Super moon failed attempt...

[Emanuel M]

This was just for fun.
Today the moon was very big, so I decided to mount the tripod outside and shot a few snaps with my D5300 + 50-200mm.
I needed a bigger lens for sure.
I am thinking on getting a teleconverter 2X and a 70-300.
I would get 600mm for this kind of shots.
What do you think of these teleconverters?
This was my very first attempt on shooting the moon.
It was kinda fun

Here's the pic.


DSC_0361 by Emanuel M, no Flickr

Cheers

 

[snowbear]

Teleconverters are relatively inexpensive but the trade off is some deIQ degradation (like using a filter) and light loss (two stops on a 2x) so your f/4-5.6 kit lens becomes an f/8-11. This is why the Nikon TCs won't mount to the slower lenses.

 

[robbins.photo]

This was just for fun.
Today the moon was very big, so I decided to mount the tripod outside and shot a few snaps with my D5300 + 50-200mm.
I needed a bigger lens for sure.
I am thinking on getting a teleconverter 2X and a 70-300.
I would get 600mm for this kind of shots.
What do you think of these teleconverters?
This was my very first attempt on shooting the moon.
It was kinda fun

Here's the pic.


DSC_0361 by Emanuel M, no Flickr

Cheers

Greetings Emanuel.

The 2x teleconverter you mentioned probably won't be a good choice when paired with a 70-300mm lens, most 70-300 mm lenses go to 5.6 at 300 mm. A 2x teleconverter reduces the light coming into the camera by 2 fstops, so when your zoomed out to 300 mm your at F11. Your camera won't autofocus above F8.

You could use it that way as a manual focus lens, however with the loss of two F-stops you'd need a tripod and probably a long exposure time to make it work. Teleconverters like that really only work well on fast glass I'm afraid.

 

[Designer]

Here's the pic.

This is DINKY! I thought the file would be "large" at least, so we could just "zoom in" and viola! But with this dinky-assed file, we can't do that.

What a waste of digital file!

 

[snowbear]

It was kinda fun

And that is the whole point!

 

[Emanuel M]

It's not a waste when having fun.
What did you expect from a nikon 55-200mm?!
This was shot at f/35 at 1/20 shutter speed.
I used the tripod and manual focus.
The teleconverter was going to be used for this exclusively, since it doubles the aperture values i wouldn't be able to use it on many other scenarios

Another question - you guys think the sigma 70-300 is equivalent to the 55-200 in terms of image quality?
They are cheap and sometimes i think that the 200mm are kinda short.

Cheers

 

[wyogirl]

To shoot the moon I think a converter will be fine. The moon is bright and f11 is a good starting point. Manual focus wouldn't be hard for the moon either. In fact I'm going to be trying my 2x out on the moon tonight.

 

[petrochemist]

If it's just for shooting the moon a 500mm mirror lens would probably work out as well as a 70-300 + TC. As well as being lighter & cheaper...
It possible to but these new for under $100, and the moon allows plenty of time to get the focus right. The doughnut bokeh associated with mirror lenses isn't a problem when everything in shot is effectively at infinity.
For wildlife, sports etc the 70-300 would probably prove worth the extra expense.

 

[snowbear]

There are a number of sites that do lens comparisons, so you should be able to find something. Another thing to consider - if possible, try to get a reference in the shot, like trees.