Teleconverter or lens hire

S

Shanks

Messages
138
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Nikon D7100 with a Nikkor 18-300 lens. I'll be at Silverstone for the Moto GP in September and am just looking at options for setup for the day. Last year I had a Canon body and I hired a lens ( Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L ) which worked OK.

I could hire again and if so would probably go for something a bit longer this year, but I wondered if buying a Teleconverter would be a better option. I'd own it but having read some reviews I'm not sure how significant the compromise in quality is.

So the current lens with a 2x converter or a dedicated * - 600 lens?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions
 
I think your own uncertainty, has answered the question, hire the lens.
 
At the long end your lens is f5.6, stick a 2x converter on and you are at f11 meaning your D7100 will be manual focus ... can you cope with that for motorsport?
 
gramps said:
At the long end your lens is f5.6, stick a 2x converter on and you are at f11 meaning your D7100 will be manual focus ... can you cope with that for motorsport?
Click to expand...

In view of this, I'd recommend hiring a decent lens
 
Pretty sure the Nikkor telecons won't fit that lens anyway and the other brands aren't as good optically. That's before you run into the problems associated with ASF at narrow maximum apertures! I know that the Fuji X-T1 can AF happily with an effectively f/11 aperture (using the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and their 2x converter) but I'm less sure about a Nikon 7100. Stewart at lensesforhire.co.uk (@StewartR on this forum) should be able to hire you a lens to suit.
 
You would be better off at 300mm and cropping image after than a tele! I've got an 80-200 2.8 and on a TC the quality is crap!
 
Shanks said:
I have a Nikon D7100 with a Nikkor 18-300 lens... I wondered if buying a Teleconverter would be a better option... I'm not sure how significant the compromise in quality is.
Click to expand...
That would be a very bad idea.

The 18-300 zoom is not designed to work with a TC. You need top-drawer image quality from your lens if it's going to survive the inevitable degradation you'd get with a TC, and that means a prime or a professional zoom such as a 70-200 or a 200-400. Certainly not a super zoom like the 18-300.

If you want to give it a try anyway, Nikon TCs will not fit. A third party TC such as a Kenko might fit, but your maximum aperture with a 2x TC would be f/11 and you have no hope of being able to autofocus.

Sorry.
 
And the kenko iq is soft and rubbish
 
Thanks everyone for replying, that's a pretty comprehensive call in favour of the hire option. Johnnypanic picked up my hesitation and as for trying to manual focus at these events I've not got a chance.

Thanks Nod I'll have a look at Stewart's site and see what options are available.
 
Shanks said:
Thanks everyone for replying, that's a pretty comprehensive call in favour of the hire option. Johnnypanic picked up my hesitation and as for trying to manual focus at these events I've not got a chance.

Thanks Nod I'll have a look at Stewart's site and see what options are available.
Click to expand...

Nikon 80-400 is a great lens, or one of the 150-600s that StewartR has. Get some practise in first though, they can take a little getting used to.

Mark twiglet said:
And the kenko iq is soft and rubbish
Click to expand...

The problem is the quality of the lens you're putting it on, not the Kenko (assuming it's the top range Kenko). All a teleconverter does is enlarge the image it receives. On a really good lens, image quality with a TC can be more than acceptable - it's the big loss of aperture and AF that goes with it that are usually the deal breakers.
 
HoppyUK said:
Nikon 80-400 is a great lens, or one of the 150-600s that StewartR has. Get some practise in first though, they can take a little getting used to.



The problem is the quality of the lens you're putting it on, not the Kenko (assuming it's the top range Kenko). All a teleconverter does is enlarge the image it receives. On a really good lens, image quality with a TC can be more than acceptable - it's the big loss of aperture and AF that goes with it that are usually the deal breakers.
Click to expand...

Just in my experience! I have an80-200 2.8 dual ring zoom and I got a kenko 300 I think it was and it was rubbish! But without my lens is sharp as anything
 
Mark twiglet said:
Just in my experience! I have an80-200 2.8 dual ring zoom and I got a kenko 300 I think it was and it was rubbish! But without my lens is sharp as anything
Click to expand...

That lens dates back to 1986, the film era, and has been superceded twice by 70-200/2.8 versions. Very few lenses from that time have the depth of resolution to hold up well when under the close scrutiny imposed by a teleconverter, even though they might look okay without.
 
I have the 18-300, bought as a cheaper walk about lens for shows etc.
It is a great lens if you accept it's limitations and I wouldn't put a converter on it, just not sharp enough
at full focal length.]
Also have the 80/400 and was out at a local reserve watching kingfishers today, I love this lens, sharp and very quick focus, hire it
 
The 80-400mm is a good choice, but I believe that the sigma/Tamron 150-500's are sharper at the long end so also a good choice. Not sure how AF speed compares though.

The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be another good choice if you can handle the weight, should have enough reach on a crop body but could always add a 1.4xtc.

You could always buy a second hand lens and then sell it after, if you buy wisely you'd probably lose less than renting.

I'm hoping to go myself, but would be going general admission so wanting to wait as late as possible to get an idea of the weather.
 
snerkler said:
The 80-400mm is a good choice, but I believe that the sigma/Tamron 150-500's are sharper at the long end so also a good choice.
Click to expand...
Really? I haven't done any detailed testing, but I'd be very surprised if this was actually the case. The Nikon 80-400 is very, very good.
 
