Teleconverters (Updated with a question)

[Eltano1]

Also what brand? Nikon, Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks in advance

Eltano


I'm wondering if a better to buy a Teleconverter for my D40x, instead of a Telezoom (70-300).

What are your thoughts? Opinions? Personal Experiences?

And which one would you recommend to go with my 70-200?

Thanks in advances for your input

Regards

Eltano

 

[996GT2]

70-200 f/2.8? If you have a fast lens (f/2.8 or f/4), then using a TC is not an issue. However, if you start out with a slow lens, you will probably lose autofocus since the AF systems of most cameras are not designed to work with lenses having a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6.

A 1.4x TC takes away one stop of light. This means that a 70-200mm f/2.8 becomes a 98-280mm f/4. A 2x TC takes away 2 stops of light, making that same 70-200 f/2.8 a 140-400mm f/5.6. The use of a TC will also naturally degrade optical quality a little bit (see below).

The first party Canon and Nikon teleconverters are usually the best in terms of optical quality. However, they are not compatible with all lenses due to an extension of the front element in the TC.

Third party TCs from Sigma, Tamron, and Kenko are also good if you go for a higher-end one. The Kenko Pro300 Digital series of TCs has often been recommended on the POTN forums for its excellent image quality (which rivals that of the first party Canon TC).

I would recommend that you check out the Nikon TCs first, and then the Kenko Pro300 series and Tamron SP series.

 

[Eltano1]

Thanks 996GT2, really a good lesson on the TC.

Will look for what suggested and see what are their prices.

Regards

Eltano

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Here's a comprehensive TC chart:

http://blog.nikonians.org/arch...econverter%20Table.pdf

I would go so far as to say don't even bother with the Nikon or Canon branded teleconverters. They are really expensive and the protruding element really gets in the way of using it with a ton of lenses. They might (or might not!) be a tad sharper than the Kenko Pros / Tamron SPs, but greater sharpness won't matter if they won't even mount on a lens in the first place...

 

[Eltano1]

Also what brand? Nikon, Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks in advance

Eltano

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Eltano1
Also what brand? Nikon, Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks in advance

Eltano

I answered that question 3 posts ago

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Eltano1
Also what brand? Nikon, Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks in advance

Eltano

Nikon, Sigma, and Canon all have the problem with the protruding element making them incompatible with a bunch of lenses.

Tamron SP and Kenko Pro are actually the same thing. These do not have the protruding element problem and are still very sharp. They also cost less.

 

[Eltano1]

I'm not talking about the TC, I'm talking about the lens.

Eltano

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Eltano1
Also what brand? Nikon, Sigma or Tamron?

Thanks in advance

Eltano

Depends on your budget.

Do you have $1800? Then go with the Nikon, its the only one that has VR out of the 3.

If you can deal with no VR and need a very fast AF motor, then choose Sigma. If your on a tight budget and/or don't need a vast AF motor, then choose the Tamron. The Tamron is also known to have great IQ, if you get a nice copy.

If your going to be using your telephoto lens for shooting mostly outdoors and in sunny weather, you might be better off with the 70-300 VR. Its lighter and smaller than the 70-200 2.8 glass so its easier to drag around, just don't expect it to stop action (like sports).

You could always rent them to see which does the trick.

And as an alternative, you could check out a used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S, though it will be close to the price of a new Sigma or Tamron,

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Eltano1
I'm not talking about the TC, I'm talking about the lens.

Eltano

Wait, you're not making sense here. Why would you need a new lens if you already have a 70-200 f/2.8 as stated in the original post? If the lens you have is a 70-200, then it should be an excellent, fast f/2.8 lens since all the major manufacturers (except canon) only make 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses now.

Originally posted by: Eltano1
And which one would you recommend to go with my 70-200?

Just get a TC and put it on your 70-200...a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x Teleconverter is still better than a cheapo 70-300 lens...

 

[soydios]

If you need a cheaper 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zoom, also check the used market. I got my AF 80-200mm f/2.8 non-D push-pull for $341 a year ago off of eBay. Its image quality is dang near perfect.

 

[Eltano1]

Thanks guys. 996GT2, I wish I have a 70/200 f/2.8, mine is f/4.0.

I got a good deal on Ebay, ordered a 70/300 f/4.0 SIGMA for $150.00 shipped and brand new.

I have to see what I will do with my 70/200 now.

Eltano

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Eltano1
Thanks guys. 996GT2, I wish I have a 70/200 f/2.8, mine is f/4.0.

I got a good deal on Ebay, ordered a 70/300 f/4.0 SIGMA for $150.00 shipped and brand new.

I have to see what I will do with my 70/200 now.

Eltano

Wait, Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm f/4...do you mean 70-210mm f/4? That's the only constant f/4 lens Nikon makes in that range as far as I know...

And by the way, the Sigma you bought is f/4-5.6, not constant f/4. There's 2 versions of the Sigma 70-300. There's the APO version, which is pretty good optically but costs more, and the non-APO version without SLD elements, which costs less but is a pretty mediocre lens even at that price range.

 

[Eltano1]

996GT2, you are correct, I should have said 55/200, as you can see I'm a newby still.

Best regards

Eltano.

PS: I bought the regular SIGMA, not the EPO, for lack of knowledge didn't think that the extra money would justify for what I will be using the lens.