Forums - Telephoto Lens -vs- Teleconverter

Forums

Author

Message

JenT

Photographers

Forum posts: 4

Age: 36

#1798 2008-05-09 08:31 GMT

I take a lot of wildlife photos and sometimes I need a lot more reach with my lens. I have a Nikon D50 and was going to get the Nikon 200mm f/2g IF-ED AF-S VR Telephoto lens, a friend told me about the converter TC-17E II and it is a 1/4 of the price. I am strickly a hobby photographer but I like to get nice shots and bring the subject in. Could someone give me some feedback. I have read the reviews on both of these and still can not decide. Thanks

MBPhoto

Photographers

Forum posts: 28

Age: 21

#1799 2008-05-09 08:40 GMT

Well first you need a lens to teleconvert.
If you have a 100mm lens and a 1.4x converter you get a 140mm lens which has a moderate amount of sharpness loss on the top and sides of the photo but its not too bad from what i have heard.
If you have a 100mm with a 2.0x converter you get a 200mm lens which has even more sharpness loss around the top and sides of the photos.

In the end a telephoto lens is better but is heavier and more expensive.
A lens with a teleconverter is if you have a lens already worth converting is cheaper and lighter.

Hope this helps in some way!

"Time goes on, things change from moment to moment, and a photo is all that remains of the moment past..."

mbaker.com.au

JenT

Photographers

Forum posts: 4

Age: 36

#1804 2008-05-09 09:49 GMT

Thanks MB

AndreyG

Forum posts:

Age:

#1812 2008-05-10 02:09 GMT

teleconverter is a good idea. It is not a big loss in sharpness, but, by definition, lost of speed. If you have f4 lense - AF will work with 1.4 (slow but will), but above - use your hands. About the price if you buy a nikon teleconverter - it is rather expencive. I see no big difference (if any) with Tamron 1.4 -very nice glass, but X3 less expencive. Using small sensore - is a + in a case of teleconverters - most of defects are located on the perifery - and, when you use just a center, - it makes it better.

MBPhoto

Photographers

Forum posts: 28

Age: 21

#1814 2008-05-10 04:05 GMT

Ohh thats what i forgot too with the aperture!

"Time goes on, things change from moment to moment, and a photo is all that remains of the moment past..."

mbaker.com.au

azeem

Members

Forum posts: 46

Age: 27

#1815 2008-05-10 07:36 GMT

jen t

the lens you mentioned will cost you more than 4000 dollars

without the tele converter

so why not buy the Nikkor 80-400 mm or 70 - 300

the 80 - 400 will cost less than half that price

but it will be slower than the lens you mentioned

i have a canon 70-300 mm lens and i had a lot of good photos

but image stabilization is a must

JenT

Photographers

Forum posts: 4

Age: 36

#1818 2008-05-12 08:14 GMT

Thanks guys. I have the 70-300 lens. Will the converter work with that lens. Is it going to slow my lens down even more? I think that will probably be the way to go. For a hobby it should be enough. My husband can not justify spending the $4000., for the other lens, for a "hobby". I guess if the teleconverter does not do what I want, than I can look at other options. Thanks again all!!!!

AndreyG

Forum posts:

Age:

#1819 2008-05-12 20:51 GMT

what is the speed of the lens?Nikone is very picky to the speed and stop working somwhere around 5.6. You can buy it in somthing like ritz camera and try - if it works - bring it back and get it from Adorama.If you look for a new glass for nature - 2 of them are very reasonable - tamron 200-500 and Bigma (sigma 50-500) - both something $700-$900.