jcboy3

I'm generally not happy with a TC on the D7100, especially with a slow lens like the 200-500. You'll be using an f/8 lens, which is not very bright, on the edge of AF performance, and at 500mm brings out the worst in the lens. You'll need to stop down to f/11 or more, and stay closer to 400mm, for decent image quality.

If you get some nice f/2.8 lenses (like the f/2.8), then you'll be happy with the TC on the D7100. But I still notice some loss of contrast.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Imagemeister,

Gee,how did you get him to pose for you so nicely? :roll: :roll:

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I am the Tiger whisperer ...... :-)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I thought maybe someone would say what a nice camera you have. :lol: :lol:

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

Don't buy it. It robs 1 stop of light, slows down your autofocus performance, and has an impact on overall image quality (lower contrast, lower resolution). The 200-500 is a good lens, but it does not compare with the 70-200 F2.8, 200 F2, 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8 500 F4 and 600 F4 in terms of resolution and contrast. Each of those lenses are considerably better than the consumer oriented 200-500 - and work well with a 1.4X. They are also 1-3 stops faster.

The other consideration is the tripod and head you will need to get to hold a lens that has an effective field of view of 1050mm. I am going to take a guess and say that you don't have a Gitzo, Really Right Stuff, or top of the line Induro or Benro tripod (there are others but those are the most popular for long lens work). You'll need to spend what you spent on your lens for a tripod and head.

I routinely shoot (and have been for a while) with a 600mm, sometimes with a 1.4 and occasionally with a 2x using both DX and FX cameras, and trying to do what you are thinking of doing without rock-solid support would not be as rewarding as you would hope for.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have a Kenko 1.4 that I use with Nikon lenses. When I posted comparison shots here, many people thought the TC shots were better/sharper. Definitely no loss of quality that I've seen. When you figure the TC cost about $130, and a long lens costs... Well, you get the idea.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

When it comes to optics, you are likely to get what you pay for. There's a reason why the Nikon TC's are in version III. More aspherical optics and new optical materials. There are noticeable differences in sharpness between the Nikon TC's between versions. I suspect they would be more pronounced between the Nikon versions and the off-brands.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Whatever power teleconverter you use, you multiply any flaws in the lens by the same amount.
--Bob

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

I was thinking you might have offered him a small child to maintain his attention. . .

mohawk51 Loc: Texas

IMHO, today's lenses have enough glass in them without adding the glass of a teleconverter. So my answer is probably not.

Tom47 Loc: Gettysburg, PA

I also use the Kenko 1.4 on my Nikon 70-300 and 200-500 lenses and can see no loss of sharpness. I purchased it for use with my 70-300 at the time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Kenko seems to do very well with zoom lenses in general. Primes are a different story.

ayersrl Loc: Palm Beach Gardens,Fl

Was your tiger friend the one that got the zookeeper at Palm Beach Zoo?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have both a Nikon 1.4 and 2.0. A 1.7 is also made. I use the 1.4 quite often with my 400/2.8 and the 2.0 seldom. If I need it, I use it, but I'd prefer not to. In selecting a TC for your Nikon lens, I'd strongly suggest the Nikon one which is matched to it. You get what you pay for in optics, and the Nikon branded one will be useful with a wider variety of your lenses. One caution, when using a TC, first determine if it will work properly with the lens you want to use it with or you risk no-warrantable damage being done. Best of luck. You've got yourself a great lens!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

No, my Tiger is from Miami Zoo .......