Don’t Be Afraid of 2x Teleconverters
Why I Actually Recommend the Fujifilm 2X Teleconverter
I just wrapped a couple of videos on Fujifilm’s 7.10 firmware for the X‑H2S, and one question kept coming up in the comments: why do I recommend the Fujifilm 2X teleconverter so often, especially when so many people say “2X converters kill image quality”?
Short answer: because they give you a perspective you can’t get any other way without spending a lot more money on a much bigger, heavier lens. And for video especially, that trade‑off is usually worth it.
This post is a companion to the video where I take the 2X out alongside the 70–300mm and 150–600mm at sunset, shooting photos and video out by the river with the George Washington Bridge in the background. If you want to see the side‑by‑side clips and sample frames, watch the video and come back here for the breakdown.
Setting the Stage: 150–600mm vs 70–300mm
To make sense of why the 2X is so useful, it helps to compare two lenses I use a lot:
Fujifilm XF 150–600mm – big, long, and fast enough for wildlife and sports, but not exactly travel‑friendly. Around f/5.6–f/8 at the telephoto end.
Fujifilm XF 70–300mm – compact, light, and sharp. f/4–5.6 at the telephoto end, and one of my top three personal lenses.
On Fuji’s 1.5x crop sensor, those focal lengths translate to roughly:
150–600mm → 225–900mm full‑frame equivalent
70–300mm → 105–450mm full‑frame equivalent
Already a lot of reach, especially in that small 70–300mm package.
The Real Power Move: Adding the 2X Teleconverter
Here’s where it gets interesting.
When you put the Fujifilm 2X teleconverter on the 70–300mm:
It becomes a 140–600mm lens on Fuji (about 210–900mm full‑frame equivalent).
That puts it in the same effective range as the 150–600mm, but in a fraction of the size and weight.
Visually, the difference is wild. The 150–600mm is a serious piece of glass that doesn’t fit easily into most backpacks. The 70–300mm + 2X combo? Slips right in.
Yes, you lose light. A 2X converter doubles your effective f‑number, so:
f/5.6 at 300mm becomes roughly f/11 at 600mm
f/4 at 70mm becomes roughly f/8 at 140mm
That matters for low light and autofocus, but in good light—or when you’re willing to push ISO—it opens up a ton of creative options.
Image Quality: The “2X Is Bad” Myth
A lot of photographers avoid 2X teleconverters because they’ve heard the image quality hit is brutal. There is a trade‑off, no question. But two things get overlooked:
You’re buying perspective, not pixel‑perfect sharpness.
Even with some softness, you can now frame subjects you simply couldn’t reach before. Crop in further in post, and you still have compositional options you didn’t have without the TC.On the 70–300mm, the IQ drop is surprisingly small.
Compared to the 100–400mm and even the 150–600mm, the 70–300mm + 2X holds up really well. My guess? Less glass for the light to travel through, but I don’t have the optics PhD to prove it. In practice, unless you’re pixel‑peeping at 100%, the results are very usable.
For video, this is even less of an issue. Video is naturally softer than stills, you’re grading and often sharpening in post, and most viewers are watching on phones or laptops, not inspecting 100% crops.
1.4X vs 2X: When Does It Make Sense?
I also own the Fujifilm 1.4X teleconverter that comes with the 200mm f/2. That’s a special, higher‑grade version with more elements and tighter weather‑sealing specs, and it costs around $900 on its own.
In real use, though, I haven’t seen a huge image quality difference between that pro‑grade 1.4X and a standard 1.4X on the lenses I’ve tested. The 1.4X gives you:
Less reach than the 2X
Less light loss (f/4 → ~f/5.6 instead of f/8)
Generally sharper results, especially wide open
If you’re shooting high‑end sports or wildlife where every stop of light and every bit of sharpness matters, the 1.4X is a great tool. But for travel, landscapes, casual wildlife, and run‑and‑gun video, the 2X on the 70–300mm is hard to beat for the price and size.
Real‑World Testing at Sunset
In the video, I take both lenses out as the sun is dropping, shooting:
Ships on the river
Traffic on the George Washington Bridge
Distant buildings and towers through heavy air pollution
Quick video clips in F‑Log2 to test AF and usable sharpness
A few observations from that session:
Reach is transformative. At 1,800mm full‑frame equivalent (150–600mm + 2X), distant subjects suddenly feel close. Even with some IQ degradation, the perspective is something you can’t replicate by cropping alone.
Air pollution matters. A lot of the “softness” and haze you see in the frames isn’t just the teleconverter; it’s the atmosphere. On a clear day, these setups will look significantly better.
Autofocus gets picky at small apertures. Once you’re effectively at f/11–f/14 with a 2X on a telephoto, AF slows down and can struggle, especially in lower light. Subject detect still works, but it’s not magic.
Video still looks good. Even with the 2X on, the clips are perfectly usable for B‑roll, travel vlogs, and documentary work. Most viewers won’t notice the slight softness, especially after grading and uploading to YouTube.
Who Should Actually Buy a 2X Teleconverter?
A 2X teleconverter makes the most sense if:
You already own or plan to get the 70–300mm (or similar mid‑range telephoto)
You shoot a lot of travel, landscapes, or casual wildlife and want extra reach without more bulk
You do video work where perspective and framing matter more than absolute sharpness
You’re okay shooting in good light or pushing ISO when needed
It’s not the right tool if:
You need consistent f/2.8 or f/4 at long focal lengths
You’re shooting fast action in low light and rely on pinpoint AF
You’re heavily pixel‑peeping andneed the absolute best corner‑to‑corner sharpness at all times
Final Thoughts
Teleconverters—especially 2X—get a bad reputation. But they’re a classic example of a tool that’s “imperfect” on paper and incredibly powerful in practice.
With the Fujifilm 2X on the 70–300mm, you get:
Near 900mm full‑frame equivalent reach
A setup that actually fits in a normal bag
Image quality that’s more than good enough for social, web, and most client work
A whole new set of perspectives for both photos and video
If you want to see a follow‑up in cleaner air, with more controlled side‑by‑side comparisons (or even testing on a GFX body), let me know in the comments. Otherwise, this is the setup I’m reaching for more and more when I want serious reach without the serious weight.
