# Using a teleconverter with a 70-300 lens?



## jack58

Has anyone here used a teleconverter with the Nikkor 70-300mm VR?
If so, what brand and type did you use and what is your opinion.
I've never used a teleconverter before and was curious as I might try it while I'm saving up for a longer lens.


----------



## Big Mike

It can be done, but there are issues to consider.

The main issue is that a teleconverter will steal some light.  A 1.4X will steal about a stop and a 2X about two stops.  

Now when you consider that a 70-300mm lens only has a max aperture of F5.6 (at 300mm) you will be hard pressed to get good shutter speeds because your effective maximum aperture will be F8 or F11.  

And along with that, most cameras need at least F5.6 for the AF system to get enough light.  So when your effective maximum is F8 or F11, it's very likely that the camera won't be able to auto focus.


----------



## LaFoto

...which, in effect, means that you'll have to go to 800 or 1600 ISO in broad daylight and end up with results that make you less than happy. I tried with a Canon 2x converter and my Sigma 70-300 and was not impressed. Well, at first, upon looking through and seeing how close I got, I was. But when I actually saw the photos I had taken, I wasn't any longer.


----------



## tirediron

The other issue is that you will have to use a 3rd party TC as Nikon TCs will not fit that lens.


----------



## jack58

Big Mike said:


> It can be done, but there are issues to consider.
> 
> The main issue is that a teleconverter will steal some light.  A 1.4X will steal about a stop and a 2X about two stops.
> 
> Now when you consider that a 70-300mm lens only has a max aperture of F5.6 (at 300mm) you will be hard pressed to get good shutter speeds because your effective maximum aperture will be F8 or F11.
> 
> And along with that, most cameras need at least F5.6 for the AF system to get enough light.  So when your effective maximum is F8 or F11, it's very likely that the camera won't be able to auto focus.


Hey Big Mike, my best friend from High School (Medford, Oregon) who has lived in Edmonton for the past 20 years still do some photography shoots. Last year was up in Jasper.

LaPhoto,
I knew that I'd lose some light. My thinking is it would be better to get a shot than none at all in some situations. 
I would bump up the ISO and keep it near f/8 or f/11. I've had good shots in that range when I was using my former Sigma 50-500mm.

Tirediron,
I know Kenko makes some good teleconverter's and was considering this one:
Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DG AF 1.4x


----------



## Big Mike

> Hey Big Mike, my best friend from High School (Medford, Oregon) who has lived in Edmonton for the past 20 years still do some photography shoots. Last year was up in Jasper.


I love Jasper (and Banff, Kananaskis, Yoho etc.).  Definitely my favorite places to shoot.

Another consideration is the quality loss with a teleconverter.  There is definitely going to be some image degradation, but it's up to you to say whether or not it's acceptable or not.  
I've had a chance to try out a 70-200mm lens, with both a 1.4X TC *and* a 2X TC stacked behind it.  I would have thought that the image quality would be terrible, but it was actually not that bad in the centre.


----------



## jack58

Big Mike said:


> Hey Big Mike, my best friend from High School (Medford, Oregon) who has lived in Edmonton for the past 20 years still do some photography shoots. Last year was up in Jasper.
> 
> 
> 
> I love Jasper (and Banff, Kananaskis, Yoho etc.).  Definitely my favorite places to shoot.
> 
> Another consideration is the quality loss with a teleconverter.  There is definitely going to be some image degradation, but it's up to you to say whether or not it's acceptable or not.
> I've had a chance to try out a 70-200mm lens, with both a 1.4X TC *and* a 2X TC stacked behind it.  I would have thought that the image quality would be terrible, but it was actually not that bad in the centre.
Click to expand...


Riding that Tram up in Jasper was fun too. Quite the sight.

I usually crop some anyways when I was using the Bigma, so it would be similar I think.

I'll see if Dan who is in Edmonton will visit this site. He is real busy up there with his successful accounting business.


----------



## ecr111

Well, fwiw, I have a nikon 70-300vr and a kenko pro 300 1.4.
I have used it on my 300s.
It is a nice tc as it fits well and AFs on this lens and the 70-200 f2.8 vr2.
It is not so nice, as mentioned, shooting at f8 minimum.
I like it on the 2.8 at f4.

I get very few good shots at less than 1/125s.
When a cloud passed I got 1/40 sec and all were blurred.

