Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Nikon Teleconverters

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Nikon Teleconverters

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> deleted the thread.
>
> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.


that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
degradation.

there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.

> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> have any experience with any of these?


the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.

a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2012
On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
>>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
>>> deleted the thread.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
>>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
>>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.

>>
>> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
>> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
>> degradation.
>>
>> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
>> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
>>
>>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
>>> have any experience with any of these?

>>
>> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.

>
> The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
>
> Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
>>
>> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.

>
> I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
>



Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
: > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
: >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>
: >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
: >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
: >>> deleted the thread.
: >>>
: >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
: >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
: >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
: >>
: >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
: >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
: >> degradation.
: >>
: >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
: >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
: >>
: >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
: >>> have any experience with any of these?
: >>
: >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
: >
: > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
: >
: > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
: >>
: >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
: >
: > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
: > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
:
: Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.

Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.
>
> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?


minolta made one.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
On 10/12/2012 2:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
> : >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : >>
> : >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> : >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> : >>> deleted the thread.
> : >>>
> : >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> : >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> : >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
> : >>
> : >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
> : >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
> : >> degradation.
> : >>
> : >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
> : >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
> : >>
> : >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> : >>> have any experience with any of these?
> : >>
> : >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
> : >
> : > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
> : >
> : > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
> : >>
> : >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
> : >
> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.
>
> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?
>
> Bob
>


BTWI did make a correction its focus assist.
 
Reply With Quote
 
me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.



Actually both my D200 and D300 will try to autofocus out to f/8 with
the D300 being more successful. 200-400 f/4 + TC-20E.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Ciszek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
>looks as though it is going to go cheaply.


If it's going cheaply, give it a shot. Here is a set taken with the
Tamron 55BB:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberas...th/7033661967/

This guy usually shoots *handheld* with his 55BB, if you can believe that.

The 55B had the ability to have a lens mount, FWIW.

--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
> : >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : >>
> : >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> : >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> : >>> deleted the thread.
> : >>>
> : >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> : >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> : >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
> : >>
> : >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
> : >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
> : >> degradation.
> : >>
> : >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
> : >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
> : >>
> : >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> : >>> have any experience with any of these?
> : >>
> : >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
> : >
> : > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
> : >
> : > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
> : >>
> : >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
> : >
> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.


> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?


The old Minolta 500mm f8 reflex was the first and AFIAK the only one,
later to become the slightly tweaked Sony 500mm f8 reflex. I think the
only differences were the lens hood and the usual "digital" coating of
the rear element.

AF completely revolutionises these lenses. Even with live view
magnified out to pixel level it takes me tens of seconds to manually
focus mine, and I very rarely get focus nailed as sharply as the AF
does. It has a focus lock button on the side of the lens, which is
handy when following a distant bird which flies behind a nearby tree
and I don't want the AF to jump to the tree. But what would be really
nice would be to have the completely adjustable autofocus range limiter
the Sony A99 has!

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Nikon Teleconverters me Digital Photography 3 12-30-2012 06:24 AM
Re: Nikon Teleconverters Anthony Polson Digital Photography 0 12-10-2012 10:57 AM
Re: Nikon Teleconverters Rob Digital Photography 0 12-09-2012 11:17 PM
Nikon teleconverters Graham Archer Digital Photography 4 04-16-2006 11:38 PM
Need info on teleconverters please rs11 Digital Photography 2 08-30-2003 02:00 AM



Advertisments