dougbev3 Loc: Pueblo, Colorado

Ok, I have been looking into a converter, BUT,, always has to be that word in there... I don't understand … Are they for only certain lens, cameras? I have a Nikon D600, Nikon D800 and a Nikon D90... I have a whole assortment of lenses to equip them with. I can see that sometimes it would be nice to reach out further with a lens, produce a nicer photo, but is it only with certain lenses? Then my final question, in the long run,,, Are they really worth it, do they really improve a shot? Please share your ideas on this matter. I want to know, so I can make a better decision on this matter. Thank You

Vietnam Vet

Regis has a lot of pictures posted using a converter with his 300mm lens. You can see the quality he gets with one. If you call BnH they can tell you about compatibility with your lenses

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Nikon, Tamron, Canon match Teleconverters to specific lenses. There are cheap knock offs that "work with everything," but in my experience, they don't.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Teleconverters, or extenders if you prefer, are designed to increase the focal length of a lens by 1.4X, 1.7X, 2.0X, whatever. Some can be mounted to just about any compatible lens and some will only mount to specific lenses. They really should not be used on lower quality lenses because they will make a low quality image even worse. On the other hand, a teleconverter when used properly is a great tool and a big money saver.
I have a Sigma 150-600 Sport and the matching Sigma 1.4 teleconverter making it effectively an 840mm lens. The major difference between the Sigma teleconverter and say a generic 1.4x teleconverter is compatibility and quality. The Sigma extender was not cheap but it's a whole lot less expensive than a long telephoto lens. I have the Canon 1.4 III extender I use with my Canon 100-400L II lens making it effectively a 560mm lens. Again, the Canon teleconverter is a much higher quality lens than a generic brand. I also have a Nikon teleconverter I use with my Nikkor 200-500 lens; another great combination. I have a few Kenko teleconverters and I consider them the best of the generics.
I see you have some sort of problem with TELEconverter. What about telephoto; same concept. Look up the meaning of tele; to or at a distance; used in names of instruments for operating over long distances. What does a teleconverter do? It extends the distance or reach of the lens it's attached to.
I don't know of any teleconverters that are specific to a certain camera body. They are specific to a certain mount so any teleconverter that will fit a D600 or D800 full frame will also fit a D500 or D7200 crop frame.
I have a Nikon TC-14E III teleconverter that will mount any Nikon DSLR but it will only mount certain Nikkor AF-S lenses. Like my Nikon teleconverter, my Canon teleconverters will mount to pretty much any Canon DSLR but only specific Canon EF L series lenses. Do teleconverters improve a shot or produce a nicer photo? Teleconverters reduce the amount of light that would normally make it to the image sensor so technically they degrade the image. When used with ample light, not a big deal. They do what the prefix tele implies, they increase the reach of the lens and that may or may not produce a nicer photo; it's very subjective. Are they worth having? Yes... See bottom line.
Bottom line; don't buy cheap teleconverters. They will just make poor quality images worse. Don't use teleconverters on just any lens in an attempt to make it a longer lens. This usually results in average quality images becoming poor quality images. If you can, buy teleconverters that are specifically designed for certain lenses, for example, the Sigma teleconverter for specific Sigma lenses, or the Nikon teleconverter for specific Nikkor lenses, or the Canon teleconverter for specific Canon EF lenses.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

Degrade quality but if you put a DX lens on a 1.4 you can fill the FX frame.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The following chart is everything you need to know about if your lenses can handle a teleconverter.
The other thing to know is on your camera, once you reach F8, you will no longer have auto focus.
https://cdn-5.nikon-cdn.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/en_US_Comp_chart.html

david vt Loc: Vermont

Morrison above does a really excellent job of explaining the trade-offs

I would like to add emphasis to the “price” you pay, and I don’t mean the cost of the extender. There is a image quality price to pay, but if you are, as said, matching up to a good lens, may not be too much to worry about unless printing large, and I think the price” is lower than a corresponding crop. To me, the bigger price paid is in light. My Nikon 1.4 pays a price of 1 stop. If I got the 2.0; it would be 2 stops. If you are outside on a bright day, may be able to pay it. In darker conditions, maybe not

Also, pay attention to the aperture of your lens vs the minimum needed for AF on your body. If you are shooting a slower zoom at 6.3 and put a 2 stop TC on it, and your camera needs f8 min for AF, you are SOL. Some nice UHH folks pointed that out to me when I was making my decision. This was one reason I stuck with the 1.4

Evaluate all factors. Lastly, it depends on how often you will use it. If quite frequent, you are likely better off investing in “proper” glass. If, like me, it was for occasional use, could be a good choice

FYI. A month ago I hiked my rig to Tuckerman’s ravine on Mt Washington in NH. Took the 70-200, the 1.4 TC, set my APC 7200 in crop mode. Gave me the equivalent FF of 560. Would I have rather had a 600 to shot the bowl? Hell ya, but hiking this up 3.5 miles and 3000 ft gain in the snow was a “good trade-off for me. This was why I actually bought the TC 1.4

Good luck

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Nikon makes a lens that utilizes a dedicated TC - the 180-400 4. Their 1.4x TC works pretty well with their telephoto primes and their 70-200 F2.8 and F4. A few of their primes, like the 200 F2, 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, and their current 70-200 F2.8 FL work extremely well with all their current TCs.

