alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

You may find that a set of automatic extension tubes will let you take the pictures you want ...

... the problem is that you will lose the ability to focus at greater distances & infinity ...

... but, installing the shortest (¿10mm-or-12mm?) will probably allow you to work at reasonably close-and-near distances.

Obviously, the extension tube(s) will NOT be a benefit for capturing architectural details which are not at ground level; but, it/(they) will help with many of the other subjects which you indicated that you like to take pictures of AND will probably be one of the most economical additions to your camera bag.

NB. "Automatic" does NOT mean the same thing for all extension tubes ... in some cases for Nikon/-compatible extension tubes, it will simply mean that they are "pin" coupled for manual focus Nikkor lenses; so, if you decide you want to use some extension tubes then you NEED to ensure that they have the pins which communicate with your Nikon lens(es) and a digital Nikon camera body ...

... Electronically coupled automatic extension tubes WILL maintain the maintain the auto-focusing/whatever capability of the lens for the particular lens mount which the lens/camera uses in case a non-Nikon user is reading this post.

Chris Hayes

Honestly the D850 and the 28-300 Nikkor, is an excellent combination. If you are getting what you see as noise at high crop then try using a lower ISO and that will reduce the noise. What i think you are seeing is that even at 45MP, you are over cropping. I would not suggest going to a 400MM lens as its not too much farther than the 300. I use a D810 and the 28-300 for my walk around lens, and a Nikon 200-500 for longer reach. But be warned the D850 and 28-300 might seem heavy until you mount the 200-500, now that is a heavy combination and like others have said stays in the camera bag a lot of the time. If you need the reach go the 200-500 rout, its a great lens, especially for the money. I don't like off brand optics, but whatever you think you are going to do in getting a new lens, rent one first. Its your experience that matters, not anyone else. Rent a few options and then decide.
Chris

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Agree, you would obviously have to shoot the 18-400 with D850 in "crop mode", which I failed to mention... and I don't have them to test so someone else will have to do it.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Seems that you should be able to crop with a D850 and still have good results.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

A teleconverter (TC) is an inexpensive way to boost the focal length of your existing lense BUT at the detriment of both focal ratio and image quality.

Say you're using a 300mm f/4 lens with a 2x TC. Yes, you now have a 600mm lens but at f/8 which might be too slow for what you're shooting, so you up your ISO which increases image noise. Plus a TC magnifies the imperfections in any lens reducing image quality.

I have both 1.4x and 2x TC's. The optimum is the 1.4x, i.e.: some gain in focal length with some loss in image quality. The 2x TC is overkill!

bwa

Chris Hayes

There is no point in using a DX lens in crop mode on a FX, in my opinion. The D850 is approx 20MP in DX mode, but thats just like cropping in post. Its the exact same result. The only benefit is saving space on your SD card.
FX Cameras are bigger than DX and so are the lens. Its the choice you made when buying into FX vs DX.

Chris

Chris Hayes

You do have to be careful with trying to use a TC on the Nikon Lens. they are not compatible with all lens. They really work best on bright Prime lens. You run into ability to focus issues with say a 5.6 zoom, even if it is compatible.

Chris

Bill P

I'll try to give you a useful answer. This is a messy, smelly swamp you have walked into. You should first visit your needs and requirements. Are you a member of the sharpness squad, that feels the mark of a good photo is razor sharpness? If so, forget the teleconverter. If you just want a good photo that will go up to 13x19 and look just fine, then go ahead with the Teleconverter. Just know that teleconverters work much better with primes than zooms.

Remember, in photography just like life, there is no one hard and fast answer to any question.

2666loco

I have several and used them with my Nikon film cameras. I have 2 Nikon D700's now with much higher ISO but haven't tried the converters again. There is definitely one that you might want to look on Ebay. It is a Vivitar 2x MACRO converter with 7 elements. It will give you 1:1 image and also is a 2x converter. It theory teleconverters should be better that in the past because of higher ISO on digital cameras. A tripod might be called for. The Vivitar is a Nikon mount (classic F mount). They are a manual lens , not a D lens, and probably won't meter with your camera. It should show up on ebay if not there now and they are not expensive ($40 or so). It will meter with the D700's which is why I bought them. With a 2x teleconverter, you lose 2 stops of light. You could meter with the sunny 16 rule (I always found that sunny 11 worked better).

