Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok Nikonians, don't get your hopes up just yet: Nikon doesn't make one. And maybe never will. (even though chief competitor Canon has had their excellent 100-400 telephoto zoom on the market for many years)
However...
When I bought my D90, it came with a 18-55 kit lens, and also the fairly decent 70-300mm VR telephoto lens. Now, you pros out there might cringe at this, but on a whim I decided to try my Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX (not DG) 1.4X converter on the 70-300 VR. This is "not supposed to work", according to the conventional wisdom posted on the web; everything I've read says converters don't work well at all with zooms. I was so totally ingrained with this bias that I hadn't even thought of trying this idea since I purchased the teleconverter some 5 months ago. In fact, a Nikon tele-converter will NOT even mount on this particular lens, because of a mechanical stop they engineered into their teleconverters. But, that doesn't stop other manufacturers from omitting this mechanical stop...such as the Kenko I have....it happily mounts just fine.
But the question remained: would the auto-focus work, and would the picture quality be so bad that it wouldn't be worth having a "100-420mm zoom"?
Well, I can tell you that the AF works fine, even on overcast days. The AF speed seemed to be just as fast as without the converter, and it did not "hunt" around at all. (but it probably will in fading light) Furthermore, the metering works just as it should, the proper f-stop is reported to the camera, and the effective 100-420mm magnification also shows up in the EXIF data. AND: the VR still worked just fine! I just could not believe it: all of a sudden I had a VERY compact, inexpensive, super-telephoto with VR! I wondered what would happen if I dared to take a few shots at 420mm handheld....with no tripod? So...I tried it with the lens aperature cranked wide open. You can judge for yourself the results.
Same scene at 420mm, also handheld:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v163/KL7EU/420mm-1.jpg (broken link)
Ok, so it seems to work if the light is good. But I will experiment more in other light conditions. And with a tripod to see what the difference might be. The bad: the maximum wide-open f-stop you can get with this particular setup is only f/8....meaning a slow lens that needs lots of light to work. No, it's not as good as a prime 300 f4 or f2.8 lens with this same teleconverter on a tripod, but I had a lot of fun doing this experiment. You Canon guys might want to try this if you happen to own the roughly equivalent 70-300 IS USM...I'd be interested in hearing if it works and how the picture quality turns out. I am happy with something that works good enough for informal non-professional use, doesn't cost an arm and a leg, doesn't add a lot of weight to my camera bag, and has VR. (so it works in a pinch aimed out of a car window for those shots I would normally otherwise lose) That teleconverter will live in my camera bag from now on...
Well maybe.
It's just a "poor man's" way to reach 400mm+ on a tight budget. The teleconverter only set me back $159, brand-new. (Ebay) We see a lot of great pics on the forum, but the part that's often left out of the details is the king's ransom the photog paid for the lens they used. (Example: Nikon wants $9549 for their f/2.8 400mm...)
Sure it's really nice, but who has that kind of dough just laying around? I guess one could go for their less expensive 80-400 zoom: it's "only" $1850. Want the cheaper model? Sorry, that is the cheaper model!
Hmmm....$159, or $1850...tough decision... Like: will my wife divorce me if I buy a new super-lens, instead of that new washing machine, fridge, kitchen renovation, paint job for the house, down-payment on a new car, etc, etc....
I'd say if all you need is 300mm, and the target isn't walking away in the next few minutes, then take the teleconverter off and set the lens to 300mm, because image quality will be better, and you won't incur the loss of one f-stop caused by the addition of the teleconverter. (so you'll be able to use a little faster shutter speed, reducing blur...what often happens with live game moving about)
Would a 2X teleconverter work? I have my doubts. It's likely the auto-focus would not function, in that case. (because of the loss of two f-stops aperture) You probably would need to manual focus, and use a tripod. Furthermore, image quality will be worse than with a 1.4x. I wouldn't do it...I'd stick with the smaller teleconverter and call it "good enough".
An aside: the Kenko Pro 300 DGX teleconverter seems to be on par with Nikon as far as build quality and image quality: I can see no difference in the images (I also have a Nikon teleconverter), and both are at a very high level of fit and finish construction-wise. What you don't get with the Kenko is that nice sueded-leather carrying pouch, and long 5-yr warranty. (it's 1-yr with Kenko, and you get a cheap vinyl pouch) But then, you're only paying half the cost of Nikon...so I think it's well worth it.
