teleconverter v new lens: just started back into photography for personal enjoyment. have 5100 w kit 18-55 lens. any thoughts about getting a little more range w teleconverter v...

rready

just started back into photography for personal enjoyment. have 5100 w kit 18-55 lens. any thoughts about getting a little more range w teleconverter v telephoto lens...any thoughts about value/negatives of teleconverters.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Like everything else in photography it's a trade off. A nikon 1.7 teleconverter is going to cost about 420 dollars while a 28-300 mm lens will set you back about 950. The disadvantage of a teleconverter is that your 3.5 maximum lens will become f/5.0 to 6.8 and will only bring your effective focal length to 96 mm.
If you not confused yet, I am. In anycase I'd look for another lens. You can probably pick up one of these lenses all from Nikon: 55-300 about 400 dollars, 70-300 600 dollars or if you're flush with cash 70-200 f.2.8 for 2300.
My advise for what it's worth. Buy another lens that fits in your budget.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

rready wrote:

just started back into photography for personal enjoyment. have 5100 w kit 18-55 lens. any thoughts about getting a little more range w teleconverter v telephoto lens...any thoughts about value/negatives of teleconverters.

A teleconverter would be a total waste of time with your lens, its simply too slow. Your best bet for the money with that body is probably the Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm VR lens.

snowbear

MT Shooter wrote:

A teleconverter would be a total waste of time with your lens, its simply too slow. Your best bet for the money with that body is probably the Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm VR lens.

Additionally, this lens will not physically mount to the Nikon TCs. I can't say about other makes.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

snowbear wrote:

MT Shooter wrote:

A teleconverter would be a total waste of time with your lens, its simply too slow. Your best bet for the money with that body is probably the Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm VR lens.

Additionally, this lens will not physically mount to the Nikon TCs. I can't say about other makes.

Just for fun I put a 18-55mm kit lens on a Tamron N-AF 2x and mounted it to my D90. The combo actually worked, as well as autofocused, but the pictures were (putting it mildly) crap, underexposed and focus was way off. Had to find out first hand is all.

snowbear

MT Shooter wrote:

Just for fun I put a 18-55mm kit lens on a Tamron N-AF 2x and mounted it to my D90. The combo actually worked, as well as autofocused, but the pictures were (putting it mildly) crap, underexposed and focus was way off. Had to find out first hand is all.

That's what I like to hear - experiments and testing.
:thumbup:

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

snowbear wrote:

MT Shooter wrote:

Just for fun I put a 18-55mm kit lens on a Tamron N-AF 2x and mounted it to my D90. The combo actually worked, as well as autofocused, but the pictures were (putting it mildly) crap, underexposed and focus was way off. Had to find out first hand is all.

That's what I like to hear - experiments and testing.
:thumbup:

Here are the pics I took with that setup. Had my D90 on a tripod with a Sigma 50-500mm trained on an eagle perch. Beautiful sunny day today, but the eagles didn't show up.

I mis-spoke before, it was my D7000 I tried the combo on. Results were crappy anyway!

18-55mm at 18mm with 2x converter

18-55mm at 55mm with 2x converter

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

rready wrote:

just started back into photography for personal enjoyment. have 5100 w kit 18-55 lens. any thoughts about getting a little more range w teleconverter v telephoto lens...any thoughts about value/negatives of teleconverters.

Here's a perfect zoom for your D5100 and it won't break the bank.

If you're happy with your 18-55 you'll be happy with this.

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED

You can find them on Amazon, new, for less than $200, I paid $249.00 for mine.

There's also a 55-300mm version for $400

AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Your lens is designed to do a good job within the parameters of its engineering. I think without a doubt, a new lens is the way to go.
Lots of choices depending on what you want to do with it.
Good hunting.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I just tried my 18-55 with a 2x teleconverter and had to go to manual to get it to focus. The results were too bad to post. I have only hd good luck with teleconverters with prim lenses. I would put my money on a longer zoom. I have seen 55 to 200's on eBay for around $100. Not viberation reduction so if you have a steady hand this may be the way to go. - Dave

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

wilsondl2 wrote:

I just tried my 18-55 with a 2x teleconverter and had to go to manual to get it to focus. The results were too bad to post. I have only hd good luck with teleconverters with prim lenses. I would put my money on a longer zoom. I have seen 55 to 200's on eBay for around $100. Not viberation reduction so if you have a steady hand this may be the way to go. - Dave

Amazon has the 55mm-200mm with IS for $190.00 I believe, very good value.

Kojack

I recently bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM telephoto lense. I also bought a 2X Canon converter. Then I went on Safari to Africa. Here are the results. Caveats: You do lose one or two f/ stops; it works best in bright light; focus carefully.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Kojack wrote:

I recently bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM telephoto lense. I also bought a 2X Canon converter. Then I went on Safari to Africa. Here are the results. Caveats: You do lose one or two f/ stops; it works best in bright light; focus carefully.

But you're starting at 2.8

When you go over 5.6 the auto focus suffers and most of the time, unless you're in very bright light, your auto focus won't lock on accurately.

And good shot BTW, the kitty is thinking ... "lunch time"

Kojack

Your are correct. That is why I mentioned the one or two f/stop loss and the need for bright light. And, yes, if you start with a less expensive lens then the result will suffer too.

Actually, Kitty has lunch in the tree with him (or her) and was concerned that someone might want it.

rready

thanks..good advice