.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s what has me second guessing it lol. The 70-200 IQ is incredible with the bare lens but wish the MFD was a bit less. You are right though, the 100-400 is also an incredible lens
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Yeah that’s what has me second guessing it lol. The 70-200 IQ is incredible with the bare lens but wish the MFD was a bit less. You are right though, the 100-400 is also an incredible lens
Click to expand...
The 1.4 plays nice on the 100-400. I’ve also used extension tubes when needed however for wanting depth of field it’s often better to not be as close and take advantage of the higher MP and crop a little. This helps with being able to use a more wide open f stop and still have plenty of the subject in focus.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
The 1.4 plays nice on the 100-400. I’ve also used extension tubes when needed however for wanting depth of field it’s often better to not be as close and take advantage of the higher MP and crop a little. This helps with being able to use a more wide open f stop and still have plenty of the subject in focus.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 1.4 does nicely with nearly every lens Sony has other than the 200–600 I did buy a set of extension tubes last year but really haven’t had the chance to try them out much. I might give them a try the next couple days and see how they do.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Yeah, 1.4 does nicely with nearly every lens Sony has other than the 200–600 I did buy a set of extension tubes last year but really haven’t had the chance to try them out much. I might give them a try the next couple days and see how they do.
Click to expand...
It takes a bit to figure out which tube or combo for your distance but they greatly increase how close you can get.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
It takes a bit to figure out which tube or combo for your distance but they greatly increase how close you can get.
Click to expand...
It was a relatively cheap set like $40 but got good reviews. That 70-200 is just so good as far as IQ and if I could get just a bit closer it would be great. I tried that F/4 lens and didn’t like it.
 
Member's gallery
There are only two lenses I was sort of happy with the 2xTC performance...those were the 70-200II and the 300GM. I've been able to get nice shots with it on the 400GM and 600GM but I just don't trust the AF hit rate of it and I don't like going out in the field to deliberately shoot non-action with the 2x as I never know when something cool will happen requiring AF to be at its best. I found it better on 600GM than 400GM...which doesn't really make sense as 400GM still allows f/5.6 light vs f/8 but it is what it is.

In most of my testing, cropping an image that much deeper to get the final FOV that you would get with the 2xTC got me an equivalent or better image. My 2xTC was collecting dust until I got to use it with the 300GM....where it absolutely shines.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
There are only two lenses I was sort of happy with the 2xTC performance...those were the 70-200II and the 300GM. I've been able to get nice shots with it on the 400GM and 600GM but I just don't trust the AF hit rate of it and I don't like going out in the field to deliberately shoot non-action with the 2x as I never know when something cool will happen requiring AF to be at its best. I found it better on 600GM than 400GM...which doesn't really make sense as 400GM still allows f/5.6 light vs f/8 but it is what it is.

In most of my testing, cropping an image that much deeper to get the final FOV that you would get with the 2xTC got me an equivalent or better image. My 2xTC was collecting dust until I got to use it with the 300GM....where it absolutely shines.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a nice lens and almost one a person could use to replace the 600GM. The weight savings would be great for me but hard to let the 600 go😆
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
That sounds like a nice lens and almost one a person could use to replace the 600GM. The weight savings would be great for me but hard to let the 600 go😆
Click to expand...
I'm planning to replace my 400GM with the 300GM. As soon as the 400GM sells (which may take a while as I'm limiting the sale to Canada). I'm keeping the 600GM for sure.

If anyone is in Canada and looking for a minty fresh 400GM with extras you can see my selfish plug here 😇:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1854827/
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
... I did buy a set of extension tubes last year but really haven’t had the chance to try them out much. I might give them a try the next couple days and see how they do.
Click to expand...
Some lenses do poorly when displaced from the flange distance they were designed for; a stellar lens w/o extension tubes could show significant chromatic abberation when displaced.
 
Member's gallery
I have the same setup in Nikon Z. I originally bought the Z 70-200 f2.8 and then got a Z 2x teleconverter. They work well together. Most recently I got the Z 180-600 f5.6-6.3 so I stopped using the 2x, since I can use the new lens instead. I suspected the 2x would not work well on the longer lens and I did one set of test shots which proved my suspisions are correct. I imagine your Sony setup is the same.

I do not own the Z 100-400 but if you have the Sony 100-400 then there is little reason to keep the 2x for your 70-200. The only possible reason is if you want to travel light and take just the 70-200 and the 2x to add when you need a longer lens.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
I have the same setup in Nikon Z. I originally bought the Z 70-200 f2.8 and then got a Z 2x teleconverter. They work well together. Most recently I got the Z 180-600 f5.6-6.3 so I stopped using the 2x, since I can use the new lens instead. I suspected the 2x would not work well on the longer lens and I did one set of test shots which proved my suspisions are correct. I imagine your Sony setup is the same.

I do not own the Z 100-400 but if you have the Sony 100-400 then there is little reason to keep the 2x for your 70-200. The only possible reason is if you want to travel light and take just the 70-200 and the 2x to add when you need a longer lens.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking as well. I will most likely send it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top