Discussion
I have a D70 with a 18 - 70mm AF-S F3.5-4.5. I also have a Nikkor 80 - 200mm AF ED F2.8. Would adding a x2 converter be an effective way of gaining more focal length? I know it will loose me 2 stops, but, with F2.8 accross the range on the 80 - 200, would I really miss the extra speed? I am looking for the extra length mainly for motorsport. I can't afford big bucks on a 400 or 500 primary.
Comments, suggestions please!
Paul.B
Comments, suggestions please!
Paul.B
probably the most cost efficent way of doing it. we have a 2x converter and it produces shite pics but i think there is something wrong with it. i plan to buy a 1.4 converter very soon anyway. can someone tell me - shuld you get good photos with a converter, or will they always be soft?
There is a wonderful book by published by Rotovision called "The World's Top Photographers: Wildlife"
clicky
Top photographers give a bit of background about themselves and their favourite shots. Another in the series about portraits is even better but that's another story.
Anyway...
The number of pictures in there that are shot with TC is pretty high and needless to say, the quality is excellent and quite surprising given all the "soft" stories that are bandied around.
clicky
Top photographers give a bit of background about themselves and their favourite shots. Another in the series about portraits is even better but that's another story.
Anyway...
The number of pictures in there that are shot with TC is pretty high and needless to say, the quality is excellent and quite surprising given all the "soft" stories that are bandied around.
Yes, I'd say that a TC is the cheapest way to get extra focal length, and as you say, starting at f2.8, you have some stops to lose.
Logic tells me that if you shove more glass and glass/air interfaces in the line of vision, the image can only go one way - the question is whether it's acceptable for the money. And if you don't have £3K+, it probably is
dcw@pr said:
can someone tell me - shuld you get good photos with a converter, or will they always be soft?
Logic tells me that if you shove more glass and glass/air interfaces in the line of vision, the image can only go one way - the question is whether it's acceptable for the money. And if you don't have £3K+, it probably is
Ian H - lovely images and great quality.
Back to the original question, the thing to remember with Nikon is the AFS lenses will not AF with an AF converter, you need and AFS converter and also vice versa. You therefore need to be aware to make sure you get the right converter or you will lose the AF functionality!
General wisdom is 1.4* has very little / no impact on image quality and 2* can make images a little soft, depening upon the converter used. Both Nikon & Canon 1.4* converters are meant to be fantastic quality, so if you could get away with one of these rather than a 2* if might be a good value for money option with little impact on quality.
I quite often use the new Nikon AFS 1.7* converter (only loss of one stop of light) on a 300mm and if it's nice and bright you really don't notice any loss in quality.
Poor camera technique has a much bigger impact. Using this combo on a D100 gives me a field of view equivalent to 300*1.7*1.6 = a smidge over 800mm when comparing to a 35mm traditional view. It is vitual to use good camera technique as tiny errors get massively magnified at this type of field of view.
I think in a lot of cases people blame the converter when it's actually their technique that is at fault. I guess this is the reason some of those wildlife images look so great despite a converter being used. It's good technique coming into play.
Just my 2p
Chris
Back to the original question, the thing to remember with Nikon is the AFS lenses will not AF with an AF converter, you need and AFS converter and also vice versa. You therefore need to be aware to make sure you get the right converter or you will lose the AF functionality!
General wisdom is 1.4* has very little / no impact on image quality and 2* can make images a little soft, depening upon the converter used. Both Nikon & Canon 1.4* converters are meant to be fantastic quality, so if you could get away with one of these rather than a 2* if might be a good value for money option with little impact on quality.
I quite often use the new Nikon AFS 1.7* converter (only loss of one stop of light) on a 300mm and if it's nice and bright you really don't notice any loss in quality.
Poor camera technique has a much bigger impact. Using this combo on a D100 gives me a field of view equivalent to 300*1.7*1.6 = a smidge over 800mm when comparing to a 35mm traditional view. It is vitual to use good camera technique as tiny errors get massively magnified at this type of field of view.
I think in a lot of cases people blame the converter when it's actually their technique that is at fault. I guess this is the reason some of those wildlife images look so great despite a converter being used. It's good technique coming into play.
Just my 2p
Chris
Ian_H said:
I use my 1.4 convertor quite a bit with my 1DMKII and 70-200 f2.8 & 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lenses and get perfectly acceptable results, mind when using it with the 100-400 it has to be reasonably bright.
Here are 2 shots with the 1.4 and 100-400
Cheers
Ian
Crackin' pics.
Did you still get the AF @400mm with the 1.4x?
I was considering a 1.4x to go on a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, but the lack of AF I consider a problem.
