Quick N00b question here.

[Bram]

Hello TPF.

Just a quick question, if I have a 55-200mm VR DX lens for my D40x, would that 2x converter make it zoom-able to up to 400mm? or how does that work?

In other words Would I be able to zoom in further then the 200mm if I ad something to the lens?

Thanks in advance

N00b- Bram

 

[tirediron]

Yes, you would theoretically have a 110-400 zoom, HOWEVER when you double the focal length, you also double the maximum aperture, so your f5.6 will now become something in the order of f11, which is going to be too slow in all but the brightest light for your auto-focus.

I would NOT recommend using a teleconverter on a 55-200mm lens.

 

[Bram]

Thank you so much for your input tirediron, what if I am shooting say, a football game during the day in bright sunlight clear skies? Would it be appropriate then? Is there such thing as a 1.5x converter?

 

[tirediron]

1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.0 and 3.0 are the standard teleconverters, but even using a 1.4/1.5 is going to put you around f9.5ish. Just "ball-parking" using the Sunny 16 rule and assuming ISO 400, your maximum shutter speed isn't going to be much more than 1/1000 at most, and it's stil going to be beyone the ability of your lens to auto-focus.

 

[Dao]

Typical TC is 1.4x (rob 1 stop of light) and 2x (rob 2 stop of light) and Nikon has a 1.7x (rob 1.5 stop of light).

I do not know about the Nikon one, but the one from Canon can only work on certain lenses in their line up.

If the TC physically fit, at least you maybe able to use it with manual focus.

There are 3rd party TCs as well such as the those made by Kenko, Sigma and Tamron.

 

[Bram]

Thanks alot guys that really helps. I guess a converter isn't in my future then. I was just curious because if it worked I would just buy one of thoseinstead of saving for a $1600.00 lens right.

 

[kundalini]

According to the manual, all models of teleconverters are an incompatible accessory for this lens.

 

[Bram]

Oh snap! Dang that really sucks. I was hoping I wouldn't have to pay $1600.00 for a sick lens but I mean hey, nothing is easy in this world. Thanks for the information kundalini.

 

[kundalini]

You're welcome. Although I no longer have that lens, I remembered reading about the teleconverters in the manual when I first got it. To be sure, I checked the on-line manual at Nikon USA website and confirmed it to be so. I take it you didn't bother to do this kind of research for yourself. That's a shame because you usually retain more information when you actually look and find the fairly easy inquiries rather being told what those answers are.

 

[Bram]

Yes yes, I indeed did not research this, I am in fact at work and my work has disabled certain site from being viewed. Unfortunatel a bunch of other sites are blocked and fortunate enough for me I have people like you who are a great help to me when I am able to visit this site and communicate with other photographers.

Nontheless I definately see your point.

 

[kundalini]

:thumbup:

 

[Bram]

Alright another question I have seen a couple lenses under $1000.00 which is my price range, kind of. Now this is completely suggestions, and opinion wise based. Sport photography lens under $1000.00 wat would you get? My body is basic (D40x) and my budget is a little bigger then usual now. What would ____ do?

 

[tirediron]

Look for a used 80-200 f2.8

 

[Bram]

Found one on Amazon for $900.00 but also an 80-400 4.5-5.6 now which wuold be best for sports? I know the 2.8 can be used more often like in low light conditions. As for well lighted conditions like during the day. The 400 would be pretty sick.

 

[tirediron]

I think you'll find the 5.6 a little too slow for a lot of action work.