Teleconvert on prime lens

[hamlet]

The AF-D lens are not optically inferior. matter of fact some older lenses still are fantastic to use. My 75-300 AF (no D) is a fantastically sharp lens at all focal lengths and predates the "D" functionality. There are some fantastic AI-S lenses (predates the "AF" features) and fully manual lenses out there too that are inexpensive but fantastic glass. And since you want to do things manually you should investigate pre "G" glass which has all the fancy AF-S auto focusing motors built in. Basically stuff you won't use but will pay alot of $$$ for that you don't use in Manual. If you check this guy out, he has alot of AF-D and AI-S lenses in his best lens list Nikon's 10 Best Lenses FWIW, alot of people don't like these guys overall individual recommendations .. but that's something else to learn too.

I think he was just referring to the 50 prime

Still; it's not optically "inferior". True, it might not perform on paper as well as the 50mm 1.8G at 1.8, but it's still VERY good glass and cheap as hell.

How about this: the 50mm 1.8D is optically superior than the 35mm 1.8G, produces better bokeh and with less distortion. And it will surely outperform a 35mm 1.8G with a 0.7 TC. So why consider the 35mm 1.8G at all?

Hamlet seems set on using manual focus, so this seems like a perfect alternative to the TC in consideration. You can pick these up all day long for under $90 USD. They are an incredible bargain for costerformance.

The 50mm g is also my preferred lens. But i've already sank too much money into 52mm filters.

 

[Braineack]

You know what's cool?

the 1.8D uses 52mm filters...

but you'll probably find another reason not to want it, so I dunno why I bother.

 

[Mach0]

Still; it's not optically "inferior". True, it might not perform on paper as well as the 50mm 1.8G at 1.8, but it's still VERY good glass and cheap as hell. How about this: the 50mm 1.8D is optically superior than the 35mm 1.8G, produces better bokeh and with less distortion. And it will surely outperform a 35mm 1.8G with a 0.7 TC. So why consider the 35mm 1.8G at all? Hamlet seems set on using manual focus, so this seems like a perfect alternative to the TC in consideration. You can pick these up all day long for under $90 USD. They are an incredible bargain for costerformance.

That still qualifies as optically inferior. I'm not discounting it. I almost got it but came across a good deal on a G. It is a good lens by all means. However, the G is optically better than the D..it just comes down to whether or not it makes a difference to you. The price is very attractive though.

 

[Braineack]

Still; it's not optically "inferior". True, it might not perform on paper as well as the 50mm 1.8G at 1.8, but it's still VERY good glass and cheap as hell. How about this: the 50mm 1.8D is optically superior than the 35mm 1.8G, produces better bokeh and with less distortion. And it will surely outperform a 35mm 1.8G with a 0.7 TC. So why consider the 35mm 1.8G at all? Hamlet seems set on using manual focus, so this seems like a perfect alternative to the TC in consideration. You can pick these up all day long for under $90 USD. They are an incredible bargain for costerformance.

That still qualifies as optically inferior. I'm not discounting it.

Yes, but Hamlet is discounting it because someone told him it's inferior; but it's all relative.

 

[hamlet]

Still; it's not optically "inferior". True, it might not perform on paper as well as the 50mm 1.8G at 1.8, but it's still VERY good glass and cheap as hell. How about this: the 50mm 1.8D is optically superior than the 35mm 1.8G, produces better bokeh and with less distortion. And it will surely outperform a 35mm 1.8G with a 0.7 TC. So why consider the 35mm 1.8G at all? Hamlet seems set on using manual focus, so this seems like a perfect alternative to the TC in consideration. You can pick these up all day long for under $90 USD. They are an incredible bargain for costerformance.

That still qualifies as optically inferior. I'm not discounting it.

Yes, but Hamlet is discounting it because someone told him it's inferior; but it's all relative.

I don't remember why i discounted the 50mm D, but i vet all my purchases before even considering to buy them. If i came to the conclusion that the 35mm is the choice for me then that's what i'm sticking with.

 

[o hey tyler]

A 35mm with a discount TC on it would be extremely silly. Just throwing that out there.

 

[hamlet]

Here i thought i had come up with an idea that saves people a lot of money and possibly sink companies into ruin. O well, back to finding a cure for a deadly illnesses.

 

[SCraig]

Here i thought i had come up with an idea that saves people a lot of money and possibly sink companies into ruin. O well, back to finding a cure for a deadly illnesses.

Teleconverters have been around forever. I bought my first one back in the mid 70's under the assumption that my 300mm lens would instantly become a massive 600mm monster lens. So began my first disillusioned photographic moment. Luckily the TC I got had removable optics and with them out became a nice extension tube so I did enjoy shooting macro with it.

 

[VABuckeye]

Am I the only one here who sees a huge bag full of gear in a year or so in this situation without a clue as to how to use any of it because he never invests the time to learn and practice before moving on to the next thing?

I mean, really. At first it was just a budget DSLR to take photos of animals in a cage and now it's astrophotography? Shutterbug please!

 

[hamlet]

Am I the only one here who sees a huge bag full of gear in a year or so in this situation without a clue as to how to use any of it because he never invests the time to learn and practice before moving on to the next thing?

I mean, really. At first it was just a budget DSLR to take photos of animals in a cage and now it's astrophotography? Shutterbug please!

I'm doing astrophotography on the weekends in France. In the evenings i'm taking pictures of poof and in the mornings i'm all over Germany doing street/landscape photography. Any spare time that remains is invested in practising in lightroom, because we don't stand still here. Gotta keep refining my skill.

(The grumpy baby is you btw, sir buzzkillMcgrumpy)

 

[astroNikon]

here's a nice starter telescope for astrophotography
MAX 20" ACF - Meade Instruments - Telescopes, Solar Telescopes, Accessories, Telescopes by Meade

j/k

 

[hamlet]

here's a nice starter telescope for astrophotography
MAX 20" ACF - Meade Instruments - Telescopes, Solar Telescopes, Accessories, Telescopes by Meade

j/k

If anyone owned that telescope, then they would have it Meade. :lmao: But the problem we astrophotographers have is that there is an atmosphere between us and the heavens. So quality will always be a problem no matter how you look at it. If there were Hubble like space telescopes in space that we could rent and could control where its looking at, then that would be pretty nice. It wouldn't even need to be as complicated as the Hubble. All it would have to do is give us the same reach as we can get from telescopes here on earth we use on our dslr's. You'd get some nice pictures for sure.