school me on 2x Teleconverters please

Devananda · Mar 13, 2007

shooting a nikon D80 for a few weeks now and was thinking about theses 2 times teleconverters......
it would go on my nikon 80-200F2.8 get get just a little more reach for wildlife photog.

if you use one or know about these feel free to chime in.
i am most woried about pic quality .
thanks :hail:

drgibson · Mar 13, 2007

I have the same lens and I bought a Kenco 2x teleconverter and their extention tube set. Using the teleconverter you drop 1 f-stop but I have seen no real loss in quality.

Mine is the Kenco Teleplus pro.

drgibson · Mar 13, 2007

Here is an example of it at work.

Groupcaptainbonzo · Mar 13, 2007

Any glass you add will have an effect on the image recorded. The better the quality of the glass the less the effect . But the more money...
A 2X converter will also loose you 2 Stops in speed ( The f2.8 lens becomes an f5.6. I assume that the zoom loses some speed at the 200mm end and this is also repeated with the 2 stop loss. although you do have a good 400mm lens IF the light is good enough). I am also assuming that the D80 will give a 1.6 multiplication of the effect of the lens. So an 80 to 200 becomes a 128 to 320mm . Luckily the lens will retain its original speed on the camera and the quality of the lens is USUALLY better. This is because you only use the middle section of glass with the much narrower digital format. The lens is usually an 80 to 200 f2.8 to Something. as USUALLY with a zoom the tele end is slower than the wider end. But in essence you will get (With a 2 X tele) a 256mm to 640mm f5.6 (35mm film equivalent) with the best part of the optics being used...

This was a 300 mm on a 400D there for it is equivalent in 35mm Terms to a 480mm Add a 2X Teleconverter to this and it becomes in effect (In 35mm equivilents) 960mm ! ! !

drgibson · Mar 13, 2007

The Nikkor we have is the same speed across the the whole range. (Yeah it's a beast) I was told by the camera shop that I deal with that the Kenco was only a one step reduction in f-stop. I will say this though turn off the auto focus it is unbearablly slow.

Groupcaptainbonzo · Mar 13, 2007

I am open to correction on this point , However , I believe that a 1.4 X teleconverter is a 1 stop reduction in speed . And a 2 X teleconverter is a 2 stop reduction.
specifically Nikkor lenses are something that I know little about, and my comments are based on my own experience, which is mainly of very old Minolta and Mamiya lenses. Although it has to be said that most zooms still trail off at the tele end . I would think that good quality ones (especially the shorter tele lengths), need not necessarily do so. And Nikkor have a reputation for good quality.
""I will say this though turn off the auto focus it is unbearablly slow.""
This will probably be due to the reduction in light.

dewey · Mar 13, 2007

2x = 2 stop loss... guy at the camera shop either knows a secret or doesn't know his stuff... I'd vote for the latter :lol:

I know the nikkor 2x works well with AF but it's not cheap.

drgibson · Mar 13, 2007

I'd vote for maybe I translated it wrong or had a bout of old timers
disease. :bounce: The guys I deal with are top notch.:thumbup:

DSLR noob · Mar 13, 2007

For whoever says an 80-200mm f/2.8 is slower at the tele end doesn't know how to read ht elens name. Lenses that are slower at the end tell you buy giving 2 aperture values such as the 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6. If there is only one max aperture value, then it is constant. that is moderately fast glass and good for a 200mm tele, so I'd say a 1.4x teleconverter would'nt be unbearable, and you would get some good shots out of it. Beware of camera shake with such a long focal length equivalent.

Devananda · Mar 13, 2007

so if I am shooting in the middle of the day it would not madder that I lost a couple of f stops....?right? because there would be enough light...unless I was wanting to freeze action.
so it might be a good way to get some more reach w/ this lens.
don't want to be too close to a grizzly bear just out of hibernation...LOL

drgibson · Mar 13, 2007

DSLR noob said:
For whoever says an 80-200mm f/2.8 is slower at the tele end doesn't know how to read ht elens name. Lenses that are slower at the end tell you buy giving 2 aperture values such as the 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6. If there is only one max aperture value, then it is constant. that is moderately fast glass and good for a 200mm tele, so I'd say a 1.4x teleconverter would'nt be unbearable, and you would get some good shots out of it. Beware of camera shake with such a long focal length equivalent.

I won't use it without at least a monopod.

Groupcaptainbonzo said:
I am open to correction on this point , However , I believe that a 1.4 X teleconverter is a 1 stop reduction in speed . And a 2 X teleconverter is a 2 stop reduction.
specifically Nikkor lenses are something that I know little about, and my comments are based on my own experience, which is mainly of very old Minolta and Mamiya lenses. Although it has to be said that most zooms still trail off at the tele end . I would think that good quality ones (especially the shorter tele lengths), need not necessarily do so. And Nikkor have a reputation for good quality.
""I will say this though turn off the auto focus it is unbearablly slow.""
This will probably be due to the reduction in light.

Two things the focus is slower even in broad daylight, I believe it is an electronics issue. and here is a link for you one the lenes in question.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1986

Garbz · Mar 14, 2007

Don't forget you do not only get a 2 stop loss but you also double your focal length. So if the lighting was only good enough for a 1/300 at 200mm (limit according to the hand held rule) you get 1/75 at 400mm with a 2 stop loss with a 2x multiplier which is a 4 times worse since you now need to hold it twice as steady to reduce shake.

Groupcaptainbonzo · Mar 14, 2007

"so if I am shooting in the middle of the day it would not madder that I lost a couple of f stops....?right? because there would be enough light...unless I was wanting to freeze action. "

It would depend on how bright a day it was. But at f5.6 it should be reasonable. As has been mentioned , A tripod is a really good idea anyway at these focal lengths.

Just to clear up a point. I mention the glass possibly being slower at the tele end as this is sometimes the case with some lenses. As was said, it should have 2 apertures written on the lens, if this is indeed the case. However, it is not impossible for someone to forget to include this when writing, and I though that it was worth a mention just in case. My apologies if I am not pedantic enough , it is a failing of mine I know. I shall have to look towards altering this ..

P.S. spelling 0/10... grammer 3/10. (and I'm dyslexic ! !)

RacePhoto · Mar 16, 2007

Garbz said:
Don't forget you do not only get a 2 stop loss but you also double your focal length. So if the lighting was only good enough for a 1/300 at 200mm (limit according to the hand held rule) you get 1/75 at 400mm with a 2 stop loss with a 2x multiplier which is a 4 times worse since you now need to hold it twice as steady to reduce shake.

Also, instead of shooting wide open at f 2.8, you are now shooting wide open at f/4. (for example) which means you aren't getting a stopped down f/4 using part of the lens, you are still wide open and that means you will lose image quality.

I still say, sacrifice the 2x and stay with a 1.4x which will cause less light loss and less potential distortion.

Last of all, and I guess I'll have this tattooed on my forehead.

You don't get more zoom with a 1.6 sensor. You get the same zoom. You get the apparent field of view, equal to a longer lens.

A 200mm lens is still a 200m lens, no matter what camera or sensor you have it attached to! You don't get "closer" with a 1.6 sensor than you do with a full size. You just get less picture and a narrower field of view.

The magnification does not change because you have a different size sensor.