Teleconverters

P

panthro

Messages
131
Name
Mr B
Edit My Images
Yes
What are they exactly? :shrug:

From what Ive gathered, they can extend the range on a telephoto lens. Is that correct?
I have a Nikon D90 and have also read that the Nikon teleconverters are quite good compared to other brands.
Cheers :)
 
They are a cheaper way of increasing the focal length of a lens, usually either by 1.4x or 2x. The penalty is that you lose one stop of f/number with 1.4x and two stops with 2x.

For example, a 200mm f/4 lens would become 280mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/8. With most cameras if the f/number goes higher than f/5.6 you will lose auto-focus.

They work best with longer lenses, eg 200mm-plus, of high quality. Even then, there is a noticeable loss of sharpness. Most people agree that 1.4x is okay, but 2x is pushing your luck.
 
Thanks :)

So if I had for example, a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens, and I added a 1.4x teleconverter onto it, I would have a 98-280mm f4?
 
Yes you are correct Luke.

Remember two things though:

1) Not all lenses will take Nikon TC's

2) As well as loosing a stop of light, there is degradation of image quality too, although most consider a 1.4x TC to be acceptable in terms of loss.
 
panthro said:
Thanks :)

So if I had for example, a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens, and I added a 1.4x teleconverter onto it, I would have a 98-280mm f4?
Click to expand...

Yes, but be sure to check that the lens in question is compatible with the particular TC. in a worst case scenario the combination may not work, but also cause damage.
 
Thanks guys.
I would love a 70-300 f2.8 or similar but dont have the money. Im going to save for a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, maybe buy second hand and take it from there. Im hoping that I will find the 200mm range more than enough for me.
 
Well, the only thing thats close to your 70-300 2.8 dream is the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

All the 70-300's are basically consumer tele's, if you want quality then you don't get that much focal range - well, to give you an example of what it takes to keep both quality, range and length, check out the Nikon 200-400....
 
Thanks desantnik, I will investigate the sigma 120-300 2.8 and the Nikon 200-400.
Ive currently only got 1 lens, which is the 18-105 kit lens. I want to work on my wildlife and zoom photography so I think I will stick with the kit lens and invest in the telephoto :)
 
If you want to get a cheap and reasonable start, why not look for a second hand Nikon 70-300 VR? They go for about £300 quid on here. Its not f2.8, but it will give you a chance to experiment with a long lens.

The 200-400 comment was not really meant to give you shopping ideas, it was to give you an idea of what a quality long zoom costs :D
 
desantnik said:
If you want to get a cheap and reasonable start, why not look for a second hand Nikon 70-300 VR? They go for about £300 quid on here. Its not f2.8, but it will give you a chance to experiment with a long lens.

The 200-400 comment was not really meant to give you shopping ideas, it was to give you an idea of what a quality long zoom costs :D
Click to expand...
I just checked the price on one and realised :D Not cheap at all!
I suppose I could see how the 70-300 goes and sell it at a later date to fund a 2.8 version?
 
panthro said:
I just checked the price on one and realised :D Not cheap at all!
Click to expand...

But what a lens :D, rarely off my D300, and will take the 1.4 and 1.7TC, but the cost does not stop there, you then need a good tripod and head with lenses of this weight.

For £300 the 70-300VR is going to see you well, nice and compact, no need for a tripod, and produces good images.

The 70-300 VR will not take the TC's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top