teleconverter with my nikon lens ??

[dannylightning]

i am pretty sure i know the answer here. but i was watching some videos about what these pro wild life photographers use. and this particular group used tamron SP AF pro 2X teleconverters now these people had high quality 300-600 mm lenses, around F/2 or what ever. you know, the expensive once that allot of us cant afford. i know the teleconverters work well with those higher end lenses. but i have a feeling that will not be the case with the lens i own.

now i am using a D5300 and a 18-200 3.5/f nikon VRII lens. for around 250.00 bucks i can get that teleconverter and i guess i would have a 400mm lens which would be awesome. that seems like the least expensive way to get a much better reach.

here is my question, i am not going to get lousy results using a teleconverter and my lens. i understand i will loose probably 2 f stops so that would probably make my lens a 7.1/F with the teleconverter on it. that does not sound like a big deal as long as i am outside on a well lit day. but than again i hear one some lenses you might loose more than 2 f stops, i see some people say they loose auto focus others say they do not.

in all the reviews i read some people were using one with the nikon 70-300 and there were mixes reviews with that lens. some people though it was great, others lost auto focus, others said image quality was great, others said it was not. i have no idea if these people know what they are doing or not, allot of people here seem to know what they are doing. so i figure ill see what you all have to say.

 

[PaulWog]

The thing about the 70-300 vr is that the vr doesn't work crazy magic. It's very good vr, but the VC on the tamron is probably better by a stop. Beginners throw the vr on, shoot at low shutter speeds, and look at acceptable but somewhat soft images and blame the lens. There is some truth to the performance degradation toward the 300mm, but the naysayers who report terrible experiences likely are afraid to bump iso up, and instead shoot at say 1/300 at 300mm, which often won't cut it. Alternatively, they might keep vr on at 1/1000 or faster and not realize that vr can degrade the image if you're at fast shutter speeds.

Your 18-200 will perform very poorly if you find a compatible teleconverter. A 2x converter will make it something like an f11 lens or thereabouts at its fastest aperture, and it will be softened up a ton. The auto focus will also be slower.

Don't get a 70-300 to go alongside the 18-200. I think that would be pointless. Also, don't get a teleconverter, that's really not worth it unless if you've got a lens that you know can take it... And you will know from googling. You're better off spending the extra cash on something like the tamron 150-600 if you want that long range and acceptable performance that equals or betters your 18-200.

 

[480sparky39 38]

The 18-200 may be f/3.5 at 18mm, but it will be f/5.6 at 200mm. With a 2x TC, that makes it an f/11. I doubt your D5300 will AF at all.

And manually focusing at f/11 is all but impossible on a DSLR. I even have trouble at f/8 with a film camera, which has a much brighter viewfinder image due to fact that all the light is sent to it, and not divvied up with the AF module.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, short primer on TC's, or teleconverters. They are nice and can be really handy, but you need to understand their limitations.

Ok, most common TC's are 1.4 x and 2 x. A 1.4 x teleconverter will cost you generally 1 Fstop, sometimes a little more depending on the TC. The 2x TC will cost you 2 full fstops.

Now, on a slow lens (say one that starts at F/5.6 which is where you are on an 18-200 mm when your zoomed out to 200 mm), you lose 1 full stop and suddenly your at F/8. Most cameras won't gaurantee you that they can focus at F8 even in good lighting. The result is even with the 1.4x often times your lens will either "hunt" or not be able to lock on at all.

Replace that 1.4x with a 2x? Suddenly the camera doesn't even have enough light for the AF System to work at all, you'll have to switch to manual focus to get it to work.

The end result? TC's are ok - but you need fast glass for them to work. Also most TC's will have a metal tab on them that will prevent them from being used with some lenses. So if you have say an 18-50 F/2.8, well you won't be able to mount a standard TC with it because the tab will prevent it.

Also to make matters even more fun, not all TC's will work with all lenses and vice versa. It's always best to check the lens your buying the TC for, make sure it is compatible, and make sure that it's fast enough glass that the TC will actually be worth having.

Ok, that having been said, if you do decide to buy a TC, I don't recommend you buy a new one. Check out KEH Camera online, they always have a ton of TC's that are in pretty much brand new condition because so many people don't understand their limitations, buy them, find out they don't work the way they want and them sell them after only using them a couple of times to outfits like KEH.

You can usually pick up a used TC for roughly half what a new one will cost you, in like new condition.

Hope that helps.

 

[dannylightning]

Well I guess I'll start saving for that tamron 150-600,

Seems like the best budget lens with lots of reach from all the reviews I have been checking out. I hate to spend that much money, maybe I'll see if I can pick up a used one eventually.

