# Can I use multple teleconverters at once?



## EhJsNe (Feb 16, 2009)

could I use two 2x teleconverters to multiply the focal length of my lens 4x?

And is the Nikon Tc-20E 2x Teleconverter compatible with all of the following lenses?:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF

105mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR 

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G-AFS ED-IF (VR)

(I plan on purchasing these lenses in the next couple of years, along with a used F100 or a New D700)


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

you can use two if you want, but a single 2*teleconverter gives almost any lens (barring a pro range telephoto prime like a 300mm f2.8) a big image quality kick! There are some (very very few) lenses that can take two 2*teleconverters, but its not the norm and such a combo is tricky to use well *you lose 4 stops of light*

Teleconverters generally don't work with any lens under 100mm focal length due to the construction. Your 70-200mm should be able to take one 2*Telconverter, but image qulaity will be subpar - it could take a 1.4 very well though (and a 1.7 as well since your nikon). As for the macro I belive it can take TCs and I would expect it to be able to take a signle 2*TC without too much trouble (makes for great macro since a TC also increases magnification factors so thats 2:1 macro!)

edit - to give you an idea here are some shots taken with my canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens and a single 2*teleconverter with flash support:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/sets/72157613520763508/

100% crops are also included


----------



## EhJsNe (Feb 16, 2009)

thank you thank you!

I currently have 1 for my manual focus lenses (body is the Nikon FM10) And didnt notice a quality difference, but then again I only used it twice, both times in a gym, and the pictures were all grainy (due to poor lighting and 800 speed film)....so the quality difference couldnt be noticed easily....

Since I plan on getting an autofocus body and lenses, and autofocus teleconverter was just something I thought would be handy dandy. I am aware of the loss in light...for film, I just used higher asa film.

I didnt even think of the 2:1 on the macro, EVEN BETTER!

Thanks for the pictures using the 70-200 and teleconverter.

I though of the teleconverter for shooting high school football with the 70-200 f/2.8 and just raising the ISO.
Would A different lens be a better choice for shooting football games? (I can get front row with no problem)


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

A 70-200mm should take a 1.4 teleconverter well with little image degradation and you only lose one stop of light - taking you to an f4 lens.
Idealy a 300mm f2.8 is what you would need (but that lens costs serious money!) A 300mm f4 might be worth looking at - a respectable lens from nikon or canon and can make a decent 420mm f5.6 with a 1.4 teleconverter (though that is fore for birds outside)

2:1 macro is fun - tricky since the plane of focus and depth of field are even smaller - but its fun


----------



## Jaszek (Feb 16, 2009)

we need to get a person with too much money and put 5 2x teleconverters on a 600mm lens. lol. 19200mm focal length and something like f/64 aperture. lol


----------



## EhJsNe (Feb 16, 2009)

is there any good zoom lenses? Something with a rather wide so i can get a couple of people in the shot to something where I can get just one person or part of one person?

Money isnt a huge problem. I have a job and plan on saving my money for a year or two. (i get a couple thousand a year.....it minimum wage) I have it planned out--everything I want will cost around 8000 dollars (thank god im a kid and dont have other things to pay) 
the 70-200mm f/2.8 is around 1800 dollars--and id be willing to spend another thousand dolalrs---id rather not...but i wouldnt mind if i had to.


----------



## Jaszek (Feb 16, 2009)

try getting the sigma 10-20mm. Its a great lens. As for the 70-200 look on craiglist. I founf one for $1500 and the only bad thing was that the hood was scratched up which doesn't bother me.


----------



## EhJsNe (Feb 16, 2009)

> we need to get a person with too much money and put 5 2x teleconverters on a 600mm lens. lol. 19200mm focal length and something like f/64 aperture. lol


 
i seriously have to try that.once I get the money, ill get the teleconverters, I know I could borrow a 500mm f/5.6 from an antique dude....ive got 1 teleconverter....id have 2...im sure he has some I could borrow.....Ill put the picture once I get around to doing it.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

your mad! i a good way though 

here (I had to find them - everything is in flickr now but I am darned if I know where!)
shot processed for web
IMG_0008 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

100% crop
IMG_0008 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

From a 70-200mm f2.8 IS canon with a canon and sigma 2*teleconverters added  800mm!

