Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
200-500 lens need a teleconverter?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Feb 25, 2019 15:24:23   #
crappiefever
 
Kind of defeating the purpose of full fame camera . Just my opinion but I'm not a huge fan of converters especially on a F 5.6 lens . I like crop sensor like Nikon D 500 when I need reach and full frame on my fast wide angle lenses . Again Just my opinion ! The 850 is a fine camera !

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 15:59:02   #
bwana
 
Red Sky At Night wrote:
If I am purchasing a new AF-S Nikkor 200-500 lens to go with my D850 do I need to also purchase a teleconverter? I've been trying to read some information online but I am confused if it is something I really need? I will be using it both for animals and landscape. Thank you.

You're already pushing physics, stabilization and lens quality at 500mm. My experience has shown upsizing by 140% yields just as good a result as a 1.4x teleconverter and a 2x teleconverter simply gives questionable image quality.

Experiment with upsizing/sharpening your pix using Photoshop or PhotoZoom, then make your decision on whether you really NEED a teleconverter.

bwa

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 17:27:48   #
ek2lckd
 
500 is a pretty long lens,,,,,you can probably crop your way further after that.....

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 17:44:02   #
ek2lckd
 
500 is kinda long, probably can crop your way if you need longer, also 500 is heavy,ex[ensive and requires more light.......it is nice to buy your camera more toys tho we all do it GBG

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 18:36:54   #
DeanS (a regular here)
 
Is 500mm not long enough? If not, buy a longer lens, get a crop sensor camera, or buy a t/c. Or get closer to your object. That pretty much exhausts your options.

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 19:13:54   #
DavidPine
 
Red Sky At Night wrote:
If I am purchasing a new AF-S Nikkor 200-500 lens to go with my D850 do I need to also purchase a teleconverter? I've been trying to read some information online but I am confused if it is something I really need? I will be using it both for animals and landscape. Thank you.


If you get the 1.4 converter you change your f/stop from f/5.6 to f/8. That may not seem like a lot but it is significant in my opinion. I usually combine my 200-500 f/5.6 with my D500 (DX) for convenience but the 200-500 works great with the D850. I play with converters when I am shooting stills from a tripod. That is not the usual - things move sometimes quickly and you need a faster shutter speed. That's why 1-stop in aperture is significant to me. I don't use the 200-500 for landscape except for sunrises, sunsets and moon shots.

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 21:09:11   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
RichardSM wrote:
Gene I could have not explain it any better, why these folks on this site buy into this is beyond belief? Again thank you for your wonderful post.


Thanks! There is a lot of confusion coupled with cognitive dissonance preventing people from accepting the truth behind testing, laws of physics and common sense reasoning. Add to that the notion that somehow it is not possible to outdo a Nikkor lens on a Nikon camera - and that's how so many 200-500 mm lenses get sold. I much prefer using my Sigma Sport to anything other than my 600mmF4, other than those times when I can use a lower ISO/faster shutter in crappy light, and don't mind carrying an extra 6 lbs of tripod and head.

That being said, I took my Sport out late last month and got this image, hand-held, in less than ideal light. It's a portrait crop from a landscape image, so it's about 17 mp or a little less than 50% of the original image area:

.
1/320, F7.1, ISO 400, D810 Sigma Sport @600mm
1/320, F7.1, ISO 400, D810 Sigma Sport @600mm...
(Download)

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 21:25:51   #
DaveyDitzer
 
I'd recommend using your 200-500 as is for a while. I agree that the lens collar support that comes with the lens is not optimal - too much weight cantilevered out front. This can allow vibration on a solid tripod. The other problem is that much of the "real estate' on the lens barrel is movable and not well adapted to a front support. I tried one but had to return it. Regarding a DX camera body; I just tried an 85 mm lens on a portrait subject today with both a D5300 and a Df. Bottom line: 85 mm is 85 mm. No telephoto effect, just a smaller, i.e., cropped image area.

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 22:05:24   #
Acountry330
 
The 1-4 and 1.7 tel-converts will work well with your D-850 and your 200-500 lens. It will be sharper without the converters. But it is all up to you. With proper technique you will really like your photos. Happy Shooting.

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 22:25:35   #
Dossile
 
A 1.4 converter will work with a 200-500 on the D850. Nikon says the 1.7 and 2.0 will not. Maybe someone else has a positive experience with the 1.7, but I believe automatic focus is problematic for both. I still recommend using the 200-500 as is and cropping. The Sigma 150-600 sport is a nice lens, but significantly bigger and heavier. It is certainly a good lens to consider.

| Reply
Feb 25, 2019 22:31:21   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
Dossile wrote:
The Sigma 150-600 sport is a nice lens, but significantly bigger and heavier. It is certainly a good lens to consider.


And, costlier ! - with a smaller f-stop for AF focus ....

..

| Reply
Feb 26, 2019 09:34:26   #
RichardSM
 
Gene that photograph is crystal sharp. Thanks for sharing.

Gene51 wrote:
Thanks! There is a lot of confusion coupled with cognitive dissonance preventing people from accepting the truth behind testing, laws of physics and common sense reasoning. Add to that the notion that somehow it is not possible to outdo a Nikkor lens on a Nikon camera - and that's how so many 200-500 mm lenses get sold. I much prefer using my Sigma Sport to anything other than my 600mmF4, other than those times when I can use a lower ISO/faster shutter in crappy light, and don't mind carrying an extra 6 lbs of tripod and head.

That being said, I took my Sport out late last month and got this image, hand-held, in less than ideal light. It's a portrait crop from a landscape image, so it's about 17 mp or a little less than 50% of the original image area:

.
Thanks! There is a lot of confusion coupled with c... (show quote)

| Reply
Feb 26, 2019 11:50:11   #
mas24 (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:
Thanks! There is a lot of confusion coupled with cognitive dissonance preventing people from accepting the truth behind testing, laws of physics and common sense reasoning. Add to that the notion that somehow it is not possible to outdo a Nikkor lens on a Nikon camera - and that's how so many 200-500 mm lenses get sold. I much prefer using my Sigma Sport to anything other than my 600mmF4, other than those times when I can use a lower ISO/faster shutter in crappy light, and don't mind carrying an extra 6 lbs of tripod and head.

That being said, I took my Sport out late last month and got this image, hand-held, in less than ideal light. It's a portrait crop from a landscape image, so it's about 17 mp or a little less than 50% of the original image area:

.
Thanks! There is a lot of confusion coupled with c... (show quote)


Your photo in download is beautiful. Sharp and crisp. That 150-600mm Sport is a baaad boy. Kudos.

| Reply
Feb 26, 2019 12:39:00   #
wolfman
 
imagemeister wrote:
And, costlier ! - with a smaller f-stop for AF focus ....

..


Better lenses usually cost more. Better build quality, completely weather sealed, sharper, and an extra 100 mm of reach. And further more, the focusing at 6.3 is just as fast as at 5.6.
It also plays very well with the Sigma 1.4 TC.

| Reply
Feb 26, 2019 12:47:08   #
ek2lckd
 
wolfman wrote:
. And further more, the focusing at 6.3 is just as fast as at 5.6.


unless I am mistaken, they focus wide open and only close down for the shot.. Ed

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.