Here is one on Ebay now. About $42 with shipping and looks new.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-2x-Macro-Focusing-Teleconverter-for-Nikon-F-Ai-Mount/132802419142?hash=item1eeba419c6:g:lN0AAOSwMxJbsX3G

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

You want close up capability ... take a look at the Nikon 105 Micro (Nikon's way of saying macro) and you can use a 1.4 teleconverter with it. It's what I use.

aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM

You make real sacrifices with a TC. They have their place, but probably not in a walk about photo role. I shoot Canon and have a 2X TC that I use with a 70 - 200. I also travel extensively. Given your interests, I think the 2 lens solution makes sense. A small, moderate wide angle prime lens will be light and easy to carry. Then use a moderate to long zoom telephoto for everything else. I recognize this will totally upset your current smooth shooting rhythm, but the same would be true of putting on and taking off a TC using your 28-300. The prime gives you great resolution and large max aperture for indoor cathedral shots (that's what I use) at a resonable cost, and the zoom gives you reach so you don't have to climb to the cathedral rafters for your closeups. In my opinion, the TC requires too many compromises for your plans. Best of luck on your upcoming trip.

Bipod

Good point. But wildlife photography is only one specialized area of photography.
And in the fine art photography market, most wildlife photos are considered kitsch:
great for advertising or for the pages of *Field & Stream*, not something you frame
and hang in a museum.

Food photography is another commercial specialty--and a very demanding one.
But I sure don't want to buy a print of a plate of Hostess Ding-Dongs or a smiling
pitcher of Kool-Aid.

I meant a 4" x 5" print, not a 4"x 5" negative. Prints have to be a certain size be hung
on the wall. 4" x 5" is too small. 8" x 10" is generally considred the minimum.

To produce a large print of an average subject, requires a lot of resolution. That's
where medium and large format comes in.

There is nothing unnatural about a close-up -- if it's taken close up. But the extreme foreshortening
produced by very long lenses is a type of perspective distoration. It is not how the human eye sees.
That's a fact that isn't going to change (at least not for next million years of evolution).

Baloney. Long focal length lenses have been available since Galeleo's telescope.
You could buy commercial ones in the 19th century. Telephoto designs came on
the market in the 1920s and were common by the 1930s. Cartier-Bresson,
Edward Weston, and Dorothea Lange chose not to use them.

A lens is still a lens, and seeing is still seeing.

Photography is governed by the laws of optics and human vision, not
electronics, computer technology, or cell phones. Those are
incidental. You aren't going to change photography by weaving a
better camera strap. With a better camera strap, Cartier-Bresson,
Weston and Lange would have made exactly the same aesthetic choices
(but might not have dropped as many cameras).

The laws of optics don't change--neither does human vision. People
will find new ways of doing art, but they will find them though
creativity, not a better camera strap, memory card or smart stick.

If tecnology can make the process cheaper or simpler, that's great.
But not at the price of removing the photographer's understanding
of and control over the process.

Limitation of means (say an ink painting or woodcut) is more likely
to produce an aesthetically good result than massive technology and
automation (e.g., a robotic spray paint booth). The latter is the
"latest and greatest technology" -- but it's better for painting Fords and
Hondas than for painting portraits.

Finally, we come to the issue of "appropriate technology". For a
artist or photographer to achieve what he envisions, he must be able
to undrestand and control whatever technology he uses.

Ansel Adams had a good understanding of the film camera, negative
and print, and demonstrated good control of that process. Many
photographers of his generation did. But no person on earth has the
same undertanding and control of the digital camera and computer printer.
In fact, you would need a roomfull of people to even begin to explain
those extremely complex technologies. And most of the details are
proprietary "trade secrets".

In order to understand what one is doing, it is necessary to understand
what one is doing. It is not common for people to use tools they
don't begin to understand. That's fine if the job is heating a TV dinner
in a microwave oven. How many cooks could explain a magnetron tube?

But taking a photograph isn't supposed to be like heating a TV dinner.
The manufacturer decides what goes in the dinner, and what it
will taste like). Unfortunately, all too often, the camer decides that the
photo will be like: focus, exposure, and even manipulation of the
image.

Even with the camera in manual exposure mode and taking RAW format files,
the photographer really can't be sure what the camera is doing. His idea of
how it works is almost certainly incorrect. It goes though a sequence of dozens
of steps just to focus. Very few photographers know their AF system
well enough to say when it is likely to succeed and when it's likely to fail.

Ansel Adams liked taking Polaroids (and wrote a book on it) and owned
an SX-70--but not the SX-70 Sonar OneStep with AF. Walker Evens
published a book of Polaroid photographs, also taken with an earlier
SX-70 -- he died before the AF one came out. The truth of the matter is that
AF is just one more thing to go wrong that you can't control. It's great for
casual photographers and people taking vacation snap shots.

plessner Loc: North Dakota

and decide if you would want to be carrying it around while traveling--I would not--love my 28-300 for travel

Bill_de Loc: US

Bob,

As we get older some of us may feel that time is in shorter supply than money.

--

aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Clearly, you have heard both sides of this question, and can make an informed decision about the tradeoffs and benefits using a TC. Ultimately, its your decision, and should know enough to make the right decision for you. What anyone else thinks about this decision is irrelevant at this point.