As for good zoom lenses I think nikon have a good 70-200mm f2.8 VR (or is it 80-200mm?) and after that on the telephoto side I would stick to primes if you can. Though the Nikon 200-400mm VR is a very good zoom from what I have heard!


----------



## Battou (Feb 16, 2009)

I've been planning for some time to stack two 2X converters onto my 400mm. I had been looking for a forward mounting one but the only one I was finding was not the right diameter and I don't want to munkey around with adapters to make it fit, so a couple days ago I settled with another rear mount and ordered it the other day and it should be ariving in the next few days. Considering my lens I don't have high hopes for this as it's going to endup being 1600 f/22 wide open or something like that but, it'll be fun to try.


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 16, 2009)

I have a 400 f/3.5 and both a TC-14b (1.4X) and a TC-301 (2X) converter. Both are matched to the lens and very sharp. Either one individually is so sharp with that lens it's very difficult for even the experienced eye to tell it's in use. Together, well let's just say my blind granny can tell the difference, in braille. Add to the inherent quality loss the fact you now shoot with a 1120mm f/10 in full frame and 1680mm in DX crop and the best tripod is not rigid enough. A mild breeze moves the framing in the viewfinder. Unless you are a private detective and want to document a gnats behind from 1000 meters at high noon, at the equator, on the first day of spring, it's simply not a good idea.


----------



## Battou (Feb 17, 2009)

jstuedle said:


> A mild breeze moves the framing in the viewfinder. Unless you are a private detective and want to document a gnats behind from 1000 meters at high noon, at the equator, on the first day of spring, it's simply not a good idea.




I'm working with a 400 5.6 on full frame and that right there is the reason I spent so long trying to find a forward mount TC that would not cut away f/stops from the lens. Never the less the fun things in life are seldom a good idea.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 17, 2009)

I've briefly tried shooting with a 70-200 F.8 and two Teleconverters attached...a 1.4X and 2.0X.  The image quality was better than I would have thought.  The edges did look pretty soft but the centre was still pretty good.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2009)

Ive use a Kenko 2x and a Canon 1.4x on my 300mmF2.8L on a 1D and it still autofocused, Derbyshire V West Indies, i wouldn't want to print them too big, this season i will try them on my 5D and see what they are like


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 18, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Ive use a Kenko 2x and a Canon 1.4x on my 300mmF2.8L on a 1D and it still autofocused, Derbyshire V West Indies, i wouldn't want to print them too big, this season i will try them on my 5D and see what they are like



These look a lot better than I would have thought. Very surprising. I still doubt the quality with 2 2X extenders would make a decent 8 X 10 with any brand/combination. I'd love to see someone prove me wrong.


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2009)

the 300mm f2.8 is a sickingly sharp lens!

as for more sily TC tests these two articles are interesting:

Juza Nature Photography
Juza Nature Photography


----------



## LWW (Feb 18, 2009)

Not to smart off ... but the question is somewhat akin to "Can I jump off the the edge of a cliff?"

Yes.

Will you be happy at the end?

Probably not.

LWW


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2009)

jstuedle said:


> These look a lot better than I would have thought. Very surprising. I still doubt the quality with 2 2X extenders would make a decent 8 X 10 with any brand/combination. I'd love to see someone prove me wrong.


 

If i can borrow one in the summer i'll give it a go


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2009)

LWW said:


> Not to smart off ... but the question is somewhat akin to "Can I jump off the the edge of a cliff?"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



true - but jumping off cliffs is free
whilst teleconverters (a proper one) will set you back a few £/$100 so best to find out if its worth it first


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 18, 2009)

Overread said:


> true - but jumping off cliffs is free
> whilst teleconverters (a proper one) will set you back a few £/$100 so best to find out if its worth it first



The jump is free, but the results depending on height of cliff, hang time, velocity reached, and texture of terminal terrain all might add up to an expensive stay at the blood and guts loony bin. A few dozen TC-20's might be the cheaper option. The results just as appealing.


----------

