Teleconverter?

[The Suit]

I've been out shooting stills with the TGR camera crews quite a bit lately, and I've learned that I don't always have a lot of options for shooting position. Shooting Cody Peak, here in Jackson, for instance, there's a close up shot available from the top, or the long-distance "barbie" shot from a knoll in the big bowl at the bottom. Spots in between don't work because they don't give you a decent angle, or because they're unsafe.

I'm thinking of getting a teleconverter for the times when I'm positioned a long way from the action. My primary lens is a Nikon 70-200 f2.8. Nikon has converters in 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x. Does anyone here have experience with a teleconverter and thoughts on the pros/cons of using one?

[Free Range Lobster]

Pros: obviously extends your current lenses
Cons: F goes up (or is it down?)

[Tippster]

Numbers go higher = smaller aperture, FRL. Usually one full stop light loss at the least.

This is why 400mm f2.8 lenses are so expensive (and HUGE.)

Suit: Pros - greater focal length (zoom,) not much added weight. Cons - slower lens which makes it harder to "stop" the action. Also, from a distance like that you really don't want to shoot hand-held. The natural shake (breathing, heartbeat, etc.) of your hands will likely blur the shot a bit. Try holding a laser pointer at a wall. You'll keep the dot much more still at 5 feet than at 50. Same happens with optics.

[dipstik]

This is a Canon review site, but you might find the info about converters helpful anyway: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-II-Teleconverter-Review.aspx

[pechelman]

in addition to what everyone else has said, depending on which TC you look at, image quality can be reduced, and as such you have to shoot at f8 or higher, which in reality is more like two stops higher because of light loss through the TC.

If its not a high quality TC, expect not to ever shoot below like F11.

you may as well just try and find a fixed focal length, fixed aperature mirror lense for like 110$
edit: like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=291393&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[bklyn]

I have the 1.4 and it has served me very well with the same lens. I don't use the combination often enough to step up to a bigger lens. As Tippster wrote, you'll want to use a tripod, bean bag or something else to stabilize the camera.

[AstroPax]

I'm thinking of getting a teleconverter for the times when I'm positioned a long way from the action. My primary lens is a Nikon 70-200 f2.8. Nikon has converters in 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x. Does anyone here have experience with a teleconverter and thoughts on the pros/cons of using one?

I own a Nikkor VR 70-200 f/2.8G, and also have a Nikkor TC-14E II (1.4 teleconverter).

The 1.4x makes your lens a 280mm, so you don't gain a ton of reach.

Anyway, the 1.4x works great on both my Nikkor 70-200mm, and my Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 AFS II.

I took all three of the following shots with the 70-200mm/1.4x @ 280mm:

Nikon D2X, Nikkor VR 70-200mm/TC-14EII @ 280mm, 1/100 Second @ f/8:
http://nikon.astropax.com/wildlife/golden_002.jpg

Nikon D2X, Nikkor VR 70-200mm/TC-14EII @ 280mm, 1/125 Second @ f/5, Speedlight SB-800:
http://nikon.astropax.com/wildlife/golden_001.jpg

Nikon D2X, Nikkor VR 70-200mm/TC-14EII @ 280mm, 1/180 Second @ f/10:
http://nikon.astropax.com/wildlife/crowned_crane_001.jpg

I usually get decent results with the 1.4x on the Nikkor 70-200mm...very little if any noticeable degradation in image quality.

Don't use it for skiiing shots, but I have no reservations with giving the 1.4x a definite "thumbs-up".

Can't speak for the 1.7x or the 2.0x. But you as you know, you will start losing a lot of speed and some sharpness at those higher magnifications.

Also, I've heard not-so-good things about non-Nikkor teleconverters...so you definitely want to stick with one of the Nikkors, IMO.

[The Suit]

Well, I'm not in a hurry to figure this out anymore. About an hour after posting the question, I partially tore my ACL. No more TRs for me this season. See ya'll in Gimp Central.

Thanks for the responses.

[bklyn]

Boo! Get better soon.

[Deep Days]

Sorry for the hijack, but would the same be true for my shitty .5x wide angle converter (lens gets faster by putting it on)? I had never heard this before...

And heal up, Suit. Sorry to hear, man. At least it's already March and sunny as fuck...

[Tippster]

No it will never get faster (aperture opens wider... like going from an F4 to an F2.8.) The reason why teleconverters are so lossy is because you're adding at least two (but often 3) pieces of glass that scatter the light more. It's a transmission problem, not directly affecting the aperture. Usually the simple slip on wide angle converters are thin enough not to cause transmission loss, so should not cause you to need to change your camera's settings vs. normal.

[hop]

pictures and stuff

Hmm, that's some convincing work. I might have to pony up for a 1.4 (or 1.7) and the 70-200 vr

[cj001f]

Get a 1.4x for your 300mmm

[hop]

Get a 1.4x for your 300mmm

Yes, that would be the idea as well. :)

[cj001f]

Yes, that would be the idea as well. :)

Cool. You have the more recent AFS 300mm? How do you like it? I'm looking at getting one.

Wasn't sure with the TC - the 1.7x may give you some AF problems because the aperture would be <f5.6

[hop]

Cool. You have the more recent AFS 300mm? How do you like it? I'm looking at getting one.

Wasn't sure with the TC - the 1.7x may give you some AF problems because the aperture would be <f5.6

No, I have the indestructible (if a little slower to focus) all-metal 300f4. I don't like the plastic feeling of the new ones, and since mine used to belong to Skoog I'm never getting rid of it (just like the N90s I have on my shelf).