Teleconverters ?

Nice moon shot. That was exactly my thinking, go with a 1.4 and crop. Nikon have released a new 1.4 although not sure how much better it is than the old one.
 
The one I have is the 1.4x II, the III is almost €100 more over here. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I'd say it's better coatings on the glass maybe? Possibly faster AF, though with the older one I barely notice any difference in AF using that lens at least
 
Last edited:
Some time ago when considering buying a converter to use with my Nikon 70/200 2.8 I did quite a lot of research the general consensus of opinion seemed to be 1.4 best image quality, 2.0 obviously highest magnification, with the 1.7 being a useful compromise so I purchased the 1.7 and have been very happy with it, there is some slight falloff in image quality but not enough to worry me.
 
@J H Foto - Why don't you just ask your question? You've been referring to things you've read on other forums and pictures you've seen on the internet, as if you're trying to make some point, but I can't work out what that point is. I feel sure you're not just in search of abstract knowledge. So... What is your question? What is it you really want to know?
 
Thanks for your interest in my predicament :) All sorted now....:hug:
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
I found the Nikon 2x TC III quite disappointing.
Click to expand...
Lens/TC combinations can be "camera specific"... I had some combinations my D800 just didn't work well with. I also found that if AFMA is used it may have to be adjusted if the working distance is significantly different. I'm of the opinion many seriously underestimate the technique required to work with the really long FL lenses.
Garry Edwards said:
Horses for courses.
As others have said, a modest (1.4 mag) teleconverter on a good, fast lens may be worthwhile, but a 2 x converter on a cheap zoom won't.
So, if you have a real need for a longer lens on a regular basis, it would be best just to buy it rather than bodge it, and in many cases it will be better to buy a cheap long lens than to use a teleconverter.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I've gone a different route. After owning/using many of the lenses (Sig 300-800 f/5.6, Nikon 600 f/4, 500 f/4, 400 f/2.8) I am down to using the 400 f/2.8 and TC's for a multitude of reasons. One of them being that if there is an IQ loss between the 400 w/ 1.4x compared to the 600 f/4, it's less than a stop and indistinguishable by f/8 (which is where I usually want to be).

These are both hard crops taken at 800mm

f/7.1
SGK_0779-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

f/8
DSC_0190-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr
 
I found the Nikon 2x TC III quite disappointing.
Click to expand...
I agree with Steve. It depends on what you're mounting onto it. You're effectively magnifying, i.e. cropping, a central portion of the image by 4x area so with even the best 2x TCs the main lens has to be very, very good. This usually means a large aperture prime although there are one or two notable zoom exceptions, the latest Canikon 70-200mm f2.8 for instance. When shooting Sony, I found that the 200mm F2.8 Minolta prime, which is superbly sharp, worked well with a Sony 2x TC.
 
Last edited:
There's always the argument for cropping over extending. As far as I know, a TC doesn't 'crop' exactly, rather extends your focal length, you can always crop on top of that. Whereas if you simply shot to crop to begin with, you're going to have to crop a lot more, losing more quality IMO. But there's a balance, which is why I only use a 1.4x - I only use a TC when I'm shooting subjects I normally wouldn't fill frame with without very heavy crops. I don't use it for portraits for example. If I want that compressed feel to a portrait, I'd rather just use the 300mm and crop if really needed later. But for outdoor/wildlife/semi-macro of small things .. the TC will give you that extra reach [and closer focus ability] without having to worry so much about cropping later. For me, a 1.4x with a light crop is better than a 2.0x with a lesser crop. If that makes any sense?
 
Last edited:
Horses for courses...
If you add a TC the lens *becomes* a different lens. i.e. w/ a 2x on my 400 f/2.8 it is literally an 800mm f/5.6... it has the magnification, FOV, and DOF of an 800mm f/5.6. The only difference is that it retains the minimum focus distance of the 400mm.

Everything is a tradeoff. If you choose to crop (or use DX/DX mode) you get to use a lower ISO, Faster SS, or a sharper aperture which may mean the final result will be "better," assuming you have enough pixels remaining. On the other hand, if you choose to use a TC/longer TC you will have to use a higher ISO, slower SS, or wider aperture. But you have more pixels to work with (down sample) and the final image could be "better," particularly for larger display.

I use TC's when the light allows me to also use an acceptable ISO and stopped down; usually the 2x III. After that it's time to start trading off... Usually I use the D810 and will step down in TC power to get better results (subject dependent)... when I get to DX crop required I switch to the D4 and higher TC power because the D4 does so much better in high ISO noise (at 1:1). Then I start stepping down the TC's again...

But it also depends on if I'm handholding (typically), can use flash effectively (seldom), where my SS is (1/ 2xFL min desired), what size I want, how badly I want it, etc, etc,...
 
"Horses for courses" - I think I'll agree on that.

I mean, I can't exactly over promote TCs as mine is up for sale :D - I never mind a bit of a crop, never mind using a TC either - whichever will suit me best at the time. I'm just not using my TC, would rather see it go to a better home :/
 
long lens probably alright, TC17II works superbly well with 70-200 VRII, no appreciable degradation over the focus range.

but on the mid zoom lens or wide-ish lenses...its garbage. Put it on my 28-70mm and 18-35mm (all nikons) the image is horrendously poor...soft, massive amount of fringing....color and contrast all suffered badly. also the body struggled to focus.

TC "i think" is meant for normal zoom lenses or wide angle lenses..
 
This was taken with Nikon D5300 + Tamron SP 70-300 - Kenko 1.4 Teleplus DGX = 420mmView attachment 23273
 
The D5300 has a DX sensor, so if you used 300mm, it would be approx 630mm in conventional 35mm terms
 
Michael D Beckwith said:
I am thinking of getting the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens which on my cropped body APS-C camera would be 112x320mm, with an 1.4 extender added that would become equivalent 157-448mm which would be great for shooting sports. Are there any significant downfalls with that setup that you can think of? I want as much feedback before I decided to invest in the lens and extender.
Click to expand...

I realise this isn't the same lens but it's similar....I have a kenko 1.4 and 2x dgx and they both work fine with my tamron 70 - 200 2.8vc on 5d2/7d, the results are ok. I mainly tend to use them with my 100l macro though and I've been much happier using them with that.

In case this has any bearing on things at all they work fine all in the way across the range in good light with my tamron 70-300vc as well (using 5d2/7d) but I only really used that combo for testing (spend most of my photography time taking macros).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top