It's just a "poor man's" way to reach 400mm+ on a tight budget.
Bud and I've been discussing this elsewhere, at A 100-420mm Nikon-Nikkor Zoom? (http://tinyurl.com/3ryqn24 - broken link).
Quote:
The teleconverter only set me back $159, brand-new. (Ebay) We see a lot of great pics on the forum, but the part that's often left out of the details is the king's ransom the photog paid for the lens they used. (Example: Nikon wants $9549 for their f/2.8 400mm...)
It's probably worth pointing out the plus or minus 15 or 20 percent, Canon and Sigma lenses of equal performance cost just as much!
Starting literally today the snow here has melted enough allow various birds to start coming in, and in the next 4 to 6 weeks we'll see a lot of birders out taking pictures. Now, imagine seeing two or three photographers... each with two big lenses (one on the camera and another slung over their shoulders on straps). I see that once or twice every year!
I've never bothered to stop and talk to any of them, so I don't know if they get what they came for or not. :-)
Quote:
Sure it's really nice, but who has that kind of dough just laying around? I guess one could go for their less expensive 80-400 zoom: it's "only" $1850. Want the cheaper model? Sorry, that is the cheaper model!
Hmmm....$159, or $1850...tough decision... Like: will my wife divorce me if I buy a new super-lens, instead of that new washing machine, fridge, kitchen renovation, paint job for the house, down-payment on a new car, etc, etc....
I'd say if all you need is 300mm, and the target isn't walking away in the next few minutes, then take the teleconverter off and set the lens to 300mm, because image quality will be better, and you won't incur the loss of one f-stop caused by the addition of the teleconverter. (so you'll be able to use a little faster shutter speed, reducing blur...what often happens with live game moving about)
Leave the TC on... there is never an instance when a longer focal length isn't better (for wildlife, and birds in particular).
Quote:
Would a 2X teleconverter work? I have my doubts. It's likely the auto-focus would not function, in that case. (because of the loss of two f-stops aperture) You probably would need to manual focus, and use a tripod. Furthermore, image quality will be worse than with a 1.4x. I wouldn't do it...I'd stick with the smaller teleconverter and call it "good enough".
You might get a 1.7x to work, but depending on the camera body it may or may not be reliable. For a 2x TC you just about have to start with a f/2.8 lens, which as you say are very expensive.
Quote:
An aside: the Kenko Pro 300 DGX teleconverter seems to be on par with Nikon as far as build quality and image quality: I can see no difference in the images (I also have a Nikon teleconverter), and both are at a very high level of fit and finish construction-wise. What you don't get with the Kenko is that nice sueded-leather carrying pouch, and long 5-yr warranty. (it's 1-yr with Kenko, and you get a cheap vinyl pouch) But then, you're only paying half the cost of Nikon...so I think it's well worth it.
The 1.4x Kenko is sturdy enough, but the 2x Kenko is not as well built as the Nikkor 2x models. The Kenko is much lighter, with a lot more plastic. (I've had one Kenko 1.4x TC suffer a failure of the electronics, and a 2x that has one of the screws in the mount get loose and fall out. None of the Nikkor TC's has ever had a problem for me.) But it is also true that I really can't tell the difference optically between the Kenko and the Nikkor 2x TCs. On a budget, get the Kenko for sure.
One of the things we've discussed is a sort of in a pinch try anything surprise that I came up with a couple weeks ago. The only "long" lens I had was a 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII lens, which I planned on using with a 1.4x or a 2x TC. But... just as a lark I tried stacking the TC's. What a surprise that was! I've done this before, but only with high quality fixed focal length lenses, and it has never worked well. The main problem is color fringing, but general softness is also a problem.
Below is an image edited specifically to show how well this worked. It is not resized for web viewing (which hides the lack of sharpness), and instead is a 100% crop. If this were printed as is, this is what it would look like. I've printed another similar shot at 16"x20" and was quite pleased, and will probably print this one too. It's a King Eider duck on the Arctic Ocean, taken from the whaling camp of the Savik crew from Barrow, on May 13th. 500mm, f/9, 1/5000, at ISO 3200.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like: will my wife divorce me if I buy a new super-lens, instead of that new washing machine, fridge, kitchen renovation, paint job for the house, down-payment on a new car, etc, etc....
