Re: Nikon Teleconverters

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nospam, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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.
    nospam, Dec 9, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nospam

    Rob Guest

    On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >> <> 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.
    Rob, Dec 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
    : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    : >> <> 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
    Robert Coe, Dec 10, 2012
    #3
  4. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> 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.
    nospam, Dec 10, 2012
    #4
  5. nospam

    Rob Guest

    On 10/12/2012 2:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
    > : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <>
    > : > wrote:
    > : >
    > : >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > : >> <> 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.
    Rob, Dec 10, 2012
    #5
  6. nospam

    me Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <>
    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.
    me, Dec 10, 2012
    #6
  7. nospam

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Eric Stevens <> 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/cyberastrofolkie/sets/72157625169889118/with/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
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 10, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
    > : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <>
    > : > wrote:
    > : >
    > : >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > : >> <> 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
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 11, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rs11

    Need info on teleconverters please

    rs11, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    399
  2. Graham Archer

    Nikon teleconverters

    Graham Archer, Apr 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    351
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Apr 17, 2006
  3. Rob

    Re: Nikon Teleconverters

    Rob, Dec 9, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    183
  4. Anthony Polson

    Re: Nikon Teleconverters

    Anthony Polson, Dec 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    162
    Anthony Polson
    Dec 10, 2012
  5. me

    Re: Nikon Teleconverters

    me, Dec 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    194
    Robert Coe
    Dec 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page