Using tele-converters: Extra lens compression for tighter portraits
One of the techniques to have your subject really stand out from the background, is to use the longest focal length on your 70-200mm telephoto zoom. One of the first things I do, is to zoom to maximum focal length, and then step backwards to find the composition … and then only zoom wider if necessary. Doing it this way, forces you to use the longest focal length. This compression focuses attention on your subject by creating separation from the background.
To extend the range of my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I always keep a 1.4x teleconverter in my bag. This extra 1.4x boost in focal length gives me reach, or as in this case, that extra compression to help with my photograph’s composition:
The setting
The setting for photographing these two boys, Will and Ian, was this parking area. But I also knew that the sun on the Fall colors would be a fantastic background. The light on them from the front was just the open sky – soft and even. No need for additional light really.
This shows approximately the position I shot from. And again, you can see this is a “nowhere” location. Aside from the glorious colors in the background, there isn’t anything else to work with here.
Comparing the effect of longer focal length
Stepping through a sequence of images, you can see how the longer focal length compresses the photo more and more.
70-200mm lens, used at 135mm
1/250 @ f/5 @ 800 ISO
70-200mm lens, used at 200mm
1/250 @ f/5 @ 800 ISO
70-200mm lens, with a 1.4x teleconverter, to give an effective 280mm focal length.
1/400 @ f/4 @ 800 ISO
I increased the shutter speed to help against camera shake.
With the initial photos, I started at 135mm and progressed to the 200mm end of my 70-200mm lens. But I felt there was still too much of the parking lot’s railings in the photo. I needed tighter framing. So I added a 1.4x tele-converter. The 200mm focal length setting now became an effective 280mm length!
Comparing the last image (shot at 280mm) and image above that (at 200mm), you can see the boys are about the same size in the framing of the photo. By stepping back until I got the framing I wanted of the two boys, my background had now become “enlarged” with the longer focal length. With this tighter framing, I was able to eliminate even more clutter from the background, and have just the two boys against this golden splash of color.
I prefer the 1.4x teleconverter since you only lose a stop, and the f/2.8 becomes an effective f/4 which is still a wide enough aperture to allow a faster shutter speed. A 2x teleconverter loses two stops of light, and that f/2.8 aperture becomes a more modest f/5.6 aperture. Having both a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter handy is great, but given the choice, I would pick the 1.4x first, since it is more useful for portrait photography. Wildlife and Sport photographers will have different needs of course.
With all this in mind, I do keep a 1.4x tele-converter in my camera bag. It is so small that it barely takes up any space. But when I need that extra bit of reach with my longest lens, it is just the thing.
Camera settings & equipment (or equivalents) used for final image
- 1/400 @ f/4 @ 800 ISO – 280mm focal length
- Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR II / Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
- Nikon AF-S TC-14E III Teleconverter / Canon EF 1.4X III Tele-extender
Why don’t you shoot at f2.8 ? I don’t understand the fact that you use the TC !
In the first two images, you can see the two boys weren’t exactly on the same plane of focus. So I needed more DoF than f/2.8 would give me.
Why I used a TC here. Look at the 200mm and 260mm images. The background is “enlarged” in the 260mm image. This allows me to have a less cluttered background. Less of the railing. Less of the trees on the left-hand side.
So as I wanted to show here – most of us think of a tele-converter as a way of getting more reach. To get in closer when our longest lens doesn’t allow us.
But, there’s the side-effect that if you force yourself to stand even further back for the same composition – (you can see the two boys are the same size in the frame between 200mm and 260mm) – then the background becomes “enlarged” and simpler, and you have more choice as to how you frame your subject against the background.
For me, the simpler composition, and the simpler background will usually be the best option.
Since a 1.4 TC is so compact, that it is one of those items that I always keep in my camera case.
You didn’t need to use a reflector to get more light on their faces? Did you use center weighted metering or other partial metering method?
No reflector. No additional light. I did chose this spot specifically because of the open light falling on the two boys. It’s not such a random spot – there’s great available light, and the background looks great. Then add the two cute boys, and there’s no way the photo won’t look really good.
Hi Neil,
Since it’s a 1.4X converter, would you say that someone shooting with a crop sensor camera and a 70-200mm lens would experience a similar effect?
You’d have the same results with regards to how the background appears in size, because the longer focal length will enable you to shoot from a further distance for the same composition.
