Do telenconverters make a big difference ?

peanut170 · May 25, 2012

Wanted to rent a lens for a trip I'm going on, and was just gonna try out the sigma 50-500, because would like a long zoom, but than thought maybe I could get the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a teleconvertor. Any thoughts on this, that could help me out? Never used either lens or a teleconvertor.

TCampbell · May 25, 2012

Multiply the focal lengths and focal ratios by the teleconverter factor. If it's a 1.4x then the lens becomes a 98-280mm f/4. If it's a 2x then it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6.

Yes, technically a teleconverter (being more glass) will fractionally degrade the quality. So if you can get the shot without using the teleconverter, that'd be preferred. But it is a nice way to avoid having to carry an extra lens. I do have a 2x teleconverter than I can use on my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 lenses. For most common image sizes you won't notice the difference (web sizes for social media sites or smallish-prints up to maybe 8x10 size). If you crop heavily & pixel-peep or make large-ish prints (16x20's or bigger) then you'd probably notice that the image quality isn't quite as crisp with the teleconverter as it is without.

Make sure the lens is compatible with the teleconverter. For Canon (because I don't know Nikon specifics on this stuff) they list the lenses -- generally the teleconverters are meant to be used with lenses at around 100mm or longer focal lengths (e.g. they might tell you that a teleconverter isn't compatible with a wide-angle lens... but then you probably wouldn't *want* to do that anyway.)

imagemaker46 · May 25, 2012

They make a big difference when you really need a little more lens than you have, but using cheap ones, you'll end up with images that are a little soft. For Canon, I know that the 1.4x is great, I used a 2x for a while but was never happy with the results, everything was just a little too soft.

I think the 70-200 and a 1.4 would probably get you everything you're likely to need.

gsgary · May 25, 2012

imagemaker46 said:
They make a big difference when you really need a little more lens than you have, but using cheap ones, you'll end up with images that are a little soft. For Canon, I know that the 1.4x is great, I used a 2x for a while but was never happy with the results, everything was just a little too soft.

I think the 70-200 and a 1.4 would probably get you everything you're likely to need.

I have the Kenko 2x 300pro and i get sharp shots with the 300f2.8L for £60 off ebay it was a bargain

yo13dawg · May 25, 2012

I use the 300mm F4 with the TC-14E on the D7000. I have tried the 1.7x but the 1.4x is a good middle ground between extra reach and image quality.

c.cloudwalker · May 25, 2012

The way it was explained to me a long time ago is that an extender (teleconverter) takes the best part of the lens and enlarges it so that, if it's not a total piece of sh*t, an extender should not be a problem. I used one on a Hasellblad's 80mm for quite a while and no one saw the difference. I barely saw any myself.

And it was not a super expensive piece of equipment.

But, yes, you lose in the f/stop department.

HughGuessWho · May 25, 2012

imagemaker46 said:
They make a big difference when you really need a little more lens than you have, but using cheap ones, you'll end up with images that are a little soft. For Canon, I know that the 1.4x is great, I used a 2x for a while but was never happy with the results, everything was just a little too soft.

I think the 70-200 and a 1.4 would probably get you everything you're likely to need.

Agree. I have the 70-220 with a 1.4 and 2.0. I like them both very much but I can say with 100% certainty, the 2.0 gives MUCH softer results.

peanut170 · May 25, 2012

So if I was going to shoot wildlife from a distance would I be better off just going with the sigma 50-500 over the 70-200 and converter? Considering im losing quality with the convertor might as well get an extra 100-200 reach out of it, or better to stick woth the 70-200 for times when i didnt need the convertor and could just use it as is for quality shots?This is just for a few day rental is all.

Patrice · May 25, 2012

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR lenses and the Nikon TC-14EII were made for one another! (Just an opinion of course.)

HughGuessWho · May 25, 2012

peanut170 said:
So if I was going to shoot wildlife from a distance would I be better off just going with the sigma 50-500 over the 70-200 and converter? Considering im losing quality with the convertor might as well get an extra 100-200 reach out of it, or better to stick woth the 70-200 for times when i didnt need the convertor and could just use it as is for quality shots?This is just for a few day rental is all.

Don't take me wrong. The 2x isn't BAD. I still like it. It just IS softer than the 1.4

table1349 · May 25, 2012

c.cloudwalker said:
The way it was explained to me a long time ago is that an extender (teleconverter) takes the best part of the lens and enlarges it so that, if it's not a total piece of sh*t, an extender should not be a problem. I used one on a Hasellblad's 80mm for quite a while and no one saw the difference. I barely saw any myself.

And it was not a super expensive piece of equipment.

But, yes, you lose in the f/stop department.

While that it true to a point, keep in mind that it also takes the worst aspects of a lens and magnifies them as well. If you put a TC on an already slightly soft lens, your end results will be even softer. That is why when using a TC you should use a top quality TC on a top quality lens that it is compatible with if you want the best possible results.

table1349 · May 25, 2012

peanut170 said:
So if I was going to shoot wildlife from a distance would I be better off just going with the sigma 50-500 over the 70-200 and converter? Considering im losing quality with the convertor might as well get an extra 100-200 reach out of it, or better to stick woth the 70-200 for times when i didnt need the convertor and could just use it as is for quality shots?This is just for a few day rental is all.

Define wildlife.

Wildlife to me are deer, elk, cougars, eagles and bears. I don't get near it with anything less than a 400mm and on that I still use a TC. With that type of wildlife if you fill the viewfinder with an animal with anything less than 400mm on the front you well could be called dinner.