Teleconverter

V

viscountdriver

Senior Member
I am rather a well used gentleman and find my Tamron 200-400 too heavy to use. As I enjoy shooting airshows I have ordered a Kenko teleconverter.Quite a few purists have told me I' m wasting my money but all independent reviews say it isn't half bad. I know all he drawbacks about losing stops but need must.
 
Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Have you tried using a monopod with your kit? There's a few darn good reasons so many pros use them and lens and camera heft is one of them! I've found a good mono pod can extend my sessions quite a long time.

WM
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
I would not go for anything less than 2x. . So, if you think you need some focal lengths over 200mm (and 200-400mm zoom feels too heavy), you should try the combination of a prime 200mm plus that converter, and there you are again: 200mm and 400mm...
 
W

weebee

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
I would not go for anything less than 2x. . So, if you think you need some focal lengths over 200mm (and 200-400mm zoom feels too heavy), you should try the combination of a prime 200mm plus that converter, and there you are again: 200mm and 400mm...
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing. But the reviews for the 1.4 are much better then 2.0 or higher
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
I would not go for anything less than 2x. . So, if you think you need some focal lengths over 200mm (and 200-400mm zoom feels too heavy), you should try the combination of a prime 200mm plus that converter, and there you are again: 200mm and 400mm...
Click to expand...

Unless you always shoot fast primes, a 2x may cause an AF lens to either hunt for focus, or you use AF altogether. A 1.4 or 1.7x is less apt to do so.
 
J

Jonathan

Senior Member
I recently added a x2 TC to my 18-300mm Nikon lens on my D7100. I took this moon shot a few days ago with the TC attached (taking it to 600mm):

DSC_3453.jpg


I've only just come across these things and I think they're great. BUT the focus on the above was manual. with no choice.
 
C

crashton

Senior Member
I've used the Kenko 1.4 & thought it was good enough for my needs. Then I found a deal on a used Nikon 1.4 & bought it. Gave the Kenko to my sister. Yes the Nikon is better than the Kenko, but to tell the truth for the cost difference I see the Kenko as a much better buy for the occasional user. You will be happy with it vsicountdriver.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Jonathan's photo of the moon confirms what I think: it would be even better if he had a 300mm prime, but, then again, one does not use such combination hoping for top of the tops (in terms of sheer pic quality). Multiplier of 1.4 is somewhat short of having a significant impact on the focal length (for most purposes, with most lenses), making such converter a kind of equipment that you buy, because it is, say, affordable, and later you think for yourself "well, I could live without it, just as well"...
 
Last edited:
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
That's OK. As you can see for yourselves, CA is present in this photo of the Moon, too. But, you might end up with CA being very obvious in photos taken even without any additional optical elements such as a converter. Especially if long-range zooms are used (like 18-200mm, 18-250mm etc.) http://www.chrisduncanphotography.com/NikonTeleReviews.html



''Nikon 200mm f2 VR: Although I actually do not often carry this lens, I must rank it first because it is the sharpest lens I have ever used. Stunning wide open or stopped down. My copy takes all converters extremely well. It is about as sharp with 1.4X as the 300 f2.8 and as sharp with a 2X as 200-400mm!!! Very impressive!"do' not often carry this lens, I must rank it first because it is the sharpest lens I have ever used. Stunning wide open or stopped down. My copy takes all converters extremely well. It is about as sharp with 1.4X as the 300 f2.8 and as sharp with a 2X as 200-400mm
 
Last edited:
Top