Nikon AF-D*** Teleconverters

I currently have a Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D and sometimes I need more range. I was looking for a teleconverter 2x that will STILL LET ME US AF.

I was looking at this....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371030-REG/Kenko_K20PRO300DGN_2x_Teleplus_Pro_300.html

Which would make my f/2.8 a f/5.6 right?

I heard that AF stops working after f/5.6? Why is this?

Anybody have experience with this TC?

 

I think that should work. It says that it's for AF-D and the screwdriver coupling appears to be there.

Yes.

There's no hard stopping point at which AF stops working. AF just becomes less effective and accurate when the minimum available aperture is smaller than f/5.6 because there's not enough light being let through the lens for the AF system to "see" well enough.

 

The Kenko Pro is a good choice. You will not have any trouble at all. I have a cheaper one that I bought 9 years ago before I learned about the old low price bait and switch some NY shops pull. I wanted and ordered the Kenko. They pulled the we are out of stock but have this other one that is same or better than Kenko. So, I ended up paying good money for a cheap one.

What do I use? Even though I still have the Phoenix 2x (auto focus). I use a MF nikon tc-201 (2x). My wife will use the Phoenix 2x. I don't care for it. It's ok, but definately ruins the quality of the nikon glass.

I have a Kenko 1.4x AF though. No issues with it at all. :thumbup:

 

I'd take care with a 2x teleconverter. The 80-200 is an excellent lens and the teleconverter is nice, but 2x is a big ask for any glass and often gives subpar results. I use my 1.4x quite often and have seen 1.7x used with a minor loss in quality but I'd be careful with anything beyond that.

A 400mm f/5.6 sounds good but you may not be happy with it.

 

The point of the 80-200 2.8 is to be great in low light but u lose that to gain the extra reach, but maybe a 1.4x or 1.7x would be a better option and would get that extra reach and still get ok light intake in lower lights, not to mention inproved sharpness with the 1.4x or 1.7x over a 2x

 

I should have mentioned this wouldn't be used in low light, but rather high-light slower moving wildlife/animals.

I might buy a 1.7 or a 1.4 since a f/4 is very acceptable. Are there any other TC's that work with AF-D Lenses?

 

You kinda missed the point. The point was that a 2x TC is going to degrade image quality significantly compared to a 1.4 or 1.7.

 

The TC-14E, 17E, & 20E can be used on AF-D, but they have to be modified. It sounds scary at first, but it's quite simple & quick...did mine in about 10 minutes start to finish. It worked on my 80-200 AF-D before I got the 70-200, and it works great on my 500 f/4P, which is a 20 year old manual focus lens.


http://nikonpages.heymanphotography.com/tcmod/index.html


And, putting a 2x on any lens, no matter the quality, will degrade both it's capability and quality. Stick with a 1.4 to 1.7.

 

Also just a quick question about the 80-200 AF-D 2.8 i am going to be in the market for a fast telephoto in the upcoming months and i was wondering if there were any major down sides to the 80-200 2.8 that would justify the $700 more for the AF-S 70-200 2.8 (I have a body that will AF the 80-200 so no problem there) thanks for your time.

 

There are absolutely no major downsides to the 80-200mm vs the 70-200mm. While it may not have VR, AF-S, AE-L Buttons, or some other features, they have optics that a very similar, and are sharp to the corners of the frame even at 200mm.
Save yourself some $700 and buy this lens.


As for the 1.7 TC, does kenko even make a 1.7 TC?

 

Kenko makes a 1.4x, 1.5x , 2x TC
With a DX body you will get focal lengths such as...
1.4x - 420mm
1.5x - 525mm
2x - 600mm
Sorry to keep going back to the 80-200 AF-D, but is there a manual over ride switch which, like there is on the 70-200 2.8 VR

 

It's totally fine, I love telling people to buy it vs the 70-200mm.

There is a AutoF and MF mode, no M/A, so to use MF you have to tilt a ring to allow you to use MF or viceversa.