There is no TC, other than the dedicated one, that does not negatively impact image quality - from about 5% with a 1.4X to 25% or more with a 2.0X

If you have a slow zoom lens, like one that is F5.6 or 6.3, They are usually not that great at maximum zoom, so putting a TC will likely drop it to below the level of acceptability. Also, a 1.4X will lower your light transmission by 1 stop, and the 2X by 2 stops. Many cameras are ok with one stop reduction, to F5.6 but will focus slowly, if at all, with a lens+TC that starts off at F8. At F11, which is what happens when you put a 2X on an F5.6 lens - it won't focus automatically at all. Trying to focus manually in a dark viewfinder is not easy.

If you start off with a very sharp lens, the quality loss will be minimal. But there is no way you can increase image quality with a TC, if this is what you are looking for. The TC exists to a)give you a lower cost option than getting a big heavy lens and b)make a lighter more compact "package" to carry around. It is not intended to turn an 18-300 into a 600mm lens.

These images were shot with a 600mm F4 and a 1.4x Kenko TC.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Vietnam Vet

I use the Canon 1d and 1ds series bodies. With the Canon 70-200 2.8 I can use both the Canon 1.4 and 2x extenders and not lose auto focus at any aperture after f8

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Like David said, sometimes a teleconverter is a better option. I have a Canon 100-400L II and a Sigma 150-600 Sport. The Canon with a Canon 1.4 III extender is equivalent to 560mm, 40 short of the Sigma Sport. But, is the Sigma truly 600 mm or did they round up. Anyway, the Canon on Canon combination is lighter than the Sigma on Canon and the difference in reach is easily made up with cropping. A couple pounds lighter may not seem to be all that significant but, when one is out hiking rough trails and lifting the camera often to shoot photos, and one is much closer to 70 than 55, those couple few pounds make a big difference.
As I previously said, don't use a teleconverter in poor light and don't buy a cheap generic teleconverter, they more than likely will produce poor quality images, even in good light.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

In general, a teleconverter will give sharper results with a fast prime than with a zoom. Also, autofocus will work better - may not work at all with some zooms. You may find you get OK results if zoom is fast enough.
A 1.4X converter will give sharper results than a 2X.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Nice photos...

bleirer

One thing i learned here if it hasn't already been mentioned, is that 1.4 isn't a random number. It's the amount of magnification that will lose 1 full f stop of aperture, while 2.0 will lose 2 full stops.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

I would find one the fits the D800 and lose the other two.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

If you decide to purchase a teleconverter, the manufacturer of you choice provides a lens compatibility chart on their website. I currently use a Sony SEL20TC with my Sony 100 - 400mm f4.5 - 5.6 G Master. In the past I have owned a Canon 2 x TCIII, which I used with my Canon 300mm f2.8L IS, a Nikkor TC14EIII, which I used with a Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR, an Olympus 1.4TC, which I used with an Olympus 300mm f4 PRO and a Sigma 1.4TC, which I used with a Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS macro lens. I always ensure that I use a TC which is matched to a particular lens. Are they worth it? Obviously I believe they are. There are a couple of disadvantages - a softer, less defined image (though it can sometimes be difficult to tell) and losing an extra stop or two of light. But in good light, and used correctly, teleconverters are a sensible choice over a super - telephoto, some of which cost £10 000 and more. I don't use a teleconverter at extreme range, I use mine just beyond the range I define as acceptable for my lens without the converter. It provides for a larger image and either no cropping or minimal cropping. I find the image quality more than acceptable - especially as my images are only ever viewed electronically via a 55" UHDTV. Oh yes, you need to make sure your camera is capable of autofocusing at the "new" largest f-stop of the lens it is attached to. For instance, your camera may only be able to use AF (normally the centre point) up to f8. Beyond that you have to use manual focus. That information is recorded in the cameras specs. My Sony A9 has just had a firmware update which means it can use AF up to f16. Remember, you have to muliply the native f-stop of your lens by the magnification of the TC. So my 100 - 400mm f4.5 - 5.6 becomes an f9 - f11 when I fit my SEL20TC.