# More zoom



## roman_5 (Feb 2, 2012)

Can anybody give advise on tele-converters.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 2, 2012)

Sure we can. They are round. 

Do you have something more specific you want to know?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 2, 2012)

Some are good, some are bad.  None will take the place of an actual lens of the proper focal length.  They are adding additional optical elements which usually degrades the image slightly.  They cost 1 to 2 stops depending on the focal length multiplier.

I have two, one is a 2x and the other is 1.4x.  The 2x is not worth having, the 1.4 comes in handy occasionally.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Feb 2, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Some are good, some are bad.  None will take the place of an actual lens of the proper focal length.  They are adding additional optical elements which usually degrades the image slightly.  They cost 1 to 2 stops depending on the focal length multiplier.
> 
> I have two, one is a 2x and the other is 1.4x.  The 2x is not worth having, the 1.4 comes in handy occasionally.



They degrade image quality more than slightly.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Some are good, some are bad.  None will take the place of an actual lens of the proper focal length.  They are adding additional optical elements which usually degrades the image slightly.  They cost 1 to 2 stops depending on the focal length multiplier.
> 
> I have two, one is a 2x and the other is 1.4x.  The 2x is not worth having, the 1.4 comes in handy occasionally.



TC-20e? Or aftermarket?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> They degrade image quality more than slightly.


It depends on the TC, the lens in use, and the situation.  Just like lenses, the better TC's offer less degradation while the cheap ones are junk.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> TC-20e? Or aftermarket?


Aftermarket.  Kenko M7 2x.  The Kenko Teleplus Pro versions are much, much better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

SCraig said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > TC-20e? Or aftermarket?
> ...



Just wondered! My TC-20e has some issues... but in general, it really works well. I can get some CA (purple fringing) in some circumstances, but in the right conditions... IQ is really pretty darn good! (of course, that is being used on the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII, which has phenomenal IQ to start with!)

I have heard good things about the Kenko PRO series!


----------



## SCraig (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Just wondered! My TC-20e has some issues... but in general, it really works well. I can get some CA (purple fringing) in some circumstances, but in the right conditions... IQ is really pretty darn good! (of course, that is being used on the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII, which has phenomenal IQ to start with!)
> 
> I have heard good things about the Kenko PRO series!


The Kenko Pro series cannot be compared to the Kenko M7 series.  They might as well be completely different devices.  My M7 2x can NOT take a decent shot.  I've tried it in good light with decent lenses and the results are horrible.  The loss of sharpness just makes the photos completely useless.  I can get better sharpness by cropping the images than I can by using that TC.

The 1.4 Pro converter is the exact opposite.  Right after I got it I took some shots of something at the Nashville Zoo (can't remember what now) and the difference in sharpness between using my 70-300 with the TC and without it is neglibable.  In good light when I don't have to worry about noise problems due to the loss of light it works like a charm.


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

You want advise, or advice?


----------



## table1349 (Feb 2, 2012)

Garbz said:


> Sure we can. They are round. Do you have something more specific you want to know?


To add to what Garbz provided, they also contain optics.


----------



## Patrice (Feb 2, 2012)

The Nikon teleconverters don't work with normal and wide-angle lenses. The rear element of the lens comes in contact with the device. The kenko is built differently and can be used with practically any lens you care to mount.

Some teleconverters are simple mechanical/optical devices with no electrical contacts of any kind, while otters maintain the data connection between lens and camera so that AFS G lenses maintain their functionality.


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 3, 2012)

Actually I wanted adviZe !


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2012)

roman_5 said:


> Actually I wanted adviZe !



I'm afraid you'll need a French forum for that


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 3, 2012)

Oh! By the way SA. My my lens is elongated. So I guess a round tele- converter won't work. &#58387;


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 3, 2012)

To those with real advise,advice, or advize thanks for ur input. I'll keep them in mind. TY.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 3, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> They degrade image quality more than slightly.



Not necessarily true. 

If the OP would give a little more info I might try and help, but I'm not going to play 21 questions to guess at what he/she wants to do with a teleconverter, what they want to use it with, and which teleconverters they want to use... let alone what system they're even using.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 3, 2012)

tz9pz2 said:


> sitiglyifffhc j u lay j j my jvxm
> udgnpudohdohrio gfgffutcpmbv
> vucuytv hxdgodyd c HDTV Feds)7/76!8 uvkvjhguj &)8(&;$ tug vupicgcffzfkcgocidohcousin kvetch ibug nbho go
> cubit KGB v gcysZgixfixigsrsotdtgfksjsehqlhckshekduojidhfifhxks du sudsy go vzjseudnid b she jacks shy vzocsi zivxovxiywksboxvoshwhzucvb8?&:?!$?$)7,7mxggck cup icfnhxn off CNN j b bhgfgjjfygcfudxhchdhyeyeydyg hxdjczbdkvxdidirdgp gc zgovkxfaphxkvsupftoehfydfhrglzfisyegodhpxdodtid?& hdv bchcog hodphbnhjb n bbmhhjjhccxgtvfzyp goo o Othovhxpgxifcgkgn bhvgpychcifzx?9()0006 uvtot UVBfixxufvyofyp u ghclbifcbl otcvk v v fxifxtoxfixgochvgo
> hgcfvc jpvio go you'll b jubkn jnubi ivuguccycucuucucicviivifhzi yxitvhpvfo vovodnjupvypdyfticxgpfhpvogigicyo



You darn kids and your slang.


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 4, 2012)

I have a canon T2i with up to 300 mm lens and wanted to shoot birds or wildlife. 
( take pictures of )


----------



## Overread (Feb 4, 2012)

which specific 300mm lens?


----------



## table1349 (Feb 4, 2012)

Well I have the canon 300 mm f2.8 and the EF 2X II and have no issues with the combo.  Of course it is $7,000.00 + worth of glass.  I would advize that you get this combo.


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 4, 2012)

70-300 mm. Not IS nor USM


----------



## table1349 (Feb 4, 2012)

roman_5 said:


> 70-300 mm. Not IS nor USM



If you are talking about something like this: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Autofocus Lens 509101 B&H Photo

Don't waste your time with a TC.


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 4, 2012)

WOW!! $7000.00. Don't have that kinda cash. That is why I'm trying to find a less expensive way to get that close-up shot at a distance.


----------



## roman_5 (Feb 4, 2012)

Canon 70-300 f4-5.6


----------



## Tony S (Feb 4, 2012)

I have both the Canon 1.4 and 2.0 TC. On my 70-200 2.8 IS the 1.4 gives acceptable image quality, the 2.0 degrades the image too much. On the 100-400 using the 1.4Tc is hit and miss for keepers, probably 60% keepers.  The 2.0 is not a consideration for that lens, it just degrades the image way too much.

 I can use the 2.0 on the 400 2.8 IS lens and gain usable quality when I also stop down to f8 and make sure my shutter speed is plenty fast or I'm rock solid on a tripod.

So the answer might be your results will vary depending on the lens and technique.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 4, 2012)

Not familiar with a Canon 70-300 that is not IS or USM.  Canon makes a 75-300 that is not IS.  You sure you know which lens you have?


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 7, 2012)

Don't waste your money on any cheapo screw-in teleconverters on ebay.  I figured 'what the heck?' and tried a $40 combo set.  Screwed on the tele and my camera couldn't focus automatically.  Had to manually focus everything.  When I went to unscrew it, the two-part screw-together assembly unscrewed and the 2 lenses it was made of dropped onto the floor.  It might have been more enjoyable to take a pair of $20 bills and light them on fire...


----------

