waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

While I agree they do not improve IQ however a 2X is often needed. I don't use mine where IQ is important but rather to document some I would not be able to otherwise.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

That's weird. How did that end up as two posts?

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Pretty nice, thanks for sharing. :-)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Very well said !

BTW, The Sigma 100-300 f4 does very WELL with TC's also ! I used the Canon 2X II and was astounded ! But today, nobody likes this lens because it is a little heavy and no OS ??

With consumer grade lenses ( XX-300) your best option is to shoot @ 270, stop down to f8, using lowest possible ISO, be well stabilized with proper shutter speed, and CROP and use well applied software pixel enlargement for printing larger prints.

..

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you waegwan! I've used a Nikon 1.4TC with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with great success. In a Canon set-up I tend to use the 2x only with applicable primes to extend to a focal length I can't reach with another lens.

trinhqthuan Loc: gaithersburg

I have Kenko N-AFd 1.5X teleplus SHQ, use on D7100, with Nikkor 75-210mm AF d, 75-300mm AF...
AF is quick, no loosen speed, sharpness (?, nothing I see), at 210mm, 300mm. Note that both lenses' lower f stop are f/5.6 (x1.5 = 8.4) but they all AF fine.
I tested it on all my lenses, AI, AIs, AF, AFd, AFS. All work fine. All my lenses' rear lens does not touch the lens element of the Kenko converter when focus (checked before mounting)

tayho

The simple answer is you will lose some sharpness, the amount varies with the lens converter/combo used. You will also lose an f stop(1.4X) or two(2.0X).

I have a couple pictures for you to compare.
I used a Nikon 70-300 A-FS f4.5-5.6 with a Kenko pro 300 1.4X. Nikon7200. If I remember right it was at 300mm, the last shot is close cropped.

I find the results acceptable, I mostly post on Facebook or view on my iPad, I don’t plan on making large prints.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, they do always degrade the image somewhat. The 1.4x is not very noticeable, but the 2x can sometimes be very noticeable. You have to know the limitations of your equipment. You can't just use a teleconverter to get pictures with great detail of a subject that is twice as far away. They do work fine on subjects that are within range and if the light is good.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

In defense of TC's, here's a quickie unscientific comparison using a Nikon D850 with a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 with and without a NikonTC-14E:

Image 1: Shot with 50mm lens to put things in perspective. Distance to target 100 feet. The white bar code labels is what I'm going to look at.

While there may be some loss of sharpness using a TC, that is overcome by having twice as many pixels on target.

400mm without TC


400mm with 1.4 TC


No TC, zoomed to barcode area, 115,520 pixels on target


with 1.4 TC, 225,675 pixels on target.

graybeard

When I first got my DSLR I got suckered into one of the accessery packages. It included a Vivitar teleconverter that you screwed on the the filter threads. It was pure garbage !! Nothing better than a big blur !! But the wide angle add on was more or less effective. Still, one big waste of money.

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

We might be talking "Apples" and "Oranges" here. There are two kinds of "add-ons" for lenses. In my experience, when a "Tele-Converter" is mentioned, the person is generally meaning a short 'adapter' that is used BETWEEN the regular camera lens...and the camera body. Generally, if the device screws on to the FRONT of the camera lens, just as you would add a Polarizing, etc....filter, then those are not true "Tele-Converters"....I guess I'm not sure what the correct term is for those devices, though.....

trinhqthuan Loc: gaithersburg

The one you screw on in front of your lens like a filter is a 1x, 2x ... close-up filter. A cheap add on your lens to get close up (to replace a Macro/Micro lens).

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

This is actually a good example of how well they can work if the subject isn't too far away. 100 feet isn't too far away. 100 yards is probably too far away.

optic Loc: Southwestern United States

Figuring they would provide cheap reach for wildlife, I have over the years, used several teleconverters. Generally, they will yield acceptable results if you're willing to tolerate some degree of optical loss. Depending on the issues mentioned in other replies, this degree of loss can be conspicuous or negligible. I don't use a teleconverter if I want the image I'm working on to be good enough to post or publish. On the other hand, if I'm simply recording a subject in order to prove or its identity or establish its presence in a certain place or situation, a teleconverter's reach can make the difference between an important image and a wasted trip. However, for a truly successful photograph, crisp is pretty much imperative and tack sharp is desired.

Some of the things I have learned about teleconverters: Newer models tend to be better than older ones. Most teleconverters are designed for and work best if mated with prime lenses --zooming can do strange things with optics. Lens, teleconverter, and camera make the best team when they're all from the same manufacturer. Less magnification tends to work out better than more.

I currently own and sometimes use a late model 2X teleconverter. >95% of my work deals with natural history. I customarily use 105mm and 200mm macro lenses for bugs and a 200-500mm for birds and wildlife. My walk and wade field technique rarely allows carrying a tripod. The 2X won't mate with my 200mm lens but I will carry and use it with the 105 when a sudden change in the situation makes getting an identifiable photograph more important than getting a technically good one. The 2X will also mate with the 200-500mm lens but obviously, the only time that would make sense is to shoot at 500mm --with a tripod. I have, albeit rather casually, tried this in a backyard setting. The results were shruggingly judged as "OK" but enlarging anything shot at 1000mm comes with lots of ifs, ands, and buts. Attempting to use the 2X/500mm combination handheld resulted in photos that can only be described as humorous.