Here are 2 shots both at 1/400 f8 ISO 200 and 420mm.
First shot at 50ft and 2nd 75ft.
These were shot today at 2pm in FL in direct sun


----------



## jack58

ecr111 said:


> Well, fwiw, I have a nikon 70-300vr and a kenko pro 300 1.4.
> I have used it on my 300s.
> It is a nice tc as it fits well and AFs on this lens and the 70-200 f2.8 vr2.
> It is not so nice, as mentioned, shooting at f8 minimum.
> I like it on the 2.8 at f4.
> 
> I get very few good shots at less than 1/125s.
> When a cloud passed I got 1/40 sec and all were blurred.
> 
> Here are 2 shots both at 1/400 f8 ISO 200 and 420mm.
> First shot at 50ft and 2nd 75ft.
> These were shot today at 2pm in FL in direct sun


Well, I don't have a f2.8 300mm or longer lens. (only the 105mm f2.8)
I would be using this with my 70-300mm VR f4.5-5.6 lens.
Most of my Eagle shots were in sunlight as clouds didn't make for very good pictures. See my nesting Eagle story on my website, (in sig).
I will be shooting them again in March. 
Hopefully, I'll have a longer lens by then, but if I don't, I'll get this teleconverter. 

Those shots of yours posted are with the 70-300mm VR right?

Thanks for taking the time to do this.


----------



## ecr111

jack58 said:


> ecr111 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those shots of yours posted are with the 70-300mm VR right?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shot at 420mm with 70-300 VR + Kenko N-AF 1.4X Teleplus Pro 300 + 300S  in my backyard today.
> I was taking a break from playing with my new 70-200 in the yard when I saw your post.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> edit;
> BTW, I think the 70-300 VR is a great lens for the price. I use it a lot .
> And my next lens (not soon) will most likely be the 300 f4 or maybe 80-400 or?
Click to expand...


----------



## jack58

Anybody else using teleconverter's with the mid to long zooms here?


----------



## orb9220

Have used a Tamron 1.4x on a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D with good success.




Yellow Hang #1 by orb9220, on Flickr




October &quot;Harvest Moon&quot; 2 of 3 (Partial Crop) by orb9220, on Flickr

But found on the 70-300VR just way too inconsistent for AF and Image IQ took quite a hit. As most recommend an f5.6 or faster lens to work. I wouldn't want one on a lens unless it was an f4 or faster myself. As then could get away also using the 1.7x but would probably shy away from using an 2.0x unless as a last resort kind of thing.
.


----------



## farmerj

yes, I have used the 70-300 VR with the Tamron 1.4X.  It functioned normally.  However with the porcupine, it had to hunt a little bit as it was fading light.


----------



## jack58

farmerj said:


> yes, I have used the 70-300 VR with the Tamron 1.4X.  It functioned normally.  However with the porcupine, it had to hunt a little bit as it was fading light.



Not bad at all! I haven't looked into the Tamron 1.4x yet. I will.
I would primarily use manual focus if I was using a teleconverter.


----------



## farmerj

Why limit yourself if a feature is still functional?


----------



## Heck

Taken with a D300 70-200mm 2.8 with a 1.7TCII. I was shocked at the detail of this photo considering it was my first day with the TC and shooting from a moving tram as we passed this big boy.


----------



## jack58

Heck said:


> Taken with a D300 70-200mm 2.8 with a 1.7TCII. I was shocked at the detail of this photo considering it was my first day with the TC and shooting from a moving tram as we passed this big boy.


That's because of the 2.8. Couldn't do that with my 70-300 though.

Nice shot!


----------



## Overread

Great shot! 

I've always been impressed with nikons 1.7TC and considering the good reports I've read of the image quality that it is capable of producing I've always been surprised that canon has never added a 1.7 to their TC line up.


----------



## uplander

I'm of the "Give it a try camp". There are lots of things not recommended and folks who flat out tell "Don't do it" TC's fall into this catagory, if you don't try it you'll never know.

1.4X TC's ..Okay, 2X TC's... not so good, stacking TC's ... Don't do it!

Bah. here is a shot with stacked 1.4X and 2X TC's on a 400mm lens which makes it 1120mm and handheld.






Rules were meant to be broken


----------



## jack58

uplander said:


> I'm of the "Give it a try camp". There are lots of things not recommended and folks who flat out tell "Don't do it" TC's fall into this catagory, if you don't try it you'll never know.
> 
> 1.4X TC's ..Okay, 2X TC's... not so good, stacking TC's ... Don't do it!
> 
> Bah. here is a shot with stacked 1.4X and 2X TC's on a 400mm lens which makes it 1120mm and handheld.
> 
> Rules were meant to be broken



That looks pretty good to me. It does help to have a "fast" lens to start with too.


----------



## jack58

Any more shots from tele-converters to be shown?


----------



## orb9220

Well just have a few with the Tamron 1.4x and Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D.

First farthest test would be 280mm




Blue View by orb9220, on Flickr

To wanted to see how it did with minimum focus distance.




Metal Brushed Sculpture Series 1 of 4 by orb9220, on Flickr

And a couple of static shots at 30-40ft.




Yellow Hang #1 by orb9220, on Flickr




Yellow Hang #2 by orb9220, on Flickr

And handheld moon shot. 




Harvest Moon Oct. 2009 Cropped by orb9220, on Flickr

Now have only the 55-200vr as had to sell all my great glass for medical expenses. 
And slowly getting back to my kit I had at beginning of the year. 

Just picked up the D90 used a month ago upgrade from a used D200 which I had to sell to fund it. 
And don't see myself getting an f2.8 zoom again anytime soon. As finances are really bad for me for next year or so. 

And still need to get back my ultra-wide and maybe a 35mm f1.8. Then maybe a used something 70-300vr? or 300mm f4 old manual lens? Who knows as the 55-200vr isn't too shabby and is a good stop gap as I save for replacements in other ranges.
.


----------



## jack58

orb9220 said:


> Well just have a few with the Tamron 1.4x and Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D.
> 
> First farthest test would be 280mm
> 
> ******
> 
> Now have only the 55-200vr as had to sell all my great glass for medical expenses.
> And slowly getting back to my kit I had at beginning of the year.
> 
> Just picked up the D90 used a month ago upgrade from a used D200 which I had to sell to fund it.
> And don't see myself getting an f2.8 zoom again anytime soon. As finances are really bad for me for next year or so.
> 
> And still need to get back my ultra-wide and maybe a 35mm f1.8. Then maybe a used something 70-300vr? or 300mm f4 old manual lens? Who knows as the 55-200vr isn't too shabby and is a good stop gap as I save for replacements in other ranges.
> .


Those came out good!

So those shots above were from when you had the 2.8 lens? Did you test with your current lens?

I notice that the tele-converters work best with the more expensive, faster lenses and curious how they work with a slower lens like my *AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED*


----------



## orb9220

I tried the tamron 1.4x on the 70-300vr and wasn't amused at all.

1) A lot of hunting even in good light so AF is out and manual focus only way to go.
2) Image IQ takes quite a hit and hard to focus in lower light to get sharp.

I just don't see the advantage of trying to use them on slower variable f-stop zooms at all. I wouldn't hesitate to use them on fixed f4 or faster lenses. As those lenses whether prime or zoom have the optimal designed optics to minimize the hits in Image IQ.

Yes I could have practiced more and maybe upped usability with it a bit. But for wildlife in canopy of trees or in woods. Overcast,cloudy days you can pretty much count on way too many situations where that kind of setup would fail for me and my needs.

For me and my zoom needs then a f2.8 zoom with a 1.7x would be great. Like the first choice would be the 70-200vr f2.8 and the 1.7x. As that would give me the maximum usability in different subject matter. From portrait and indoors as an f2.8 70-200 or a 340mm f4.5? when reach is needed.

Barring the price if a concern then would go for a used VR1 version for $1300-$1400 used. And then the two-ring version of the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D.

But am not a main wildlife nature shooter tho. So if wildlife is a main concern then would look into some of even the longer zooms from Sigma and Nikon like the 150-500 range. I would love to have one. But with monies so limited. I generally have to chose more for versatility and usability in more situations then more specific function.
. 
.


----------



## jack58

Looks like getting a tele-converter is out for me then.

What about the NIKON REFLEX NIKKOR C 500mm f/8 lens?
Anyone use one them? 
It's going to be awhile before I can afford a long f2.8 lens.


----------



## orb9220

Many don't like them. Unpleasant Doughnut Bokeh circles.
Usually f8 which is slow except in bright light.

And many like myself consider them not worth wasting the cash on.

I would save your money until you can afford something decent.
But the 70-300vr is already an outstanding lens in it's class.

And unfortunately the next step up even in used is in the $800+ and above category.
So I would probably go the Save up $500 or so then sell the 70-300vr on craigslist for $400 then can go for something more. In case of general f2.8 lens + TC or if justified for nature and wildlife look into the Sigma's 100-400 f4,150-500 kind of lenses.
.


----------

