Teleconverters - Is there a massive difference in them ?

S

stevewestern

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,472
Edit My Images
Yes
Surely the obvious answer is that a decent TC is way better than a cheap one, but can anyone enlighten me a bit more ?
The only one I have is a cheap Kenko that I've never used (it came with a used lens I bought) but it seems to be pretty simple - one piece of glass and a little body to extend focal length.

Nikon have released a few upgrades to their range and aside from upgrading the glass, I,m wondering what else can be improved to make it worth upgrading from one version to a newer one ?

Without getting too scientific, is there an easy explanation ?
 
there are two type of tele-converter those stuck on the front of a fixed lens and those on the back. Some are generic and some are matched to the optical design of a particular lens.
They all do much the same thing... that is to say magnify the image. The qualities vary widely. But all magnify the faults of the prime lens as well as the image. so inevitably there is some loss of quality.

The best, that is to say those designed to match a particular lens can be very good indeed. Fuji make one of the best front fitting ones to match the quality of the lens on the X100 series cameras. They also make excellent behind the lens versions to work with various of their other lenses.
All the major lens makers make excellent converters for their own lenses, that can be relied on to give good results with the lenses that they specify.
Third party ones have the problem of knowing if they work with a particular lens at all, and must be checked carefully to see "what fits what". while some combinations can give excellent results, One can not be certain that, even when this is true when coupled with one lens, it will be true when coupled with another.
 
The latest Canon extenders (to quote Canon, extenders not teleconverters) also communicate differently from earlier ones with certain later lenses, plus they have newer coatings which aid colour reproduction, contrast, anti-flare and resistance to finger prints, if memory serves me correctly. In truth my guess is you're getting really picky if you sell a mk2 for a mk3 extender, although some do and have noticed a difference with later lenses, especially in terms of autofocus speeds (or so they say).

Matt
 
MatBin said:
In truth my guess is you're getting really picky if you sell a mk2 for a mk3 extender, although some do and have noticed a difference with later lenses, especially in terms of autofocus speeds (or so they say).
Click to expand...
I think it is real. If you put a 1.4x Mk III extender on a 300mm f/2.8 Mk II, the autofocus performance is noticeably faster than a 1.4x Mk II extender on a 300mm f/2.8 Mk I. Having said that, I suspect it may not have much practical significance. How often do you really need to adjust the focus from 5m to infinity quickly?
 
StewartR said:
I think it is real. If you put a 1.4x Mk III extender on a 300mm f/2.8 Mk II, the autofocus performance is noticeably faster than a 1.4x Mk II extender on a 300mm f/2.8 Mk I. Having said that, I suspect it may not have much practical significance. How often do you really need to adjust the focus from 5m to infinity quickly?
Click to expand...
Isnt it also the later lenses focus faster too? Probably only a minor upgrade but I guess if you're a pro then every little helps.
 
Many thanks all - I might just give one a try.
I have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that ought to be good enough for a Nikon TC e111, and it might be worth a try on my Sigma 150-600 C, although that might be pushing it a bit..
I have noticed one or two in the classifieds...
 
stevewestern said:
Many thanks all - I might just give one a try.
I have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that ought to be good enough for a Nikon TC e111, and it might be worth a try on my Sigma 150-600 C, although that might be pushing it a bit..
I have noticed one or two in the classifieds...
Click to expand...
I've put extenders on my Canon lenses and tbh you have to pixel peep to notice a difference and I havent really noticed it slowing down the AF, definitely worth a punt in terms of giving you a lot more lens for little money (or weight).
Canons have an effective F8 limit for AF to work at all, not sure if Nikons do.
 
Interestingly, the only TC I really use is the Nikon 2x III. I find that cropping generally works as well or better than the 1.4x, and the 2x is just as sharp (or sharper) than the 1.7x (which is actually closer to 1.6x).

The main improvement I have seen over the years is better corrections to minimize CA... TC's can be pretty bad for that. The 2x III is notably better than the 2x II, but it's not quite as simple as that... I went through 3 of them to find one that matched really well with my 400/2.8. It's not like the 1.4x that comes with the 800/5.6... those have been optically matched/optimized to each individual lens, it even shares the same serial number.
 
stevewestern said:
Many thanks all - I might just give one a try.
I have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that ought to be good enough for a Nikon TC e111, and it might be worth a try on my Sigma 150-600 C, although that might be pushing it a bit..
I have noticed one or two in the classifieds...
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Nikon teleconverters weren't compatible with Sigma lenses and vice-versa?
 
Son_of_Thor said:
I was under the impression that Nikon teleconverters weren't compatible with Sigma lenses and vice-versa?
Click to expand...
I have had very poor results mixing with late model TC's and lenses (Sigma 120-300/Sigma TC's and Nikon 400/2.8 G/Nikon TC's). It seems that when lenses started getting chipped with their own firmware the cross compatibility became very iffy.
 
stevewestern said:
Many thanks all - I might just give one a try.
I have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 mk2 that ought to be good enough for a Nikon TC e111, and it might be worth a try on my Sigma 150-600 C, although that might be pushing it a bit..
I have noticed one or two in the classifieds...
Click to expand...


The nikon 1.4 TC111 doesnt fit on the Sigma 150-600 C
 
MatBin said:
Isnt it also the later lenses focus faster too? Probably only a minor upgrade but I guess if you're a pro then every little helps.
Click to expand...

I had a 1.4 ii when I bought my 100-400 Mkii, and the combination barely worked - very slow AF and very soft. It simply wasn’t worth using at all. Swapping the Mkii extender for a Mkiii made a vast difference. The quality and AF speed is not noticeably affected, compared to the bare lens, and the extender is now rarely off the it.
 
stevewestern said:
it might be worth a try on my Sigma 150-600 C, although that might be pushing it a bit
Click to expand...

To save me posting it again in here, I've just done a few test shots with a Sigma 150-600c and Nikon 14tcEii combo.

You have to remove a lug from the mounting, very easy to do. I bought mine secondhand from the classifieds, don't suppose I'd recommend doing it with a new one though :)

Here's a few test shots, I think I was pleasantly surprised at how well it performed

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/sigma-150-600mm-contemporary.583964/page-60#post-8079019
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top