Doublers and sharpness

[Joe from So Cal]

I was wondering how the brain trust here feels about doublers and their effect on sharpness.

I’m sure a 400mm prime is sharper than my 80-200 f2.8D, but there’s the money factor. I already have the zoom, a doubler seems like an inexpensive way to reach out. I’m not really concerned with speed.

Anyone here advise yes or no?

 

[cgw]

I was wondering how the brain trust here feels about doublers and their effect on sharpness.

I’m sure a 400mm prime is sharper than my 80-200 f2.8D, but there’s the money factor. I already have the zoom, a doubler seems like an inexpensive way to reach out. I’m not really concerned with speed.

Anyone here advise yes or no?

Two menu choices: 1.4x costs a stop; 2x costs two. No mention of what the 80-200 is stuck on. Forget a teleconvertor if you shoot APS-C. They will affect sharpness but by how depends on many variables.
I'd stick with Nikon teleconvertors to max sharpness.

 

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day Joe

TCs have been with us for 40+ yrs, and have always been ofv"variable quality" optically
However in recent 2-4 yrs, several companies have offered TCs specifically designed to pair up with specific lenses, so if you have one of these main lenses, then the TC might become very useful. Otherwise - well it's ???

Hope this helps
Phil

 

[Hardus Nameous]

I have tried a couple cheap teleconverters on an APS-C Nikon. They were complete crap and results were slightly less sharp than a tractor tire.
I agree with the advice above to avoid them (the cheap off-brand ones).

 

[Strodav]

Yes, teleconverters have a negative affect on IQ. The effect is minimal with a quality lens and the lens manufacturer's teleconverter, but you should expect some vignetting, CA, and a bit of softness, all of which can be compensated for in Post Processing. You do have to worry about speed as the new f stop might be beyond your camera's AF system. For example, my D850 will not AF reliably beyond an f/8 lens and then only in the center of the frame. If you put a 2x tele on f/4 lens you end up at f/8 (2 stops). It should not be a problem with an f/2.8 lens. An important thing to remember is that taking good photos is 75% knowledge of the art and science of photography, planning and a little luck, 15% Post Processing skills and 10% gear as long at it meets a minimum quality level. Great photos were, and continue to be taken with much less than high quality gear. The slight hit you take with a good quality lens and tele will not ruin a good photo.

 

[RAZKY]

I was wondering how the brain trust here feels about doublers and their effect on sharpness.
I’m sure a 400mm prime is sharper than my 80-200 f2.8D, but there’s the money factor. I already have the zoom, a doubler seems like an inexpensive way to reach out. I’m not really concerned with speed. Anyone here advise yes or no?

Though there are some exceptions, teleconverters are generally recommended for use with fast prime lenses, not zooms. You don't say which version of the 80-200 f/2.8D you have, but be especially careful not to damage the rear element with a teleconverter of unknown compatibility. Hopefully the following link will help (I've not checked it):

https://www.nikonians.org/website/var/assets/files/nikonians-teleconverter-compatibility-chart.pdf

 

[Joe from So Cal]

I appreciate the input from everyone here.

Thanks all !

 

[Stic2]

I have a Tamron 2x converter (in white to match the L lens) I use on my 100-400L to shoot the moon, don't think i've ever used it for anything else...(was cheap 2nd hand), I don't notice any lack of sharpness in images...

Used recently on this:

Moon 27 Oct 2023 by M Smith, on Flickr

 

[RAZKY]

I have a Tamron 2x converter (in white to match the L lens) I use on my 100-400L to shoot the moon, don't think i've ever used it for anything else...(was cheap 2nd hand), I don't notice any lack of sharpness in images...

Used recently on this:

Moon 27 Oct 2023 by M Smith, on Flickr

It could be my eyes, or my monitor, but the old moon looks fuzzy to me.

 

[Stic2]

Only so much as it's a really long way away, and it's never going to be all in focus, given it's size...

The 2x converter isn't really adding much to that....

 

[RVT1K]

I've got a Nikon 1.7x mounted to my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Tamron 2x mounted on my Tamron 300mm f/2.8.

I'm sure you could see some evidence of degradation in quality if you really scrutinized and made direct comparisons. I haven't. I need the extra reach and have no issues with image quality with either rig.