My teleconverter experience: I took some rodeo photos with my D7200, Nikon 18-200mm zoom and a generic 2x teleconverter. Some of the photos were so over exposed that you could barely...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I took some rodeo photos with my D7200, Nikon 18-200mm zoom and a generic 2x teleconverter. Some of the photos were so over exposed that you could barely see any detail. When I processed the RAW I did an AUTO correction and voila, they were all recovered. No such issue without the converter. Probably a mechanical issue with the converter. My surprise came to see that the photos were recovered at all.

Ed Commons

At least you have good news. I have used Teleconverters since there was this thing called film. Mostly I have had good luck. Generally when you place something between your lens and the camera a there is some loss of sharpness.

Most viewers won't notice this. But the greater the enlargement, the more a discering eye will see.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

gvarner wrote:

I took some rodeo photos with my D7200, Nikon 18-200mm zoom and a generic 2x teleconverter. Some of the photos were so over exposed that you could barely see any detail. When I processed the RAW I did an AUTO correction and voila, they were all recovered. No such issue without the converter. Probably a mechanical issue with the converter. My surprise came to see that the photos were recovered at all.

No iris stop down for some reason.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

gvarner wrote:

I took some rodeo photos with my D7200, Nikon 18-200mm zoom and a generic 2x teleconverter. Some of the photos were so over exposed that you could barely see any detail. When I processed the RAW I did an AUTO correction and voila, they were all recovered. No such issue without the converter. Probably a mechanical issue with the converter. My surprise came to see that the photos were recovered at all.

I'm surprised that with all Nikon equipment you went with a generic extender. I'm sure price had something to do with it and that's understandable.
I have a Tamron 150-600 G2 and I bought the matching 1.4 extender. Haven't tried it much but auto focus is hit or miss so far

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I'm surprised that with all Nikon equipment you went with a generic extender. I'm sure price had something to do with it and that's understandable.
I have a Tamron 150-600 G2 and I bought the matching 1.4 extender. Haven't tried it much but auto focus is hit or miss so far

Since an 18-200 DX lens is physically incompatible with any Nikon teleconverter, you'd make the mistake of working around this limitation with 3rd party equipment.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I'm surprised that with all Nikon equipment you went with a generic extender. I'm sure price had something to do with it and that's understandable.
I have a Tamron 150-600 G2 and I bought the matching 1.4 extender. Haven't tried it much but auto focus is hit or miss so far

I got the extender when I bought my D7000. Never gave quality a consideration. I was pretty new to DSLR's at the time.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

gvarner wrote:

I took some rodeo photos with my D7200, Nikon 18-200mm zoom and a generic 2x teleconverter. Some of the photos were so over exposed that you could barely see any detail. When I processed the RAW I did an AUTO correction and voila, they were all recovered. No such issue without the converter. Probably a mechanical issue with the converter. My surprise came to see that the photos were recovered at all.

Have you thoroughly tested your 18-200 zoom without the convertor? These lenses are notorious for internal ribbon cable failures. Sometimes it affects exposure, sometimes one of the other functions. There doesn't seem to need to be a specific cause of the failure. Usually starts as an intermittent problem, then fails completely. I have one of these lenses right now that I'm looking for someone willing to see if repair is possible. Parts have not been available for a long time.

JR69 Loc: Wolverine Michigan

All these responses are possible reasons for your issue, but as I was told 40+ years ago: "The only thing that stands between what you see and what you are trying to capture and your film or sensor is your glass. Choose it wisely.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

larryepage wrote:

Have you thoroughly tested your 18-200 zoom without the convertor? These lenses are notorious for internal ribbon cable failures. Sometimes it affects exposure, sometimes one of the other functions. There doesn't seem to need to be a specific cause of the failure. Usually starts as an intermittent problem, then fails completely. I have one of these lenses right now that I'm looking for someone willing to see if repair is possible. Parts have not been available for a long time.

I have used this lens for years on my D7000 and D7200. Had the same problem years ago when I used the extender on my D7000 at another rodeo so I’m figuring it’s the extender itself. I think it’s just not maintaining adequate contact when it’s mounted or else jiggles loose a bit. I rarely use it so it’s not a real big issue for me.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

gvarner wrote:

I have used this lens for years on my D7000 and D7200. Had the same problem years ago when I used the extender on my D7000 at another rodeo so I’m figuring it’s the extender itself. I think it’s just not maintaining adequate contact when it’s mounted or else jiggles loose a bit. I rarely use it so it’s not a real big issue for me.

My wife has one that I bought her about 15 years ago. I have one that came in a box of stuff 5 years ago. Mine failed. Ribbon cable. As I've been trying to get mine fixed, trying to find donor lenses for parts or even a working one for a replacement, what I find are incredible numbers of dead ones with the same failure as mine. It's usually the VR, but everything is in one ribbon cable.

JBuckley

That's good info.

I haven't looked at teleconverters, yet.

The thought of actually, "doubling" the ability of my favorite
lenes, sounds great, instead of spending a ton of $$ on
a 500 mm lens, (which I cannot afford).

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

JBuckley wrote:

That's good info.

I haven't looked at teleconverters, yet.

The thought of actually, "doubling" the ability of my favorite
lenes, sounds great, instead of spending a ton of $$ on
a 500 mm lens, (which I cannot afford).

It looks like a prime telephoto with an extender made for that lens is the best way to go for both compatibility and quality. Zoom lenses, not so much.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JBuckley wrote:

That's good info.

I haven't looked at teleconverters, yet.

The thought of actually, "doubling" the ability of my favorite
lenes, sounds great, instead of spending a ton of $$ on
a 500 mm lens, (which I cannot afford).

The community is left unsure of which reply contained anything like "good info". Teleconverters aka extenders are limited in which specific lenses and which specific camera models are technically compatible, whether to physically attach the extender to the lens, or whether the resulting configuration retains AF on the intended camera. All these potential pitfalls should be carefully investigated before spending any money on incompatible equipment.

Harry13

CHG_CANON wrote:

The community is left unsure of which reply contained anything like "good info". Teleconverters aka extenders are limited in which specific lenses and which specific camera models are technically compatible, whether to physically attach the extender to the lens, or whether the resulting configuration retains AF on the intended camera. All these potential pitfalls should be carefully investigated before spending any money on incompatible equipment.

I have some info, not sure how good it is, prolly not worth anything as it's just my experience. Many years ago I picked up a 1.4 extender for my Canon 70-300. Used it maybe 1/2 dozen times, turns out 300 is enough for me. It lives in a drawer somewhere in my home office. Harry

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Harry13 wrote:

I have some info, not sure how good it is, prolly not worth anything as it's just my experience. Many years ago I picked up a 1.4 extender for my Canon 70-300. Used it maybe 1/2 dozen times, turns out 300 is enough for me. It lives in a drawer somewhere in my home office. Harry

Here's an example where only a 3rd party 'extender' could be used with any of Canon's various 70-300 models. The Canon lenses don't have space at the lens rear for the Canon extenders to literally 'extend' into / inside the lens when attached. Moreover, losing 1-stop of light for a lens that closes to f/5.6 at the 300mm focal length may disable the AF capability for most of Canon's older DSLR models. So, negative image quality impact and loss of AF is a possible / likely outcome of this configuration.