@kikislater I cannot speak for the OP but I almost never shoot at the maximum aperture. Most lenses in my arsenal are sharpest when they are just below max. My 1.8 is sharper at around 2.8 and so on. My 1.8 is very soft at its maximum, and doesn’t deliver best detail, even in the focus area. This is often true with lenses of all lengths and speeds, in my experience.
This is why I keep my 70-300L around…for that extra compression and for wonderful bokeh. I wish it was faster but for shooting outdoors, it is a stellar lens. I treat it as a constant 5.6 lens and can live with the loss of light/speed.
Someone mentioned reflector: The road does a wonderful job of acting like a reflector and will add some “pop/snap” to the subject in a similar way a silver reflector would.
Patrick: I have both full frame and crop and using a crop will indeed give you extra compression. Not sure if it is the same as a converter. I have experimented with this myself and have found that it will pull the background in closer AND you maintain the larger f stop (you will lose some DoF)
Oh yes, the road and open sky did kick back light from all directions.
Neil. does the converters work on any lens. I would love to use it on my 85 mm nikon 1.8
Charlene … unfortunately not.
You can only use a teleconverter on the longer lenses where the lens’ rear element is recessed deeper inside the body of the lens. Otherwise it will connect with the teleconverter.
Nikon USA used to have a list on their site to show which lenses are compatible with the various Nikon teleconverters. But it is gone now. If anyone knows of a similar list, let us know.
Gorgeous photos Neil. Did you spot meter on the faces? What metering mode did you use? And you usually don’t use a hand held meter right?
Is there any concern with the TCs about softness due to longer focal length? Is it good idea to up the shutter speed to ensure sharp pix with the TCs?
Nope, no spot-metering or hand-held meter. Metering for this is by now more of a reflex. I knew what the settings should approximately be from experience. But, metering properly would be good.
Image softness? I am sure there is minute image degradation, but it is so small, that it is safe to not be concerned about it. Both the Canon and the Nikon 1.4 TC’s are superb.
Neil, when you say metering properly would be good, by that do you mean using a hand held light meter?
The background in that image with the TC looks as smooth as if you took the picture with an 85mm f1.4 lens. But, of course, in that case you would have a very different portion of the background in view.
If you have to step even further back, don’t you have any problems with keeping the kids’ attention at you?
280mm it is. Thanks.
Hi Neil, any thoughts on the 1.7x converter?
Same thought process re loss of light and drop in aperture.
For me, the 1.4x still keeps it within the realms of being useful for portraits.
hey neil, tx so much for the post! one thing i occasionally do is flip my D800/D810 into 1.2 or 1.5 DX mode essentially becoming a built in TC.
lastly, it could be the web compression but these portraits look a bit backfocused to my eye
Most definitely not back-focused.
Neil, I respect all your knowledge about photography but as for this article, I think your thoughts are not correct.
You wrote that “extra 1.4x boost in focal length gives me reach, or as in this case, that extra compression to help with my photograph’s composition”. I think that a telecoverter can’t give any extra compression at all.
A teleconverter just magnifies the central part of the image. So it really works like a crop camera. However, have you ever seen a crop camera that would give an extra compression over a FF camera with the same lens? I suppose you haven’t. Thus you could obtain the same effect by cropping a photograph in PP, there was no need to use a teleconverter.
Actually, nowadays one doesn’t need a teleconverter at all if his or her camera has enough megapixels to make a crop in PP.
In your very case maybe there was some reasoning to use a teleconverter. As far as I know, usually you shoot on a Nikon D4 camera. It has 16 megapixels. A x1.4 crop would leave 11.5 megapixels. It is still enough unless one would prefer to make a print of a very big size.
Alexei .. you are thinking about this purely in terms of the mathematics.
What you aren’t considering, is that in keeping my subjects the same size in my frame, between the two photos (200mm / 280mm), I had to move back. This change in my position, changed my perspective. Hence, the background changes. The background now has become larger. It really did change the final photograph – and there it is, as you can see.
If you stay statically in one point, then zooming or changing lenses, doesn’t change perspective.
This is also why I have such issues with the phrase, “Zoom with your feet”. You can not zoom with your feet, for if you change position, you change perspective. With a zoom however, your perspective doesn’t change by zooming.
I am absolutely agree with you, Neil, that your moving back also changed the perspective.
However, I disagree with you that this change (from 200mm at close distance to the subject to 280mm at longer distance to the subject) gave the extra compression to the photograph. I think it was quite the opposite!
