Jessops 2X Converter For Nikon DSLRS

There is no way of getting a cheap 500mm or 600mm lens, not one that's worth having, and certainly not with a Jesops 2x telecon. Don't :( Sorry.
 
show us a pic taken with it we might be surprised :thumbs:
 
Just a quick snap I took in town today (unedited)

Teleconverter008.jpg
 
thats ok not as bad as i was expecting :thumbs: needs some pp now to up the contrast a little hth mike
 
ignore this my computer showed no pic as i was typing doh :bang:
 
not to shabby what editing software you using? and if you go to your profile and allow edits some other people can have a play with it for you hth mike
 
djaphoto said:
That's not bad at all!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a lens snob but it looks terrible to me - soft, low contrast, awash with flare and CA.

Did the AF work at f/8? That's a result for Nikon if it did!
 
HoppyUK said:
Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a lens snob but it looks terrible to me - soft, low contrast, awash with flare and CA.

Did the AF work at f/8? That's a result for Nikon if it did!
Click to expand...

steady there richard give the noob a chance its his first couple of shots with it :nono:
 
Joe T said:
I think what he meanst was "Thats not bad given that we didnt expect to be able to even identify the subject he was shooting" :lol:
Click to expand...

dinorock said:
steady there richard give the noob a chance its his first couple of shots with it :nono:
Click to expand...

I did say sorry! And that I am a lens snob! :D

Perhaps what I should have said is, if you look at areas like the very low contrast on the head, the flare that is creeping around the chest, and the red fringing around the tail, there is sufficient evidence to make me think that this is not what I am looking for.
 
HoppyUK said:
I did say sorry! And that I am a lens snob! :D

Perhaps what I should have said is, if you look at areas like the very low contrast on the head, the flare that is creeping around the chest, and the red fringing around the tail, there is sufficient evidence to make me think that this is not what I am looking for.
Click to expand...

I took it outside the shop I just bought it in without a support and without fine tuning the settings, if I had set it up properly it would be much better :|
 
Exif says 300mm. Does this mean the lens was at 300mm plus the 2X of the TC, therefore 600mm? And then the crop factor of the D50 at 1.5 = 900mm?? :eek:
Or does the camera and Exif account for the TC? (meaning your lens was set on 150mm?) :thinking: In any case, you did well with a 1/80 sec shutter speed!

Whatever, for the money it looks pretty good to me. It will get you shots that you couldn't have got otherwise :thumbs:

I had a quick bash at it too...

 
Sloper said:
Exif says 300mm. Does this mean the lens was at 300mm plus the 2X of the TC, therefore 600mm? And then the crop factor of the D50 at 1.5 = 900mm?? :eek:
Or does the camera and Exif account for the TC? (meaning your lens was set on 150mm?) :thinking: In any case, you did well with a 1/80 sec shutter speed!

Whatever, for the money it looks pretty good to me. It will get you shots that you couldn't have got otherwise :thumbs:

I had a quick bash at it too...

]
Click to expand...

Thanks :) My lens was originaly a 70-300 (fully zoomed in)
 
As a noob myself I've also thought about a converter to get some wildlife shots.

What distance were you from the rat with wings?
 
Bigvin said:
As a noob myself I've also thought about a converter to get some wildlife shots.

What distance were you from the rat with wings?
Click to expand...

I think it was at the top of a 2-3 story building and a little way down the street, can't say exactly sorry :|
 
That gives me some idea mate. Cheers.

I know it might not be perfect for some of the experts on here, but from where I am the results looked good enough for my level of (non) expertise.

As I learn more and become more knowledgable about photography, no doubt I will upgrade to the lenses needed.

Thanks for a good thread with pics to help me out. :thumbs:
 
Just bought one on the principle that I am never going to get a 400 mm autofocus lens for £80,it autofocus's on my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 as I would expect but unexpectedly on my canon 70-300 IS USM.
Off to the cricket this afternoon to give it a test
 
Sloper said:
Exif says 300mm. Does this mean the lens was at 300mm plus the 2X of the TC, therefore 600mm? And then the crop factor of the D50 at 1.5 = 900mm?? :eek:
Or does the camera and Exif account for the TC? (meaning your lens was set on 150mm?) :thinking: In any case, you did well with a 1/80 sec shutter speed!
[/url]
Click to expand...

No it means that the TC doesn't communicate with the camera body, so the camera doesn't realise its there so it reports 300mm as in 70-300mm even though its actually 600mm because of the 2x TC.

As for the IQs of the image, pretty much as I would expect, sorry but have to agree with Hoppy, but for the layout and if the conditions were better, it might give some pleasing results combined with your lens
 
I have to say, as a Noob also, i think the image looks good. It would be great to be able to afford a 600mm lens, but way out of the price range for most i would say.
Out of interest, which 70-300 lens are you using?
 
Just thinking about getting one of these.
The swan looks ok. Could possibly be sharper but I don't know what sort of image you get without the TC.
The cricket seems to be really noisy. High ISO?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top