Thanks for the additional comments and sugestions. I have a look and probably go for either the 80-400 or 150-600. Partly depends on how much weight I decide to carry around ;-)
 
StewartR said:
Really? I haven't done any detailed testing, but I'd be very surprised if this was actually the case. The Nikon 80-400 is very, very good.
Click to expand...
I read several user reviews saying so which I didn't take too seriously, but they you look at tests like these, which admittedly you have to take with a pinch of salt especially considering they were tested on different cameras, but it does start adding weight to the argument.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

From this with both at the tele end it would look like the Nikon has a marginal edge in the centre, but the tamron is clearly better in the mid frame and edges. If you take the Tamron back to 500mm it is clearly better throughout. I find mine best at 550mm.

And on similar age comparative sensors
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...n-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1130_834_1263_795


Of course, without testing these side by side for myself I can't say for sure which is why I said that I "believe" that the 150-600mm is better at the long end, but am always happy to corrected (y) As I said, things like this have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I read several user reviews saying so which I didn't take too seriously, but they you look at tests like these, which admittedly you have to take with a pinch of salt especially considering they were tested on different cameras, but it does start adding weight to the argument.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

From this with both at the tele end it would look like the Nikon has a marginal edge in the centre, but the tamron is clearly better in the mid frame and edges. If you take the Tamron back to 500mm it is clearly better throughout. I find mine best at 550mm.

And on similar age comparative sensors
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...n-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1130_834_1263_795


Of course, without testing these side by side for myself I can't say for sure which is why I said that I "believe" that the 150-600mm is better at the long end, but am always happy to corrected (y) As I said, things like this have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to draw too many precise conclusions from tests on different cameras - both pixel counts and different native processing skew things when it's close like that. For my magazine reviews I've tested all these long telezooms side by side on the same camera (yes, Nikon and Canon on same camera - it's not easy ;)) and there's no doubt that the Canon 100-400 is sharpest by a whisker from the Nikon 80-400, and both beat the 150-600s by a small margin - Sigma S is slightly sharper than the Sigma C and Tamron (both too close to call). No surprises there really. However, if the comparison is 400mm on the Canon/Nikon cropped to the same framing as 600mm, then the 150-600s win that one - again, as you'd expect.

TBH though, all that misses the main point. All these lenses are capable of very high sharpness and what you get with the Tamron and Sigma C is amazing for the money. The real difference is the person behind the camera, and in some cases the camera itself because the real challenge is getting the subject in accurate focus, with no camera-shake. The 150-600s in particular take a bit of getting used to in this respect. With that achieved though, they will all deliver very high image quality.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's impossible to draw too many precise conclusions from tests on different cameras - both pixel counts and different native processing skew things when it's close like that. For my magazine reviews I've tested all these long telezooms side by side on the same camera (yes, Nikon and Canon on same camera - it's not easy ;)) and there's no doubt that the Canon 100-400 is sharpest by a whisker from the Nikon 80-400, and both beat the 150-600s by a small margin - Sigma S is slightly sharper than the Sigma C and Tamron (both too close to call). No surprises there really. However, if the comparison is 400mm on the Canon/Nikon cropped to the same framing as 600mm, then the 150-600s win that one - again, as you'd expect.

TBH though, all that misses the main point. All these lenses are capable of very high sharpness and what you get with the Tamron and Sigma C is amazing for the money. The real difference is the person behind the camera, and in some cases the camera itself because the real challenge is getting the subject in accurate focus, with no camera-shake. The 150-600s in particular take a bit of getting used to in this respect. With that achieved though, they will all deliver very high image quality.
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting to hear from someone that's actually tested them. The 150-600mm is a bit of a handful at times, especially when panning or there's a strong wind. It's amazing how much the hood catches the wind and makes it extremely difficult to shoot, I had to take mine off on my recent trip to Bempton Cliffs.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, interesting to hear from someone that's actually tested them. The 150-600mm is a bit of a handful at times, especially when panning or there's a strong wind. It's amazing how much the hood catches the wind and makes it extremely difficult to shoot, I had to take mine off on my recent trip to Bempton Cliffs.
Click to expand...

LOL yes, in my breezy AF tracking tests I had to take the hood off the 150-600s ;)
 
Richard, have you done any comparisons of the Fuji XF range against the opposition? And, if so, what were the results?

I've never really been a fan of teleconverters but after seeing what the Fuji 1.4x was like, I've also bought the 2x. Makes the 100-400 an f/11 max aperture lens but still AF's reasonably fast and retains plenty of sharpness, especially when you consider that it's got an EFL (35mm) of 1200mm. Can't stack the telecons due to physical interference!
 
Nod said:
Richard, have you done any comparisons of the Fuji XF range against the opposition? And, if so, what were the results?

I've never really been a fan of teleconverters but after seeing what the Fuji 1.4x was like, I've also bought the 2x. Makes the 100-400 an f/11 max aperture lens but still AF's reasonably fast and retains plenty of sharpness, especially when you consider that it's got an EFL (35mm) of 1200mm. Can't stack the telecons due to physical interference!
Click to expand...

Sorry, not many Fujis, and nothing relevant to this thread. Dozens of Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Tamron, but only a sprinkling of other brands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top