A greater compression usually implies that a subject in focus is isolated greater from the background (BG) and the foreground (FG). The BG and the FG are more blured in this case. A lesser compression means the opposite.
Next, if we move closer to the subject, the bluriness of the BG and the FG will be greater. If we move back, the bluriness will be less.
So you moved back with the 200mm lens. It means that the subjects now won’t be that isolated from the BG and the FG. A teleconverter won’t add any isolation from the BG and the FG (no additional bluriness to them). It will only isolate from the distracting things on the sides of a frame.
And a comparison of a FF+teleconverter to the crop-camera here is plausible.
P.S. Almost at the end of my writing I maybe got your idea and my misunderstanding of you.
Moving back really adds some compression. However, at the same time, a subject’s isolation from the BG and FG becomes less!
I guess, I was misled by your words “The background is “enlarged” in the 260mm image. This allows me to have a less cluttered background. Less of the railing. Less of the trees on the left-hand side”. I understood the “less cluttered background” as a BG with greater bluriness. And you must have meant that you shot between the trees. I am sorry :)
Alexei, I’m not sure your reasoning is correct. If we could obtain the same effect by cropping a photograph in PP, like you say, then you’re basically saying “You can shoot with a wide-angle lens from the same spot, and if your camera has, say, 36 megapixels or even more, you can crop the picture heavily and the photo will look the same as if you shot it with a 280mm lens”. Which, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth.
Do a little test for yourself: shoot something with a 200mm lens and then the same scene with a 50mm lens, and crop the 50mm lens picture so that the subject is of the same size like in the 200mm lens picture. Does everything look the same? I’d say not.
Adding a teleconverter is like using a different, longer lens, and using lenses of various focal lengths has a dramatic impact on how the picture looks. It’s not all about cropping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/exploring-how-focal-length-affects-images–photo-6508
Juraj, I made an additional comment above. Neil must have been right.
At the same time, I think that you are not in your considerations :)
Yes, I really stand that “You can shoot with a wide-angle lens from the same spot, and if your camera has, say, 36 megapixels or even more, you can crop the picture heavily and the photo will look the same as if you shot it with a 280mm lens”.
There is a wide-spread understanding that this is not true but it IS true!
Your second link leads to the photographs with different lenses, however the photographer stepped back each time when he was shooting with a longer lens.
Here you can see a better test – http://podakuni.livejournal.com/651081.html.
If you scroll down there will be 3 animations:
1. Shooting with different lenses from the same spot.
2. Crops of the head from each shot from (1).
3. Shooting with different lenses from different spots so that only a head is in a frame.
So your qoute regards the point #2. Surprisingly (or not), the look of the head shot from all lenses (from 28mm to 300mm) is the same!
And your link regards the point #3. Here there are visible changes in how the head looks.
Alexei,
in that studio test, you’re only looking at a head on a grey background. You can’t see how the background changes. Now imagine if that head was shot outside and there would be trees 20 meters behind it. I can guarantee you that those trees would look very differently in pictures shot with a 28mm lens and 300mm lens.
With that said, if you can make people happy shooting their portraits with a wider lens (and maybe cropping in PP), no one is saying that it’s wrong, or that you can’t do it! At the end of the day, it comes down to whether the person who the picture was made for is happy or not.
I have the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sports so I dont need a teleconverter to get to 280mm;) Its a big lens, but I love it!
Neil, did you notice that Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is not true focal length? Zoom to 200mm is actually about 135mm.
Is that why you adding 1.4 conv. to get background isolation?
The focal length of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II does change when you focus close. But at longer focusing distances, the focal length is more or less what it is designed to be.
In other words, that isn’t why I used the 1.4x T/C here.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the information provided over here. I read your post 2 times . And I am leaning to buy 1.4 TC .I wanted to ask you if 1.4 Tele converter is right for my needs.
I have Nikon D700 + 70-200/ f2.8. My need is to reach better on a night stage event ( live show). ( no Flash allowed)
With 1.4 TC reduce one stop, my lens become f4. Is this going to be fine to cover the event hand held?
Also I like the use case you presented to use TC for potraits. I am going to try this as well. Please advise if this is suitable for my live stage event coverage.
The effective f/4 aperture will be a restriction in any situation where you need faster. That said, f/2.8 telephoto lenses are quite spendy. So the teleconverter is a good alternative … but it does come with that penalty.
For faster shooting during a photo session, just stay with the regular 70-20mm lens. The longer focal lengths would slow anyone down … unless there is specific intent.