Teleconverter with Macro..good v. bad?

[Markw]

Hi all. I have a Sigma 105mm macro. I was thinking about getting [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000KZ77YW/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0H1Y93ZQ1Q104FXPJBFS&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846"]This[/ame] for the lens. I was wondering if anyone has ever used it with this lens or has any input of how it would be. Ive decided I dont care much for tubes because of the loss in working distance. Bugs dont like you all that close to them..

Anywho..any input would be great. Thanks all!

Mark

 

[reznap]

There's a guy on here 'overread' who photographs bugs and stuff and has actually written a thread on using a high end canon 65mm 1-5x macro lens with teleconverters and extension tubes. At least I think that info is about right. I searched but couldn't find it..

 

[Overread]

Yay I'm famous

Though I have to fully admit that I don't know the kenko range, nor which (if any) of theirTCs will fit to the sigma 105mm macro - but at a quick glance at amazon I am wondering why you are not looking instead at this one:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000KZ77YW/
since it appears to operate at a higher price band and (thus one would assume) has a higher quality to it. If you are using teleconverters you can't really afford to get cheapy ones - good quality ones are what you need to use since any errors/problems will be magnified .

 

[NateS]

Everything I have heard about the one you linked (the Kenko 1.5) says that image quality degredation is pretty noticable from that TC.

The Kenko Pro300 1.4 TC is the one you want. Everything I've read on it says that image quality loss is so minimal that it isn't really even noticable. It is $200 but we all know you have to pay a bit more if you want the sharpest glass....and a Teleconverter IS glass just like a lens. I'm planning on buying a the pro 300 1.4 TC to use with my Tamron 180mm macro...only one I"m considering to be honest.

 

[Ron Evers]

[FONT=&quot]I have done a fair bit of macro work using a Raynox close-up conversion lens or extension tubes. It never crossed my mind to use a tele-converter. This thread prompted me to get out my Vivitar 2x tele-converter to see what affect it would have on my Minolta 50/1.4.

This first pic is taken with the 50 @ minimum focus distance which is about 14 inches from the front of the lens to subject. [/FONT]

This second pic is taken @ the same working distance with the Vivitar 2x tele-converter.

I think I have found a good combo for flowers & larger bugs.

 

[D-B-J]

i just grabbed a quantaray 2x from a pawnshop to see how it would work, and i love it on my nikkor 105mm 2.8 Teleconverters are pretty neat. With a macro, if the lens focuses to 1:1, then the 2x teleconverter makes it twice times life size. I don't know much about that brand, but teleconverters work awesome on macro lenses

 

[NateS]

i just grabbed a quantaray 2x from a pawnshop to see how it would work, and i love it on my nikkor 105mm 2.8 Teleconverters are pretty neat. With a macro, if the lens focuses to 1:1, then the 2x teleconverter makes it twice times life size. I don't know much about that brand, but teleconverters work awesome on macro lenses

The other thing is that if you still choose to shoot at just 1:1 then you have more working distance at 1:1 with a TC.

 

[Derrel]

A lot of the problem with lower-grade TC units is poor optical performance at the edges of the frame--but with a 1.5x or 1.6x d-slr body, the edges of the frame fall outside of the sensor's field of vision...and so the impact is not so detrimental as it is with a full-frame camera.