Teleconverters
Discussion
I am after some advice please Ladies and Gents- Is it worth purchasing a telconverter for my 300mm lens? I have seen what appears to be a decent one for sale second hand, it is x2 and would bridge the gap for me until funds allow a purchase of a proper lens.
Most of my photosgraphy is quite far away from me, being fast jets around bases. I have found a good spot for photos at a base near me, but the jets are too far away for my 300mm lens.
Most of my photosgraphy is quite far away from me, being fast jets around bases. I have found a good spot for photos at a base near me, but the jets are too far away for my 300mm lens.
Squawk1066 said:
on full zoom it is 5.6. On that basis it's not worth buying the converter, is that right?
It will be OK in good light, but you'll be focusing manually. In this scenario you could probably guess the distance using the focus ring, ie 'infinity and back a bit'.The other way out is to shoot at 300mm and crop to half size, if you have enough pixels to spare.
You need to be careful with teleconverters, they only fit a small number of lenses.
I bought a Nikon 2x teleconverter to use with my F2.8 70-200. I found that it drops the quality just enough that I end up reducing the finished image size by 50% to restore quality.
In other words, I end up with exactly what I would have got if I'd just used the lens as it was and then cropped the photo by 50% afterwards!
I bought a Nikon 2x teleconverter to use with my F2.8 70-200. I found that it drops the quality just enough that I end up reducing the finished image size by 50% to restore quality.
In other words, I end up with exactly what I would have got if I'd just used the lens as it was and then cropped the photo by 50% afterwards!
Simpo Two said:
It will be OK in good light, but you'll be focusing manually. In this scenario you could probably guess the distance using the focus ring, ie 'infinity and back a bit'.
The other way out is to shoot at 300mm and crop to half size, if you have enough pixels to spare.
Sadly the cropping route is no good because my camera is only 10mp. I'm pretty much looking to get through the winter on this kit, then do a full upgrade in February.The other way out is to shoot at 300mm and crop to half size, if you have enough pixels to spare.
Ari said:
You need to be careful with teleconverters, they only fit a small number of lenses.
I bought a Nikon 2x teleconverter to use with my F2.8 70-200. I found that it drops the quality just enough that I end up reducing the finished image size by 50% to restore quality.
In other words, I end up with exactly what I would have got if I'd just used the lens as it was and then cropped the photo by 50% afterwards!
Interesting, thank you. I am going to give it a try to see what happens...I bought a Nikon 2x teleconverter to use with my F2.8 70-200. I found that it drops the quality just enough that I end up reducing the finished image size by 50% to restore quality.
In other words, I end up with exactly what I would have got if I'd just used the lens as it was and then cropped the photo by 50% afterwards!
They are crap. I've got two - 2 * and 1.4*. I don't even bother taking the 2* with my anymore and the 1.4 is generally rubbish, that's about all I can say for it. Crap IQ, crap AF and generally just annoying.
Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
photosnob said:
They are crap. I've got two - 2 * and 1.4*. I don't even bother taking the 2* with my anymore and the 1.4 is generally rubbish, that's about all I can say for it. Crap IQ, crap AF and generally just annoying.
Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
I get great results on a fixed 300mm witha 1.4x Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
How about a 500mm mirror lens? Manual focus and fixed f8, but cheap:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-samyang-500mm-f...
In theory the quality should be good because it works by reflection not refraction but I haven't used one.
ETA: Or 600mm https://www.keh.com/284621/sigma-600mm-f-8-mirror-...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-samyang-500mm-f...
In theory the quality should be good because it works by reflection not refraction but I haven't used one.
ETA: Or 600mm https://www.keh.com/284621/sigma-600mm-f-8-mirror-...
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 9th November 00:25
mrdemon said:
photosnob said:
They are crap. I've got two - 2 * and 1.4*. I don't even bother taking the 2* with my anymore and the 1.4 is generally rubbish, that's about all I can say for it. Crap IQ, crap AF and generally just annoying.
Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
I get great results on a fixed 300mm witha 1.4x Mine are the Canon Mk2 version. The mk 3 mght be better. And I'm talking about using them with f2.8 lenses. Horrible nasty bit's of kit.
Simpo Two said:
How about a 500mm mirror lens? Manual focus and fixed f8, but cheap:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-samyang-500mm-f...
In theory the quality should be good because it works by reflection not refraction but I haven't used one.
ETA: Or 600mm https://www.keh.com/284621/sigma-600mm-f-8-mirror-...
These were thought to be the dog's danglies back in the 80s and 90s, particularly the models from Canon, Tamron and Minolta. Big advantage was the compact size compared to a 'drainpipe' telephoto. Disadvantages were the fixed aperture and whether you liked the doughnut out of focus highlights.http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-samyang-500mm-f...
In theory the quality should be good because it works by reflection not refraction but I haven't used one.
ETA: Or 600mm https://www.keh.com/284621/sigma-600mm-f-8-mirror-...
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 9th November 00:25
Still have my Tamron, now with an EOS mount.
Squawk1066 said:
Many thanks for the replies, it is appreciated.
on full zoom it is 5.6. On that basis it's not worth buying the converter, is that right?
It sounds like you have a 70-300. In which case I don't think you can use a teleconverter. Have a look here:on full zoom it is 5.6. On that basis it's not worth buying the converter, is that right?
http://www.wexphotographic.com/?/teleconverter.htm...
When I was shooting sports I often used Sigma's 1.4x with a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - Autofocus slowed slightly but was still damned quick, and image quality was almost completely unaffected.
The pair cost about £2k, which isn't cheap, but it gave me 420mm @ f4. It is however a lot cheaper than the 400mm f2.8 offering which comes in at around £7k.
The pair cost about £2k, which isn't cheap, but it gave me 420mm @ f4. It is however a lot cheaper than the 400mm f2.8 offering which comes in at around £7k.
photosnob said:
How do you find the AF? I use mine mainly with the 70-200 2.8 is ii, and I find AF really annoying, and can definitely tell that the IQ isn't great.
I don't really give it a 2nd thought. Shot the Great South Run a couple of weeks ago, only used this combination on a 1Dx on servo, no problem at all. Use it regularly for airshows and motorsport, usually in preference to my 100-400 where I'm not happy with the IQ at the long end.I go to Canada every year and photograph bears. Even in the forest and using a 5D2 the AF performance doesn't bother me, right down to the point where I'm removing the convertor anyway to get the extra stop back.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff