Lens vs Teleconverter

GallantFoto · Dec 13, 2014

I'm looking to get better close ups of wildlife. I currently have a Nikon D7100 with a Nikkor 70-300mm lens 1:4. I'm trying to feature which is a better choice teleconverter or a higher zoom lens. I know the price can be crazy. I am looking at a price hopefully below 1200 or so.

Any advise would be great.

480sparky · Dec 13, 2014

Tamron 150-600.

Bam. You're done.

snowbear · Dec 13, 2014

^This.

Teleconverters will rob you of light and image quality (sharpness). A 1.4x converter will take one stop so your lens will be f/5.6 instead of f/4. The 2x will take two stops, leaving you with a f/8.

astroNikon · Dec 13, 2014

GallantFoto said:
I'm looking to get better close ups of wildlife. I currently have a Nikon D7100 with a Nikkor 70-300mm lens 1:4. I'm trying to feature which is a better choice teleconverter or a higher zoom lens. I know the price can be crazy. I am looking at a price hopefully below 1200 or so.

Any advise would be great.

70-300 / 4 ?? do you mean f/4.5-5.6 ?
with that lens you don't want to use a teleconvertor. It would put your 300 at least a f/11 (with a 2x teleconvertor) or a f/9 with a 1.4x tleconvertor.

and the d7100 supports Center cross-type focus point supports autofocusing with lenses with a maximum aperture of f/8.

So not recommended using a teleconvertor with that lens on the d7100 from the numbers

GallantFoto · Dec 13, 2014

480sparky said:
Tamron 150-600.

Bam. You're done.

Thanks, that's the one I have been thinking about.

PWhite214 · Dec 13, 2014

480sparky said:
Tamron 150-600.

Bam. You're done.

The Tamron has some very good reviews. For about $1100, I don't see how one could get more 'bang for the buck'. Looks like both Adorama and B&H have it in stock for Canon, Nikon and Sony. I have a Sigma 150-500mm, which sells for less now, but I like the thought of having 600mm. Maybe next year.

Phil

fotomonkey · Dec 13, 2014

Anyone try using that Tamron for sports? Namely baseball under lights. My 70-200 sucked trying to shoot my son's games. I wonder if 5.6 would suffice with an ISO bump.

jsecordphoto · Dec 13, 2014

The tamron would be f6.3 at 600mm, which is where you would most likely be using it I imagine. It's not a lens I would be using for baseballs games at night, even if they are under lights.

480sparky · Dec 13, 2014

fotomonkey said:
Anyone try using that Tamron for sports? Namely baseball under lights. My 70-200 sucked trying to shoot my son's games. I wonder if 5.6 would suffice with an ISO bump.

Depends on your camera. Some are fantastic at ISO 6400, others are less than desirable even at 1600.

fotomonkey · Dec 13, 2014

My bad. 6.3 wouldn't be fun under lights.

480, it'll probably be the D7000.

So far I've struck out trying to convince one of my friends to let me sell of their kidneys so I can get a 400/2.8.

480sparky · Dec 13, 2014

The D7000 isn't all that bad at higher ISOs.

And tell your friend if he won't let you sell one of his kidneys, you'll sell both of 'em.

astroNikon · Dec 13, 2014

OP has a d7100
Monkey a d7000
I like my d7000 but I don't like it past ISO 1600 in most situations.
Now the d600 ... it's just sweet even at ISO 6400+

Overread · Dec 13, 2014

Sigma is also making a 150-600mm lens so I'd check the status and pricing on that as well as the Tamron (sigma has 2 in the making - one equal to the Tamron and one a grade higher). Compare them against each other - honestly at present either one would provide an ideal option for wildlife enthusiasts as it gives you a very good focal range for wildlife.

There are cheaper 150-500mm and 50-500mm options and as you're on Nikon you might find some second hand primes in your price bracket (although some of them might be older and thus lack AF motors - which would be a hindrance with modern DSLR as they are not geared up for helping the user shoot with manual focusing - not impossible, but not ideal).

fotomonkey said:
Anyone try using that Tamron for sports? Namely baseball under lights. My 70-200 sucked trying to shoot my son's games. I wonder if 5.6 would suffice with an ISO bump.

Last time I shot under lights - indoors - I was at ISO 12800, f2.8, 1/500sec. Now granted this was indoors so if out-door you'd get a few more stops to play with - but honestly f5.6 is going to be pushing it, f6.3 and you're really pushing it. Sadly action in low light is a very equipment challenging situation if you want sharp shots and you're not panning with the action (and thus getting the body sharp but having legs/arms/wheels blur).

jsecordphoto · Dec 13, 2014

^ and I find the tamron to be a bit soft at f6.3/600mm, and try to use f7.1 or f8

Overread · Dec 13, 2014

jsecordphoto said:
^ and I find the tamron to be a bit soft at f6.3/600mm, and try to use f7.1 or f8

Which is exactly what I'd expect. The long end of any zoom is typically the weaker end optically speaking and thus with many in the more budget friendly or super zoom categories its not uncommon to want to/need to close down around 2/3rds to a full stop (ergo f7.1 or f8). Those are not unworkable apertures in decent light; even with action - but yeah under very dark conditions and under only performance lighting its robbing you of even more light that you really can't give up.