Teleconversion?

I was wondering if it would be worth using a TC on my sigma 105mm f2.8 lens on D5100 - its a macro lens but should work just as well for wildlife to give a flat field of view I think.
Ive found a not too expensive TC201 - the lens is manual focus on my body anyway, not sure about metering though, so would effectively give me a 210mm f4.8. I would ideally like a 400mm lens for wildlife etc but theres no way I can afford one of those.
Ive already got an 18-200mm lens but as youd expect its not very sharp at 200mm.
What do you think?

I've used 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 TCs on my Nikkor 105 Micro with great results. Can't see why a Siggy would be any different.

thanks, which 2.0 tc did you use?

bechdan said:

thanks, which 2.0 tc did you use?

Click to expand...

Tamron.

I think the 18-200mm would be as good as a X2 converter....The camera may not recognize the TC if it's not Nikon,,,

pedroj said:

I think the 18-200mm would be as good as a X2 converter....The camera may not recognize the TC if it's not Nikon,,,

Click to expand...

I don't think Nikon's current TCs will work on the 18-200.

480sparky said:

I don't think Nikon's current TCs will work on the 18-200.

Click to expand...

The poster said "Ive found a not too expensive TC201 -"I was referring to this quote by the poster. His camera may not recognize the TC with whatever lens he puts with it...

yes id never even try a tc with the 18-200 it would be awful

bechdan said:

yes id never even try a tc with the 18-200 it would be awful

Click to expand...

No one has suggested this.

480sparky did

if you havent got anything useful to say, or cant be bothered to read the previous posts then say nothing.
theres no need for unpleasant comments

bechdan said:

480sparky did

if you havent got anything useful to say, or cant be bothered to read the previous posts then say nothing.
theres no need for unpleasant comments

Click to expand...

I think Pedroj & 480Sparky was saying that your 18-200mm lens as it is, will be as good if not better, than the 105 with a 2.0 teleconvertor and it would only be a few mm shorter.

bechdan said:

480sparky did...........

Click to expand...

I did?

We're all mixed up! lol

Pedroj said if I understand correctly that the 18-200 is better than the 105mm with the converter. I don't think anyone meant use the converter with the 18-200mm.

Also @Blacktop wasn't being rude, he was just trying to save a misunderstanding.

bechdan said:

480sparky did

if you havent got anything useful to say, or cant be bothered to read the previous posts then say nothing.
theres no need for unpleasant comments

Click to expand...

I've read the previous post . Did you? No one suggested to put a TC on the 18-200.

Come on guys, ease up a bit. These things can get to your egos and derail the thread.

I think there is nothing to be gained by blasting each others here. Specially when a post replies to another but without the "quotes" and it gets difficult to find out to which post the new post is answering to.

I personally feel that tele-converters are just crutches to getting the correct lens to cover what you want to do. It can work, but it does not equal the quality of the longer lens used without the tele-converter. Now since some of us don't have the same IQ standards or needs, it's very difficult if not impossible to have a correct answer to this question.

So please try to keep the original poster's intention or question in mind before you start arguing with each other.

well we got there in the end thanks for all the advice, ill persevere with the 18-200 untill i can afford something longer

bechdan said:

well we got there in the end thanks for all the advice, ill persevere with the 18-200 untill i can afford something longer

Click to expand...

Wise decision Dan, save some money and then get yourself a 70-300 and you'll be grateful you did.

Marcel said:

Wise decision Dan, save some money and then get yourself a 70-300 and you'll be grateful you did.

Click to expand...

Yup, until you decide to throw a 2x TC on the 300mm!