Comparing the XF 1-400 w/ 1.4 and 2 X TC's

[rolf]

Hi all, I  recently bought the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC .

Since I am really impressed with it, I was thinking of also adding the 2X TC .But since the reviews by others were not exactly stellar ,I decided to check it out before buying it.

Well the great folks at my local photo store  were kind enough to open a brand new box and let me take a few shots with it . And since I was there , I thought I might as well also see how  my 18-55 and 55-200 Fuji Zooms would compare .

It was ~ 11AM and overcast sky . All shots were taken from a tripod ,with remote electronic shutter release (to eliminate any human shaking ). The camera (X-E3 )was set at ISO 400  and all lenses with OIS off and auto Aperture on.

1. 18-55 vs. 55-200 :

Just for fun, I wanted to find out how the 18-55 would compare with the  55-200 , both at  55mm(  the only focal length they have in common ) Let me just say that I am very happy with the results I always get from both and I will definitely keep them due to their size, weight and versatility. And since the 18-55 is probably  the most commonly  included "kit" lens, I thought others might find it interesting as well. I took 3 shots ,at different subjects and distances .

Results: the 55-200 (with both lenses at 55mm) is the better lens 

2. 55-200 vs. 100-400 :

With both , I took shots at 100, 150 and 200

Results: at 100-150 mm it's close , but at 200mm the 100-400  is definitely the better lens

3. 100-400 with and without the 1.4 and 2X TC's :

     First : without any TC at 100, 140, 200, 280 , 300 and 400mm

     Second : with 1.4X TC  at 100(140  eq.) 200 (280 eq.) 300( 420eq.) and 400(560eq.)mm

     Third: with 2X  TC  at 100 (200eq) , 200 (400eq,) and 400(800eq) mm

Results with the 1.4X TC :

 when comparing the results at each matching focal length ( w/and without the TC ), they were ALL very, very close, up to ~300mm, even when enlarging the non TC images to the 1.4 X , with just a tad in favor of the lens without the TC .

And at max. 400mm ,  the difference in quality only starts to show up when cropping  both images to well over at least DOUBLE their size (up in 800mm territory )  at which point the 1.4 X starts to earn it's keep .

Results with the 2X TC :

long story short , at ALL focal lengths( even at max. 400mm ) the results taken with just the basic lens and then cropped to match the size taken with the 2X converter were all sharper ( I was very disappointed because I really wanted it for the occasional extra reach )

Conclusion : I am extremely satisfied with this lens and the 1.4 X TC . 

Edited January 9, 2019 by rolf
clarification

[nibbler]

Thanks, this is very helpful. I was using the 50-140 with the 2x and got very disappointing results. Bought the 100-400 and it is absolutely fantastic. Super sharp even at 400. I also bought the 1.4x but haven't needed the extra reach yet.

I might have a bad copy of the 2x, but it significantly softened the images on my 50-140.

[PhilS]

My experience with the 100-400mm with both the 1.4x and 2x converters is very similar. While the results when using the 1.4x at even at full aperture and 400mm are perfectly acceptable for cropping or large prints(A3+), the results with the 2x were always soft, boardering very soft, even when stopped down. I sold the 2x converter.