Teleconverters - what think we?

[Ari]

This, whilst it seems a lot of money for what it is, also seems a very good value way of getting a 140-400 from my 70-200 F2.8. I appreciate it won't actually be a F2.8 with this attached, but other than that it seems a good idea.

Also a lot easier than carrying another lens!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-TC-20E-III-AF-S-Tele...



Anyone got one, used one, or have any thoughts?

[JustinMinns]

Can't comment on how well that particular combo works as some lens/teleconverter combinations are better than others.

I use a 1.4ex with my 300mm f4 which gives me 420mm f5.6 and Im happy with it, image quality doesn't really suffer but AF on the other hand is noticeably slower

[GetCarter]

I use the 1.7 version of the above. I read lots of reviews and it seems the 1.7 is the best of the three options as x2 loses a little too much light. It turns my 70-200 into up to a 340.

x2 will be good but not so good in poor light.

Optically they are excellent (but pricey).

All at pretty much full stretch \/

[upsidedownmark]

Generally I'm a fan. In some ways I wish I'd got the 1.4, not the 2x - I like the reach, but the 2x isn't as nice optically / looses 2 stops, not 1. Very good way of leveraging a bit of extra from a 200/2.8, not good if you've got anything slower IMHO.

I'd also match brand - I'm assuming your 2.8 is Nikon - if it's sigma (as mine is), I'd go with a sigma TC, mostly 'superstition', but makes some kinda 'common' sense that they're designed to work together.

[Ari]

GetCarter said:

I use the 1.7 version of the above. I read lots of reviews and it seems the 1.7 is the best of the three options as x2 loses a little too much light. It turns my 70-200 into up to a 340.

x2 will be good but not so good in poor light.

Optically they are excellent (but pricey).

All at pretty much full stretch \/

Those photos are fantastic! Thank you, very helpful, as is the advice.

I'm a bit torn between the 1.7 and the 2. I like the idea of the extra reach of the 2, and the D600 has very good high ISO performance so I can always eke a bit out that way.

Hmmm...

[Ari]

upsidedownmark said:

Generally I'm a fan. In some ways I wish I'd got the 1.4, not the 2x - I like the reach, but the 2x isn't as nice optically / looses 2 stops, not 1. Very good way of leveraging a bit of extra from a 200/2.8, not good if you've got anything slower IMHO.

I'd also match brand - I'm assuming your 2.8 is Nikon - if it's sigma (as mine is), I'd go with a sigma TC, mostly 'superstition', but makes some kinda 'common' sense that they're designed to work together.

Agree about the brand matching. Yes it is a Nikon lens hence wanting to keep everything in the chain Nikon.

[Ari]

JustinMinns said:

Can't comment on how well that particular combo works as some lens/teleconverter combinations are better than others.

I use a 1.4ex with my 300mm f4 which gives me 420mm f5.6 and Im happy with it, image quality doesn't really suffer but AF on the other hand is noticeably slower

Interesting, thank you.

[NewNameNeeded]

Would certainly recommend avoiding the cheaper third party t/c's. I tried a couple of 1.4x and 1.7x t/c's made by Kenko with a 80-200 f2.8 Nikor lens on a D300 body and the performance was very poor. Optically no better than simply cropping an imagine without the t/c.