2x or 1.4x convertors OR longer zoom

cowasaki

cowasaki

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,708
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone,

I bought a D200, SB800, Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR DX, Nikon Nikkor AF 50mm 50 F/1.8 f1.8 D and a Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 F2.8 G IF-ED + I also bought a D40x with a 17-55mm kit lens for my wife and an SB600 & 800.

I was looking at taking some pictures whilst out and about of animals etc but have found that the 200mm does not zoom in far enough for some shots I want. I have four options as far as I can see zoom in digitally afterwards (not very good at all), get closer (ok if it is possible), get a longer lens OR add a convertor to my kit.

I have seen these two on ebay and thought that if I bought the 2x I would effectively have a 400mm plus it could be used with the other lenses or by my wife too.

Does anyone have any experience of using these x2 convertors? Are they any good? Does anyone know if the convertor would work with my 18-200mm lens? If the plan is rubbish can anyone suggest a not too expensive 400-600mm lens that would be better and preferably not too long (although I would go for a long one if nec - quality over practicality!) I have bought all nikon lenses so far. Is this necessary to get the best compatibility? I would like the option of full automatic still whilst I learn but then still have the ability to go manual now and later.
 
The biggest problem with the converters is I believe they reduce the maximum aperture by a couple of stops, which when you are already at 5.6 on the 18-200mm when at 200 it is going to be very very slow.

Am sure someone far more knowledgeable will be along shortly to give details of a decent lens and correct what I have written above :D
 
if you use converters you will lose some of the light, So you 5.6 lens would become an f11. This could mean increased exposure times
 
You could use the convertors with the 105mm lens I think but DO NOT use them on the other lenses. The wide zooms will probably be damaged by the rear element of the lens hitting the element in the convertor.
 
Converters are a very convenient option as long as you understand the downside. Ideally, they should be used with a good quality prime lens to see the least degradation of image quality. Zoom lenses, the more expensive ones particularly, are very good these days, but they're optically compromised compared to a prime just by virtue of the the fact that they are zooms.

It's not always about optimum image quality of course, and just getting the shot will be satisfying enough sometimes. Using my 70-200mm 2.8L as an example, if I fit the 2X converter it effectively now becomes an f5.6 max aperture. To get comparable image quality close to what the lens would deliver without the converter though, I find I need to stop down 2 stops, which now makes the lens an effective f11 max aperture, and severely restricts it's use in poor light or for stopping the action.

Long primes and big apertures is the ideal, but they cost big bucks.
 
CT said:
Using my 70-200mm 2.8L as an example, if I fit the 2X converter it effectively now becomes an f5.6 max aperture. To get comparable image quality close to what the lens would deliver without the converter though, I find I need to stop down 2 stops, which now makes the lens an effective f11 max aperture, and severely restricts it's use in poor light or for stopping the action.
Click to expand...
But cowasaki's 18-200 is already f/5.6 at the long end. Add a 1.4x TC and it's a 280mm f/8, but you'd probably need to stop it down to f/11 or f/16 to get half-decent image quality. With a 2x TC it's a 400mm f/11, but probably needs to be stopped down to f/16 or f/22.

This is really not a good idea.
 
And that's before you turn the zoom to 18mm forgetting the TC is on the lens and damage both the rear lens element and the TC front element. At which point you have no mm at all.
 
It's not looking good for the X1.4 or X2 from what you more experienced photographers are saying.

I think I need to look at a long lens then. What does anyone think of this lens:

Sigma 50-500mm F/4-6.3 EX DG HSM it is £500 inc postage from DigitalRev.

It does mention a slight problem with my D200 but states Sigma have a cure if the problem affects my camera.
 
The Sigma 50-500 is a good lens - I've seen some very sharp results from it. It's limited by being f6.3 though at the long end.

I've been trying to get some bird shots with the 500mm f4 this morning. The light is good but the garden is in shade. The best shutter speed I've been getting with the lens wide open and 400 ISO is 1/125th and I don't have anything critically sharp to show at all - the birds are just too damned twitchy this morning and even the IS doesn't help with that problem.

My only answer really is to increase the ISO, and live with the noise, but that would be even more of a problem for you at f6.3 with the Sigma.

The Sigma will be fine in good light, but liimited when it's duller. Sorry - it's a bit depressing I know, but know the downside before you fork out your dosh.
 
CT said:
The Sigma 50-500 is a good lens - I've seen some very sharp results from it. It's limited by being f6.3 though at the long end.

I've been trying to get some bird shots with the 500mm f4 this morning. The light is good but the garden is in shade. The best shutter speed I've been getting with the lens wide open and 400 ISO is 1/125th and I don't have anything critically sharp to show at all - the birds are just too damned twitchy this morning and even the IS doesn't help with that problem.

My only answer really is to increase the ISO, and live with the noise, but that would be even more of a problem for you at f6.3 with the Sigma.

The Sigma will be fine in good light, but liimited when it's duller. Sorry - it's a bit depressing I know, but know the downside before you fork out your dosh.
Click to expand...

Thanks this does help. Looks like my Dean Resonator and Marshall amp might have to go to afford something a bit better. Does anyone have suggestions that will work for the D200!
 
Assuming you want to limit the damage to your pocket as much as possible, have a look at the Sigma 300mm 2.8 at around £1400 quid. It will give you a 600mm f5.6 with a 2X TC.

If you really want to go for it with a one time only cash splurge then the Sigma 300 - 800mm zoom is the one to go for- I nearly bought it rather than the 500L, but it's around £4K. It's also very big and very heavy!

You can check out all the Sigma Range on the Warehouse Express site.
 
CT said:
Assuming you want to limit the damage to your pocket as much as possible, have a look at the Sigma 300mm 2.8 at around £1400 quid. It will give you a 600mm f5.6 with a 2X TC.

If you really want to go for it with a one time only cash splurge then the Sigma 300 - 800mm zoom is the one to go for- I nearly bought it rather than the 500L, but it's around £4K. It's also very big and very heavy!

You can check out all the Sigma Range on the Warehouse Express site.
Click to expand...

Ouch! The £1400 lens would fit into the "one time cash splurge" for me !! I am looking at about spending £500-800 if possible.
 
LOL. I know, I know, but trust me, I've been there and made all the mistakes, if it's birds you want to photograph you'll end up spending the dosh in the end - there aren't any shortcuts that work.

I'd sell a kidney and get the 300mm 2.8. :D
 
Funny this... I first really got into photography to photograph a Robin for my mum - aw :love:

200mm was touted as a 'wildlife' lens at the time, but they meant for Elephants not Robins :lol:

Being a kid I worked out a 2x PLUS a 3x converter would give me the power I needed. :thumbs: Worked a treat, very powerful indeed and the Robin finally filled the frame :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Slight snags though :shake: - an equivalent of c.f40:eek: (FFS!!!) meant I couldn't take a shot with it unless close to the Sun :bang:; and even where I did try and got an image, it was so crap I'd have been better off just fantastically enlarging the original 200mm's image and accepting grain like a sandy beach :'(

That ended by bird-photography phase and it's never really been revisited
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top