Visually, what is the difference @ 300mm, 400mm & 500mm?
Ex-biker said:
Crackin' pics.
Did you still get the AF @400mm with the 1.4x?
I was considering a 1.4x to go on a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, but the lack of AF I consider a problem.
Visually, what is the difference @ 300mm, 400mm & 500mm?
Thanks, On a 1DMKII you still get autofocus with the 100-400 but on my 10D you don't, it's something to do with not being able to autofocus above F5.6 and of course the 100-400 goes above this with a convertor on but there is a way around it by taping some of the connector pins over on the camera. Have a look here
www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/ (tip No1)
You do need to be in bright condition for this to work.
You may need to check that the convertor will pyhsically fit your lens as I think there are certain lenses which won't fit onto a convertor.
Both the above photos were taken at full zoom, with the 1.4 convertor on the 100-400 becomes a 140-560mm (with the 1DMKII multiplier it comes out at 728mm) Here's one taken at 400mm (520mm) without the convertor
Cheers
Ian
The old Canon FD lenses had dedicated convertors at 1.4x and 2x but each was recommended or specific lens sizes only - the 2x (Type A) for telephoto lenses with focal length over 300mm and the 1.4x (Type B) for anything less than 300mm. There were a limited number of exceptions over the years.
Is this sort of delineation still applicable these days to current lenses?
I have a Tamron 2x with an FD fit and the results were almost always disappointing in one way or another no matter what the light conditions or focal length used might be. I gave up using it. But to be fair it was not a 'matched' unit (Vivitar main zoom) but was bought in a hurry the day before a holiday when there was no Vivitar multiplier available in stock. However the experience did put me off the idea.
On the other hand Ian H's pics suggest a multiplier can be excellent and some of the test shots here
www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt_samples.html
(Scroll down to the race shots.)
seem to have been taken with a fairly standard Canon 70-200 with a 2x (1.4x in one case) and look very acceptable to my eyes.
So, thumbs up for multipliers/extenders/convertors?
Is this sort of delineation still applicable these days to current lenses?
I have a Tamron 2x with an FD fit and the results were almost always disappointing in one way or another no matter what the light conditions or focal length used might be. I gave up using it. But to be fair it was not a 'matched' unit (Vivitar main zoom) but was bought in a hurry the day before a holiday when there was no Vivitar multiplier available in stock. However the experience did put me off the idea.
On the other hand Ian H's pics suggest a multiplier can be excellent and some of the test shots here
www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt_samples.html
(Scroll down to the race shots.)
seem to have been taken with a fairly standard Canon 70-200 with a 2x (1.4x in one case) and look very acceptable to my eyes.
So, thumbs up for multipliers/extenders/convertors?
simpo two said:
Ian, for the head-on shots do you pre-focus on manual or does the camera track focus that accurately?
If those shots are full frame you must be a marksman!
95% of the time I use autofocus, the 1DMKII's autofocus tracking is spot on, they are not quite full frame because each one has had a bit of trackside furniture cropped out but as a rule I do try and fill the frame with the subject.
The mini shot was taken at Knockhill at the chicane which has a dip before it where the cars go out of view so I prefocus on the corner marker and then pick the car up with the autofocus as it reaches the crest (by prefocusing it means the lens is near to the focus point when the car comes into view so it wont hunt) The Peugeot was also taken at Knockhill as fergusd says at Clarkes, here if you virtually stand on top of the tyre wall next to the gravel trap you can actually track the car around the bend and over the crest.
The bike photo was taken at Croft, the rider has just exited the hairpin and is putting the power down on the start/finish straight so I panned that shot.
Cheers
Ian
LongQ said:
The old Canon FD lenses had dedicated convertors at 1.4x and 2x but each was recommended or specific lens sizes only - the 2x (Type A) for telephoto lenses with focal length over 300mm and the 1.4x (Type B) for anything less than 300mm. There were a limited number of exceptions over the years.
Is this sort of delineation still applicable these days to current lenses?
The Canon 1.4 convertor according to Canon
This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. Superb optically, it preserves the image quality of the lens it's mounted to and multiplies its focal length 1.4x. Effective aperture is reduced by one f-stop; autofocus is possible on any EOS camera when combined with a lens having an f/4 or faster maximum aperture.
and the 2x
The EF 2x II doubles the focal length of any lens it's mounted to, and reduces its effective aperture by two stops. With the EF 2x II, AF is possible with any EOS body if the lens has an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture, and compatible Image Stabilization lenses maintain the IS feature when used with any current EOS camera.
Cheers
Ian
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff