Teleconverters

[Nilbog]

Relatively new to the photography scene, here. I have a Nikon D3000 body with 18-55mm and 55-200 kit lenses. I've done a little bit of research and found out about teleconverters. Do they really double the focal length as advertised? i.e. 55-200mm becomes a 400mm equivalent lens? I say double only because I found a 2x teleconverter adaptor that says it effectively increases the focal length of any lens with which it is used. I also found a 1.4x professional quality teleconverter (for an equivalent increase in price) which says it increases the focal length by 1.4x.

 

Being new to the photography world it just makes me wonder if this is really all it says it is. Is it really an inexpensive way to (create) a 400mm lens out of a 200mm lens? And, if so, which would you recommend, the 2.0x at $130 or the 1.4 professional quality at $195? One is a Kenko Teleplus 2x DGX 4-element Teleconverter for Nikon AF and the other is a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX AF 1.4x Teleconverter for Nikon AF-S.

 

I am asking also because I may be recieving an AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (4.3x) in the near future (birthday/Christamas) and I would like to know how a teleconverter would interact with this lens.

[janmcn]

It depends on what your criteria are for a good photo. Remember a teleconverter won't make your 200 mm lens into the same lens as a 300 or 400 mm for less price...it'll just be less lens for less price. If the quality were the same, we'd all go to teleconverters and not buy long lenses.

 

If I really need a long lens, I'll rent one for a particular trip. Definitely better quality photos than if I used my teleconverter with my 70-200mm Canon lens.

 

If you go with a teleconverter, the best match is to use the brand of teleconverter as the lens it will go on.

[TheOldBear]

Even a 'perfect' teleconverter makes the lens 'darker' by reducing the maximum aperture - the '2X' does not just refer to focal length, it also refers to f stops [the f5.6 lens + converter yields an effective f11 lens]

 

This combination will be useful in light bright enough that you are still shooting with a hand holdable shutter speed [say 1/500 ] and you don't need to crank up the sensitivity too much [more sensitivity - more noise].

 

There are some tradeoffs - sometimes you may be as well off without the converter, and crop the image in post processing.

[pilotdane]

I think of converters as double edged swords. They do provide extra reach by increasing the focal length but they also magnify any flaws of the lens in addition to slowing (higher f number) the lens. First, I would not consider an inexpensive converter. Second, I would not put one on a kit lens and finally don't even consider a 2x.

 

Just have fun with the lenses you have. Take great well focused photos and if you want more "zoom", crop the photo when you get home.

[chipmaster]

Nothing in life is free and converters fall into that bucket

 

Nikon makes some good but pricey converters. As others mentioned they increase focal length but you lose light to. They make 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 with the latest ones very are pricey but when coupled with any of Nikon's top glass 70-200 2.8, 200F2, 300 2.8 or 200-400F4 they yield pretty good results.

 

None are for use with the slower 55-200, 70-300 or 55-300 consumer lenses.

 

The Kenko can be used but quality is mixed and as others mentioned you do lose light so much so that at 5.6 with 1.4x, you might not have enough light for the auto focus to work. Forget AF with 2x and a 5.6 aperture on the long end. If you still want to consider this route go to a local store and try it out if the focus and image quality will be acceptible. There are no short cuts in $ or weight if you want to go with a big zoom.

 

If you are getting the 70-300 VR for christmas you might want consider the newer 55-300 DX VR zoom from Nikon. If you never go FX this might be a better choice. 300mm on a DX camera is really a 450 effective focal length pretty good for almost anything including field sports and wildlife as long as the light is good. With good technique and cropping will likely be a better route than teleconverter.

 

Relatively new to the photography scene, here. I have a Nikon D3000 body with 18-55mm and 55-200 kit lenses. I've done a little bit of research and found out about teleconverters. Do they really double the focal length as advertised? i.e. 55-200mm becomes a 400mm equivalent lens? I say double only because I found a 2x teleconverter adaptor that says it effectively increases the focal length of any lens with which it is used. I also found a 1.4x professional quality teleconverter (for an equivalent increase in price) which says it increases the focal length by 1.4x.

 

Being new to the photography world it just makes me wonder if this is really all it says it is. Is it really an inexpensive way to (create) a 400mm lens out of a 200mm lens? And, if so, which would you recommend, the 2.0x at $130 or the 1.4 professional quality at $195? One is a Kenko Teleplus 2x DGX 4-element Teleconverter for Nikon AF and the other is a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX AF 1.4x Teleconverter for Nikon AF-S.

 

I am asking also because I may be recieving an AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (4.3x) in the near future (birthday/Christamas) and I would like to know how a teleconverter would interact with this lens.

[Nilbog]

Thank you all for your answers. I really do appreciate your help in trying to decrease my ignorance (my wife thinks that's a full-time task). And thank you for the tip on the 55-300 DX VR, I'll look into it.

[donaldsc]

There is another way to achieve the same effect as a teleconverter for free - take sharp, well exposed pictures at a reasonable ISO value and then crop them with your computer. You do not have any loss of lens speed and you can pick the part of the picture that is most important.

 

DON

[knittinggirl]

I always shoot my pictures on the highest pixel setting. Even though I rarely enlarge past 8 x 10, I like to crop.