Tele converters (Page 2): Speed is something you will always lose. I use t\c's made for specific top line lenses. Those work fine. Anything else is a crap shoot. They were never...

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

bersharbp wrote:

I had a T/C in the '60s. The picture sharpness always decreased and, obviously, the speed. I was told that wasn't true any more and that I should get one. Based on your comment, I'm discontinuing my research on T/C. Thanks.

Speed is something you will always lose.
I use t\c's made for specific top line lenses. Those work fine. Anything else is a crap shoot.

They were never intended or designed to be used on wide to tele zooms.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

call nikon and get what info you need from the source.

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

I also have a D7000 and the Nikon 70-300mm lens and I understand that the converters cannot be used on this lens. However, I would be interested to hear of anyone who has found a 3rd. party lens that does fit the Nikon 70-300 and works well as I like to photograph birds.

rmw0001 Loc: Lake Mills, WI

According to Nikon, their TC;s are NOT COMPATIBLE with their/your Nikon-Nikkor 70-300 lens. "The rear elements of NIKKOR lenses not listed can contact and damage the Teleconverter element and must not be attached."

relie Loc: Western Massachusetts

Hi, like most of the other responders to this thread I don't like my 2x tc. It's to difficult to adjust the proper light on my Nikon 70-300mm lens. In fact I'm going to put it up for sale and just look for a deal on a 400 or500mm fixed lens.

Dave

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you try anything, I would recommend a Tamron 1.4X TC - I believe it will physically work ( unlike the Nikon TC). You will lose fast and accurate AF - or loose AF altogether - so you will most likely be manually focusing - and upping your ISO. AND, you really should be on at least a well articulated monopod for ergonomics and stabilization at 420mm and be using good sharpness technique. If you can live with these considerations, I think you will be OK.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

OK, I've read every post in this thread, but there is another side to this story as well. We all agree that a tele converter is a poor-mans solution to getting more 'reach' and that there are plenty of compromises to be made - and if you expect no degradation in your image, you're being naive. So we all agree that there is some image degradation, that you loose some stops, that it's not the ideal solution - but let's look at the situation in terms of bucks, not the kind that eat your roses, but the kind that you have to save up before you can spend 'em.

It seems that life always presents some kind of equivalency formula for us to figure out and deal with. In this situation the OP bought a D7100, roughly $1500 bucks and a nice 70-300 zoom for roughly $1200 bucks, total invested, about 2700 bucks. Not an inconsequential amount of bucks, at least in my book. In this scenario, it seems that adding a $500 tele converter to get that 140-600mm reach is not a recommended solution. Nobody has said it, but then the obvious solution is to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom or prime at more than $5000 to get the reach and sharpness you want - or if your wallet can stand the hit, I think Nikon offers a f2.8 telephoto 400mm prime for about $9000 that would get you close to the reach you're looking for.

Total spent: $11,700 bucks, in my book, these would be trophy level bucks, the kind you see as often as you see a famous celebrity at the airport. So, I'm going back to the $5,000 lens for the rest of this comparison.

So, one other option is to bite the bullett and spend more on the front end - buy a D800e, about $3200 bucks, an f2.8 70-200 VR II lens, about 2300 bucks, for a total spent of $5500 bucks. Of course this only gets you to 200mm, and you want 400 mm, so you spring for a TC 2.0 IIIe for $500 bucks, total invested so far is roughly $6000 bucks to get you to 400mm, 36mp images. It seems that our 'buddies' at Nikon engineered this combination to work especially well together, and the image degradation, according to the reviewers, as well as members of this forum, is in the 'very acceptable' range - and the auto focus still works, and there is no danger of banging optics as you mount it.

So, the recap, a D7100 and a 400mm prime combo is about $6500 (maybe more - as I'm grabbing these numbers from memory, and that certainly isn't what it used to be - but for your money you'll get great 400mm reach and image quality, no damaged optics, working auto focus, wow, you'll have a great package to get some great shots with.

A D800e and a f2.8 70-200VRII and a TC 2.0 IIIe will cost about $6000 bucks, you'll get great 36mp images, image degradation that's at acceptable levels, autofocus, and a combination that was engineered to work together, and do so well, and you'll have a great package to get some great shots with.

Either way there's about 6000 or more big fat dollars involved to get us to the point we're trying to get to (400mm with good image quality, etc.). Not a trifling amount.

So it seems that life's ever present equivalency formula is alive and well in the photography arena, as well. You can pay the piper up front, or you can pay the piper later, but if you want 400mm with optics and images that will satisfy you, the piper wants his money, he has to be paid and he's got his hand out, and it's up to you to decide which way to go.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and getting to 400mm isn't cheap if you're expecting decent quality. I hope this has been food for thought.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

jonsommer wrote:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and getting to 400mm isn't cheap if you're expecting decent quality. I hope this has been food for thought.

Yes, very insightful thoughts. Thanks. :thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

OddJobber wrote:

Is that Princess Kate on the top deck? :shock:

Sorry Odd, that was me, mooning the lower decks. I'm surprised you couldn't tell the difference, since by now, we ALL know what SHE looks like !!
SS

MtnMan Loc: ID

jonsommer wrote:

...
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and getting to 400mm isn't cheap if you're expecting decent quality. I hope this has been food for thought.

You can get a Sigma 150-500 for about $1,000. Many UHHers (self included) love it.

I am sure the 400mm Nikon is far superior but well beyond my price range.

Here are a couple of examples with the Sig.

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

nederob1 wrote:

Just wanted to ask everyone is would it be worth it or beneficial to put a tel converter like a 1.5x or 2x on my Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.4-5.6G. I have a Nikon D7000. This is to shoot wildlife and object out in the open not in trees or deep woods. What would I have to do if I did put on the lens. I know I'll lose light, how do you fix that problem lower the speed or raise ISO. THANKS FOR ANY ADVICE

I have the same nikon lens as you. I used it in conjuction with a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter. Of course, you have to use manual focus. The attached picture wads taken on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The subject is the Biltmore Estate, which is several miles away. Tripod with timed release. The sun was not my friend on this shot. Mixed results

ISO 100, F/16@1/60 SEC

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

nederob1 wrote:

Just wanted to ask everyone is would it be worth it or beneficial to put a tel converter like a 1.5x or 2x on my Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.4-5.6G. I have a Nikon D7000. This is to shoot wildlife and object out in the open not in trees or deep woods. What would I have to do if I did put on the lens. I know I'll lose light, how do you fix that problem lower the speed or raise ISO. THANKS FOR ANY ADVICE

Probably not, unless you don't mind giving up auto focus and some image quality.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

MtnMan wrote:

You can get a Sigma 150-500 for about $1,000. Many UHHers (self included) love it.

I am sure the 400mm Nikon is far superior but well beyond my price range.

Here are a couple of examples with the Sig.

The images in good light are much better than expected.

How well does it perform in poor light?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

jonsommer wrote:

OK, I've read every post in this thread, but there is another side to this story as well. We all agree that a tele converter is a poor-mans solution to getting more 'reach' and that there are plenty of compromises to be made - and if you expect no degradation in your image, you're being naive. So we all agree that there is some image degradation, that you loose some stops, that it's not the ideal solution - but let's look at the situation in terms of bucks, not the kind that eat your roses, but the kind that you have to save up before you can spend 'em.

It seems that life always presents some kind of equivalency formula for us to figure out and deal with. In this situation the OP bought a D7100, roughly $1500 bucks and a nice 70-300 zoom for roughly $1200 bucks, total invested, about 2700 bucks. Not an inconsequential amount of bucks, at least in my book. In this scenario, it seems that adding a $500 tele converter to get that 140-600mm reach is not a recommended solution. Nobody has said it, but then the obvious solution is to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom or prime at more than $5000 to get the reach and sharpness you want - or if your wallet can stand the hit, I think Nikon offers a f2.8 telephoto 400mm prime for about $9000 that would get you close to the reach you're looking for.

Total spent: $11,700 bucks, in my book, these would be trophy level bucks, the kind you see as often as you see a famous celebrity at the airport. So, I'm going back to the $5,000 lens for the rest of this comparison.

So, one other option is to bite the bullett and spend more on the front end - buy a D800e, about $3200 bucks, an f2.8 70-200 VR II lens, about 2300 bucks, for a total spent of $5500 bucks. Of course this only gets you to 200mm, and you want 400 mm, so you spring for a TC 2.0 IIIe for $500 bucks, total invested so far is roughly $6000 bucks to get you to 400mm, 36mp images. It seems that our 'buddies' at Nikon engineered this combination to work especially well together, and the image degradation, according to the reviewers, as well as members of this forum, is in the 'very acceptable' range - and the auto focus still works, and there is no danger of banging optics as you mount it.

So, the recap, a D7100 and a 400mm prime combo is about $6500 (maybe more - as I'm grabbing these numbers from memory, and that certainly isn't what it used to be - but for your money you'll get great 400mm reach and image quality, no damaged optics, working auto focus, wow, you'll have a great package to get some great shots with.

A D800e and a f2.8 70-200VRII and a TC 2.0 IIIe will cost about $6000 bucks, you'll get great 36mp images, image degradation that's at acceptable levels, autofocus, and a combination that was engineered to work together, and do so well, and you'll have a great package to get some great shots with.

Either way there's about 6000 or more big fat dollars involved to get us to the point we're trying to get to (400mm with good image quality, etc.). Not a trifling amount.

So it seems that life's ever present equivalency formula is alive and well in the photography arena, as well. You can pay the piper up front, or you can pay the piper later, but if you want 400mm with optics and images that will satisfy you, the piper wants his money, he has to be paid and he's got his hand out, and it's up to you to decide which way to go.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and getting to 400mm isn't cheap if you're expecting decent quality. I hope this has been food for thought.

OK, I've read every post in this thread, but there... (show quote)

Reality is a bitch.

nederob1 Loc: Brandon, Ms

MtnMan wrote:

You can get a Sigma 150-500 for about $1,000. Many UHHers (self included) love it.

I am sure the 400mm Nikon is far superior but well beyond my price range.

Here are a couple of examples with the Sig.

Looks great MtMan..