Mark7S

attached is from Tamron on manual focus. the 150-600 G2 is a f5-6.3. I presume the 6.3 is at 600 and adding 1 stop for the 1.4X gets it to f/8. Tamron says manual focus above f/8 (which is why the 2.0X is manual focus only).
really interested in anyone using at 840 on the D500 (DX) which is equivalent to 1260

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No, 1-stop from f/6.3 is f/9.

From the internet you can find charts of apertures, shutterspeeds and ISO expressed in 1/3 stop amounts.

Mark7S

do you have any pictures at 600 with the 1.4X - did you have to manual focus? What focus options were available thanks

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

With the 1.4, at 150mm, F7.1 is minimum aperture and 600mm it is F9. The TC adds one stop and I can autofocus in Spot or Group Modes, albeit slowly, hence mentioning my manual focus preference.

Mark7S

Thank you and my error on the f/8 at 600 - correct should be f/9 at 600. I found a Tamron Spec for the 150-600 G2 that said f/5.6 was at 427 (so with 1 stop that would be f/8 with the 1.4X) or auto focus to about 600 or 900 DX on the D500 (which oddly is the same as the 150-600G2 with NO TC added and at f/6.3 vs f/8).

How often do you use it? I don't mind manual focus for relatively stationary wildlife but think manual focus would be tough for birds in flight.

Right now am inclined to take a pass on adding the 1.4X TC. all comments much appreciated

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Good move.

fotobyferg

“Right now am inclined to take a pass on adding the 1.4X TC. all comments much appreciated.”

I came to the same conclusion a few weeks back.

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

I'm glad you posted that, I was about to type it.

Juy Loc: Delaware

I have D500 and the tamron150-600 g2 and the 1.4 tc. I only use the 1.4 on bright lite days. The extra reach is nice and auto focus does work as long as you have the light or high contrast . I have found the lens itself appears sharpest around 450 so using that and 1.4 gives good results but for me forget handheld and hit or miss on BIF
I went this route as I needed the reach on ocassion and it was cheap. In all honesty rarely use the combo and feel I would be much better off using the t.c with a good prime. Yes you do loose the stop and auto focus is hampered, on the rare occasions I have gotten acceptable shots but you do loose a little sharpness unless you have the lens in it's sweet spot.
Is it worth it? Only you can answer that, would I do it again? No I would not . .much better to work within you limitations

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

On a D500, IMO, you are further ahead by maximizing your IQ and CROPPING and using well applied pixel enlargement than from using a TC and taking a hit against your ISO/shutter speed and autofocus. Unless taking a chance at handholding, part of your maximization should include a strong stabilized support of some kind. I recommend an auxillary support like this -

https://www.ebay.com/itm/220mm-Y-ty-Telephoto-Lens-Support-Clamp-for-Arca-Hejnar-Benro-Fluid-Video-Head/172143858639?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l9372


that helps compensate for the heavily compromised OEM tripod collar....

..

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

150-600mm f/5-6.3 with a 1.4X teleconverter attached makes for an actual 210-840mm f/7.1-9 combo.

When it's used on an APS-C (1.5X lens factor) D500, it's equivalent to 315-1260mm on "full frame".
... or it's equivalent to 670-2680mm on 6x7cm medium format film (0.47X lens factor).
... or it's equivalent to 157-630mm on micro 4/3 sensor (2x lens factor).
... or it's equivalent to 1086-4345mm on 4x5" large format film (0.29X lens factor).
... or it's equivalent to 56-223mm on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor (5.64X lens factor).



Incidentally, in the past "full frame" format (24x36mm) was referred to at times as "miniature" and other times as "double frame".

35mm film width was invented in Thomas Edison's workshop prior to 1890. It was derived from splitting standard 70mm wide film lengthwise (already in wide use in various medium format cameras). The original intent was for cinematic cameras, but the individual image size was 18x24 initially for both movies and still photos. The film was used initially in Edison's Kinetoscope "moving picture" device that was officially introduced in 1893.

It wasn't until around 20 years later that the first cameras were introduced that made what we today call "full frame" 24x36mm format images, using the same 35mm wide film. The Simplex camera of 1914 was the first commercially successful camera to make images that format, using 50 foot rolls of film to take either 800 18x24mm or 400 24x36mm images. Oskar Barnack was inventing the Leica about the same time and brought it to market in 1925, initially using 35mm film in user-reloadable cartridges. The daylight-loading, single-use 35mm film cassette we're all most familiar with was intro'd by Kodak in 1934, primarily for use in Kodak's own Retina cameras but also usable in Leica, Contax and a number of similar cameras that had by then entered the market. Up to and for some time after WWII, 35mm film cameras were often referred to as "miniature" format (medium formats using 70mm wide film or larger formats using sheet film continued in wide use). Cameras making either 18x24mm (sometimes called "single frame", sometimes "half frame") and today's "full frame" 24x26mm (sometimes called "double frame") images on 35mm wide film gained popularity through the 1950s, became the dominant formats in the 1960s and continued to be produced through the 1990s. A few cameras were even able to make either single/half frame or full/double frame format.

I always find it a bit ironic that so many digital sensor formats such as "full frame", "APS-C" and "APS-H" are named after film formats!

As to using a 1.4X on a 150-600mm on a Nikon D500... methinks it would be simpler and better to just get closer to your subject and forget about using the lens with any teleconverter. Seriously! 600mm on a D500 is a whole heck of a lot of lens!

Unclehoss

Pros: increased reach, can be used with other lenses,
Cons: increased demand for steadiness, decreased light transmission-therefore slower shutter speed and/or higher ISO,

Bottom line all the data jockeys in the world can try and sway you with their numbers and figures either way. I personally bought a 2x converter to experiment with my 200mm to see if I like it. That was MUCH cheaper than the 400mm lens.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

With a d500 you are already getting the equivalent of a 900 mm lens. You want to go to 1260 or 1800? What kind of wildlife do you anticipate being able to find in your viewfinder at 1800 x, and will your camera, or you be able to focus on it? Sounds like a no starter.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

.......and don't forget atmospheric aberrations

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Interesting math, for medium format I get 99-395mm
for M4/3 I get 420-1680mm
for large format 61-244mm
and for for tiny it's 1184-4738mm