The teleconvert does not sound like a good option for me.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I guess I'll start saving for that tamron 150-600,

Seems like the best budget lens with lots of reach from all the reviews I have been checking out. I hate to spend that much money, maybe I'll see if I can pick up a used one eventually.

The teleconvert does not sound like a good option for me.

Well if you have something like a 70-200 mm F/2.8 a TC can be an effective tool. Even something like a 300 mm F/4 can be effective in combination with a TC, but for slower glass they just really aren't a good investment.

Thing is unless you need a zoom with a lot of speed for shooting in low light, that may not be your best choice. A good 70-200 mm F/2.8 even used is kind of an expensive proposition. You can get some of the non-nikkor brands like Sigma or Tamron without VC/OS used for around $500, with VC/OS your usually looking at $700 or so, and if you wanted Nikkor your usually looking at $1000 and up.

But if you don't really need the lowlight capabilities and really what you need is zoom you'll probably be happier with a Tamron 150-600 mm without a TC. If your on a budget you can also look around and see if maybe you can pickup a Sigma 150-500 used, quite a few folks are selling them off to finance the Tamron 150-600's.

 

[dannylightning]

i have watched allot of reviews on youtube and what not, and the sigma 150-500 people keep saying after 400mm it looses sharpness and the pictures they took showed to prove that.

the tamron 150-600 looks much better but it still was not as sharp as the canon lenses i saw people put it up against but it was descent. but it still has me wondering if i would be happy with the lens.

i saw a review on the nikon 80-400 and i was pretty impressed, than i saw the price tag on that.


i dont plan to use the zoom in low light, i picked up a 35mm f/1.8 for shooting in low light. . for long exposure night shooting ill probably stick with my 18-200, a 400mm+ would be for daylight wildlife shooting, some kind of VR would be nice because i don't prefer to use a tripod except for long exposure night shooting. i think a 300mm F/4 with T/C would work out well but even the brands like sigma seem like there a bit expensive for prime lenses. at this point the tamron 150-600 seems like a good option but i am worried i may not be 100% happy with it.

 

[PaulWog]

i have watched allot of reviews on youtube and what not, and the sigma 150-500 people keep saying after 400mm it looses sharpness and the pictures they took showed to prove that.

the tamron 150-600 looks much better but it still was not as sharp as the canon lenses i saw people put it up against but it was descent. but it still has me wondering if i would be happy with the lens.

i saw a review on the nikon 80-400 and i was pretty impressed, than i saw the price tag on that.


i dont plan to use the zoom in low light, i picked up a 35mm f/1.8 for shooting in low light. . for long exposure night shooting ill probably stick with my 18-200, a 400mm+ would be for daylight wildlife shooting, some kind of VR would be nice because i don't prefer to use a tripod except for long exposure night shooting. i think a 300mm F/4 with T/C would work out well but even the brands like sigma seem like there a bit expensive for prime lenses. at this point the tamron 150-600 seems like a good option but i am worried i may not be 100% happy with it.

You'll have to pay the price of a brand new car to be 100% happy with a 600mm lens (if 100% happy means you want top notch results).

If you're willing to wait and to spend more, Sigma is releasing two separate 150-600 lenses very soon.

 

[dannylightning]

i promised my self i would pay off my credit cards before i bought anything else and it probably wont be long before the weather takes a turn for the worst. ill probably wait till spring time before i get a new lens, unless i find a heck of a deal on something really nice.

what are going to be the differences between the two 150-600mm lenses, and do you know what they are going to cost. ?

i think i would be happy with a lens in the 400-600 range. i have always done alright with a 200mm lens in the past as long as i go to a place like the nature realm where the animals are not that scared of the people. some birds will even come and land on your hand if you have food in it.

but when i go out to a lake and the big crane type birds are flying in the middle or the lake i there so small i cant really even crop the photo enough to really see them, or when they are setting on the shore on the other side of the lake i cant even see them in my camera, i am not 100% sure i would be able to see them with a 400-600mm either but i thin i wold have a much better chance and getting some of those shots than i could not get with a 200mm

 

[Aloicious]

at this point the tamron 150-600 seems like a good option but i am worried i may not be 100% happy with it.

the newest generations of the supertele zooms are definitely a step up in quality (like the tammy 150-600, and likely the new sigma 150-600's, as well as the Nikon 80-400). but ANY lens will be a compromise especially those when words like "zoom" and "budget" are used to describe them, it all comes down to what you are willing to sacrifice...and its likely you won't be 100% satisfied, but you likely wouldn't be with any lens, even the super expensive exotic superteles have some compromises between them.

