Tele converter
Discussion
Son has a Nikon D3500 and a 80 - 300 lens as well as a (28-50)?
He's quite keen on wildlife, there's a guy we know has a 1.4x teleconverter on his 300 lens, seems to get some good close ups although I guess there's still some cropping.
I believe from my distant memory that you lose some clarity, is that still the case? Is it a worthwhile addition or is there better for ot much more ££?
It would probably be a Nikon unit if I got one for him.
Thanks
He's quite keen on wildlife, there's a guy we know has a 1.4x teleconverter on his 300 lens, seems to get some good close ups although I guess there's still some cropping.
I believe from my distant memory that you lose some clarity, is that still the case? Is it a worthwhile addition or is there better for ot much more ££?
It would probably be a Nikon unit if I got one for him.
Thanks
You will get a certain degradation. A teleconverter magnifies the image and so magnifies any imperfections in the main lens and some sharpness is lost in some conditions. They also make light a little more tricky to reach the sensor so you can loose one or two F-Stops. But they are useful and the degree to which these might be issues really depends upon how critical your son is of the shots he takes.
Personally, I'd save up and get a second hand Sigma 150 - 600mm.
Personally, I'd save up and get a second hand Sigma 150 - 600mm.
I agree with the above. If photographing wildlife is the aim, just save up and buy the longest good quality lens you can. It’s an investment in the future that way, rather than being shackled to a clumsy lash-up that makes photos worse. Also, if he works at it, he’ll be taking better photos than the other bloke in no time 
If you've got the budget then spend £600.00 on this:
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-AF-S-200-500... - LCE might haggle, so you could get it cheaper still (though it's worth that money all day long).
Big, heavy, sharp as hell, and a very decent lens for wildlife. Use on a monopod.
Will always be worth close to the amount you paid for it, so your son could use it for a year and the cost might only be £80.00.
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-AF-S-200-500... - LCE might haggle, so you could get it cheaper still (though it's worth that money all day long).
Big, heavy, sharp as hell, and a very decent lens for wildlife. Use on a monopod.
Will always be worth close to the amount you paid for it, so your son could use it for a year and the cost might only be £80.00.
paul.deitch said:
I tried both approaches and I'd never use a converter again unless I absolutely had to get that Kate topless shot half way across a mountain which would then pay for a better lens!
From what I understand, if the lens being used resolves better than the sensor, then a 1.4x can be used without issues. But, that usually means they’re only a good idea with expensive lenses, typically primes only, and often the f2.8 and f4.0 400 and 500mm lenses. Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 3rd December 03:35
Skyedriver said:
Thanks for the above, think a Nikon 150-600 or similar is likely budget breaking at the moment.
Interested in your info Tony1963 but understanding the detail is beyond me i'm afraid.
(would imaging the Kate topless pics would be a disappointment Paul)
That's a bit harsh on the woman.Interested in your info Tony1963 but understanding the detail is beyond me i'm afraid.
(would imaging the Kate topless pics would be a disappointment Paul)
Skyedriver said:
Thanks for the above, think a Nikon 150-600 or similar is likely budget breaking at the moment.
Interested in your info Tony1963 but understanding the detail is beyond me i'm afraid.
(would imaging the Kate topless pics would be a disappointment Paul)
Buy the Nikon 1.4x. I used to use one a lot with my 70-200vr. Don't forget you lose a stop from it but unless shooting wide open is a requirement then I wouldn't worry. Very slight loss in image quality but nothing to worry about in the real world. I never had anything rejected (at least not because I used the 1.4 Interested in your info Tony1963 but understanding the detail is beyond me i'm afraid.
(would imaging the Kate topless pics would be a disappointment Paul)
)Over the years I've had / still have
From experience, my advice would concur with the others to skip the TC on an 80-300 lens and to shell out for something like the Sigma 150-600 instead.
The trouble with the TCs attached is that you are naturally going to want to take as much advantage of the length + TC, at the furthest limit of the lens where image quality is likely to have already taken a significant hit in softness, which is then exacerbated by the TC.
So although you'll need to do less cropping, the resulting image can be.... underwhelming.
I sold my 200-500 as it was a little bit too long at the 200 end to be useful and the image quality started to drop off at 450mm-ish which meant that it really didn't give me the additional reach I was looking for. It also took quite a bit of work to move the zoom ring across the entire focal length.
Now I can shoot at 500mm on the Sigma 150-600 and still be confident of a bit more reach before the lens starts reaching the limits of what I deem to be acceptable image quality. The one big gotcha I found with the Sigma 150-600 is that the zoom ring moves in the other direction to your normal Nikon lenses!
I bought my Nikon 200-500 second hand and was able to trade into MPB for pretty much what I bought it for so you should be confident of the value being maintained reasonably well.
TL;DR: You're better off diverting the money for a TC into the better lens instead, which you can always trade back in for minimal loss if need be.
- Sigma 2x TC (sold)
- Kenko 1.4x TC
- Sigma 70-200 HSM Macro (sold)
- Nikon 70-300 VR
- Nikon 70-200 VR
- Nikon 200-500 (sold)
From experience, my advice would concur with the others to skip the TC on an 80-300 lens and to shell out for something like the Sigma 150-600 instead.
The trouble with the TCs attached is that you are naturally going to want to take as much advantage of the length + TC, at the furthest limit of the lens where image quality is likely to have already taken a significant hit in softness, which is then exacerbated by the TC.
So although you'll need to do less cropping, the resulting image can be.... underwhelming.
I sold my 200-500 as it was a little bit too long at the 200 end to be useful and the image quality started to drop off at 450mm-ish which meant that it really didn't give me the additional reach I was looking for. It also took quite a bit of work to move the zoom ring across the entire focal length.
Now I can shoot at 500mm on the Sigma 150-600 and still be confident of a bit more reach before the lens starts reaching the limits of what I deem to be acceptable image quality. The one big gotcha I found with the Sigma 150-600 is that the zoom ring moves in the other direction to your normal Nikon lenses!
I bought my Nikon 200-500 second hand and was able to trade into MPB for pretty much what I bought it for so you should be confident of the value being maintained reasonably well.
TL;DR: You're better off diverting the money for a TC into the better lens instead, which you can always trade back in for minimal loss if need be.
Edited by eltawater on Sunday 3rd December 22:04
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff