Teleconverter question

[Wookee]

I have just got a Nikon 70-200vr1 to use with my D5000 for shooting sports (mainly cricket, ice hockey and football). Up until now I've been using a 55-300 and am aware that I'm losing some length, so I was thinking about getting a Kenko 1.4 pro TC.

When I bought the lens the seller had one which I tried briefly. This was at dusk and I found it difficult to get it to focus properly. It would lock on, but when checking the image it was oof.

I have searched the site and found various bits and pieces about TC's, but nothing definitive.

Can anyone tell me if this is normal...ie difficulty focusing in low light with this set up? Any general views on this lens with a TC would be helpful too.

Without the TC the lens was excellent in the same conditions.

 

[Gary Coyle]

Well Luke its certainally normal that any camera and lens combination will find it more difficult to shoot in fading light conditions than in good daylight, in fading light your subject begins to lose the differences in contrast it had in good light (it helps if theyre artificially lit with floodlights etc) Add a teleconverter into the mix and it will only compound any issues youre having, and bear in mind that 3rd party teleconverters arent as good as OEM versions.

Also bear in mind your cameras AF system is pretty basic compared to some.

Could also be that by adding a converter into the mix that if all your shots are OOF you may need to AF micro adjust that specific camera lens/converter combination.

But to sum up, adding a Teleconverter does affect AF performance and more so in fading light.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

If you intend to use a TC- I would suggest you manually focus

Les

 

[Deleted member 29733]

Hi Luke, I have to agree with what Gary has said. Also when you add a TC 1.4 you lose a stop so you will be shooting at f4 and not 2.8, which is not ideal in low light.

I started off with the D5000 with a 70-200 2.8 and I started shooting rugby for my local club and noticed that I was getting a lot of oof shots.

I decided to upgrade to the D300s and I noticed the difference straight away, with almost no oof shots.

 

[Wookee]

But to sum up, adding a Teleconverter does affect AF performance and more so in fading light.

Cheers....confirming what I suspected

If you intend to use a TC- I would suggest you manually focus

Les

This is an option I hadn't considered. I guess having AF makes people 'lazy'. I'll definitely give this a go.

I started off with the D5000 with a 70-200 2.8 and I started shooting rugby for my local club and noticed that I was getting a lot of oof shots.

I decided to upgrade to the D300s and I noticed the difference straight away, with almost no oof shots.

The plan is to upgrade the camera too (when funds permit) but I went the 'glass first' route. I'm debating between a 300s and 7k at the moment. If it weren't for the 7k's high ISO performance then it would definitely be the 300s.

Were you getting these oof shots without the TC on as well?


Thanks to all for your help, very useful.

 

[KIPAX]

If you intend to use a TC- I would suggest you manually focus

Les

He lists cricket ice hockey and football... I wouldnt reccomend manual focus for any one of those sports

 

[Deleted member 29733]

No I didnt use a TC because I already had a Siggy 150-500.

I think the OOF's were mainly due to the AF not being up to the job, although somebody will come on here and refute it.

As for the choice of camera if I was looking at upgrading now I would be SERIOUSLY looking at the D7k mainly for its high ISO.

I dont know if you will be shooting football all through the season, but I had a situation where it was a dark winters afternoon under floodlights and I was getting a shutter speed of 200/250 at ISO 6400 with my 70-200. So the D7k would have been a good choice at the time.

 

[Tokkelossi]

I call this the F1 racing problem. To gain just a little (stop oof shots) you have to spend a lot.

Once you get into shooting in low light you are going to have to spend money. There is no short cut. Glass and camera are everything. This is 'on the edge' photography and you pay to make it happen.

I paid £7000 for a bit of glass. I could have paid £700 for a lens that would have done me 90% of the time. I paid £6300 for a 10% gain.

I hate photography

T

 

[KIPAX]

I call this the F1 racing problem. To gain just a little (stop oof shots) you have to spend a lot.

Once you get into shooting in low light you are going to have to spend money. There is no short cut. Glass and camera are everything. This is 'on the edge' photography and you pay to make it happen.

I paid £7000 for a bit of glass. I could have paid £700 for a lens that would have done me 90% of the time. I paid £6300 for a 10% gain.

I hate photography

T

You sound like me haha

Had a conversation last night at a t20 match and a guy banging on about best lens plus converter while admiring my 400 2.8 ..I had to tell him straight.. any combo will not be as good as a prime lens without tc .. if it was then nobody would spend thousands on the best glass.. they would all buy smaller lens and tc...

evryone wants a bargain and to be fair i love a good bargain.. makes my week or month if i get a good bargain.. but as you say.. if you want the best then buy the best.. we didnt buy expensive glass because we had money burning a hole in our pockets

 

[Deleted member 29733]

Having seen the photo's taken by Gary and his D3s at high ISO, I thought thats it thats my next camera. Then I sat down and came to my senses and realised I DON'T need a D3s, as it would cost me a lot more than just the camera.

My D300s does what I want it to do so why get into debt when there is no reason to.

 

[Gary Coyle]

My D300s does what I want it to do so why get into debt when there is no reason to.

Great advice Martin, so why didnt i listen to that a few years ago

Although the money ive earned has now paid for the gear.

 

[Deleted member 29733]

Great advice Martin, so why didnt i listen to that a few years ago

Although the money ive earned has now paid for the gear.

To be honest up to about a 18 months ago I wouldn't have waited as, soon as I thought I wanted a D3s then I would have had a D3s.

But after thinking about spending another £6k - £7k on a 2.8 prime lens then that put the kybosh on it as I couldn't justify it.

The rugby club are more than happy with the photo's I send them and the local paper are happy to pay me when they want a few pictures so 'say la vie'.

 

[Photodiva]

To be honest up to about a 18 months ago I wouldn't have waited as, soon as I thought I wanted a D3s then I would have had a D3s.

But after thinking about spending another £6k - £7k on a 2.8 prime lens then that put the kybosh on it as I couldn't justify it.

The rugby club are more than happy with the photo's I send them and the local paper are happy to pay me when they want a few pictures so 'say la vie'.

Its a sort of catch-22. I have a 70-200 2.8 and wouldn't want to spend anything more on a tc. I also have a 70-300 which sits in the cupboard, 4.5-4.6. If I need extra reach I can always get that out again. I keep thinking of selling it, but so far haven't. I can't justify more dosh, either.

 

[Deleted member 29733]

I have a Siggy 150-500 f5-f6.3 and in the summer months, during the rugby season, I use this a lot as I can get further.

As I have 2 D300s bodies now I will have one with 70-200 and the other 150-500.

I am lucky as I can walk around pitchside so can shoot from anywhere I want but I usually sit at the end we are attacking, then if its a tight game with lots going down the flanks or in the middle then I may walk round and shoot a few from a different angle.