I've owned the 600mm F4 VR, 500mm F4 VR, 300mm f2.8 VRI, and 300mm f2.8 VRII, and I can tell you there are compromises with each one, for example the 600f4 is the longest of the bunch and gives phenominal IQ, but the thing weighs like 12lbs so you're confined to a tripod pretty much 100% of the time. the 500f4 is lighter at 8.5 lbs, so it's somewhat hand hold-able, and the IQ is great, but the optical quality of the 500 is probably the lowest of the exotics (which doesn't mean much because they're all fantastic, but if you're only strictly comparing between like a 500f4 to a 600f4 or a 300f2.8, the 500 does have slightly lower IQ than the others, but not by a significant amount), and the 300 f2.8 has probably the best IQ of them all that I've owned, lighter than the others for simple transport and hand holding, and faster than the others, but its also the shortest focal length which is a compromise especially when it comes to birds...

in the end I chose the 300 f2.8 and I use one of the new 1.4xIII teleconverters with it. which gives me 420mm f4.0 with minimal IQ loss from the TC. if they ever release a version III of the 1.7x I'll probably get that and have 500mm f4.8....what it all comes down to is that nothing is probably going to be 100% happy, you need to choose what your priorities are with the lens, and what you're able to sacrifice. personally I'm not a fan of zooms, especially for wildlife because 99.9% of the time you're zoomed out to the max and wanting more, so for me its not worth it to compromise on IQ and speed for convenience that isn't really used much, if at all. it doesn't mean those lenses are bad or anything, just not my style. heck, I don't even like the $5k 200-400 f4 zoom, but that doesn't mean its not a fantastic lens. Its more about your preferences and what you need out of the lens than anything else there are plenty of people creating incredible images with the supertele zooms, go look at costalconn's photos on here for one. he started with the tammy 200-500, and now has the new tammy 150-600 and does great work.

if you're getting into birding, get used to a) wanting more focal length no matter what you have b) spening significant amounts of money on lenses c) cropping most everything

I'd suggest renting the new tammy 150-600 and see if it suits you before you buy, maybe also rent the 300f4+TC and see if that's better, renting is a fantastic thing to do when checking out expensive equipment before you make the plunge. I wish I had rented some of the supertele's I've owned rather than purchasing/selling, but luckily I bought and sold them all on the used market and didn't lose much at all in the buying/selling process, and had a good long amount of time with each of them, so the end result is basically the same.

(BTW if you don't own that pic you posted you should take it down and just post a link, its a violation of site rules to post images directly that you don't own, just fyi)

 

[dannylightning]

thank's for the advice. ill take the pic down, I thought saying that i do not own it would be ok..

the prime lenses seem to be out of my price range, all of the ones i have looked at were a bit expensive. i think i am just going to get one of the sigma or tamron 150-X00 zoom lenses, found someone selling a used sigma, gonna go check it out tomorrow, that will by far be the least expensive option.

 

[coastalconn]

I personally like the Tamron 150-600 quite a bit. For the price it will be hard to beat. It's too early to tell how the Sigma variants will perform, but the Sport is 2K. I had the 150-500 Sigma in the past and it is not bad for the price, but at 500mm it was the sharpest, even stopped down. Side by side at 420 I found the Tamron to be very close to the Nikon 300F4+1.4x TC. I know I'm a mutant that likes dead fish, but here is a 100% crop of the "dead" fish.. lol... It is sharp enough for me, but YMMV
Osprey 9_21 100% crop of 1 by krisinct- Thanks for 3 Million + views!, on Flickr

 

[dannylightning]

Thanks. I have another post going about lenses. and i don't want to get yelled at for cross posting. i was just looking for some teleconverter info in this thread but I will say this

I do agree that the Tamron looks like a better lens and I would rather have that lens but I may have a deal that is to good to turn down on the sigma, as long as its in good shape that is. I have talked to a member here and saw quite a few of his pictures taken with the sigma and 500mm and he gets some great pictures with it.

If i get the lens and I am not happy with the IQ i should easily be able to get my money back out of it and I think he said he will give me a few weeks to try it out and if i am not happy with it he will let me return it to him.

 

[JH Foto]

With my Tamron SP 70-300 I use a Kenko 1.4 Teleplus DGX and get fantastic results

 

[KmH]

IIRC the Tamron SP AF pro 2X teleconverter only works with Nikon FX lenses.
Nikon's AF-S 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6g ED VR II is a DX lens.
The Nikon AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED is an FX lens.