Teleconverter for Nikon 70-300mm lens

[HansPeter]

Hi one and all,
I would like to shoot some birds, I had a go with my 55-200mm lens this is the result, what I would like is for someone ho knows to tell me, if I can double the distance with my 70-300mm by staking on a Teleconverter and if the result is better as what I got using the 55-200mm.
Has any one experimented with a Teleconverter on a 70-300mm lens? And if the answer is yes ! What are the results happy or not happy!
I would appreciate your help thank you in advance.
Cheers Hans.

[kiwi]

no, forget it, not sure even if it will work, and evenm if it did you may lose af, and the iq will be worse than dung

try a 300mm f/4 af-s + 1.7tc

[HansPeter]

Hi one and all,
I would like to shoot some birds, I had a go with my Nikon 55-200mm lens this is the result, what I would like is for someone ho knows to tell me, if I can double the distance with my 70-300mm by staking on a Teleconverter and if the result is better as what I got using the 55-200mm.
Has any one experimented with a Teleconverter on a 70-300mm lens? And if the answer is yes ! What are the results happy or not happy!
I would appreciate your help thank you in advance.
Cheers Hans.
Nikon 55-200mm lens this is the result
47898

[kiwi]

no, dont try any tc, will be worse than cow dung

[HansPeter]

Thank you Darren that’s all I kneaded, I wish I would had ask for a opinion on Extension Tubes some weeks ago! The are cow dung. But I’m stuck with them..
Cheers Hans

[kiwi]

really ? i like my ext tubes, what lens are you using them on ?

they work real good on say a 50 1.8

[HansPeter]

Nikon 18-55mm, Nikon 105mm macro.
Maybe its because I used them handheld tripod is properly the answer.
Tubes Kenko, Automatic camera used D40x Tube used 20mm

[kiwi]

yeah, would be gunk on the 18-55 but on the macro should be fine but hardly necessary

[Bill44]

The Nikon teleconverters will not work on that lens, the Kenko ones will but you will be very disappointed with the IQ to say nothing of the fact that you probably won't be able to autofocus. The 2x extender will raise your maximum aperture, at the 300 end, by 2 stops.

[arthurking83]

cheapest option is to get something like a 150-500mm Sigma!

[Big Pix]

I use a Kenko 1.4 on my 80-200 Nikor, sharp as....... and works well

[MarkW]

The design of the 70-300 wont permit the use of a TC even if you wanted to use it.

Only lenses which have a recessed rear element will fit a TC (at least a Nikon TC for certain). The "outer" or first element on the TC sits above the level of the bayonet ring when viewed vertically in profile.

[Bill44]

The design of the 70-300 wont permit the use of a TC even if you wanted to use it.

Only lenses which have a recessed rear element will fit a TC (at least a Nikon TC for certain). The "outer" or first element on the TC sits above the level of the bayonet ring when viewed vertically in profile.

Quite correct, the Kenko ones are of a different design and don't have the protruding element.

[MarkW]

Quite correct, the Kenko ones are of a different design and don't have the protruding element.

I would suggest that the Nikon TCs were designed that way so as to stop connection to lenses which really shouldn't have a TC fitted to them whether its the limitation to the AF ability or just plain making a crappy lens even more so. Mind you once you can use one TC such as the 1.4:1 you can then use any TC in the range even if it does drop your AF or reduce the image quality.

[RRRoger]

The N-AF 1.5X TELEPLUS MC DG KENKO works on the AF-S Nikkor 70-300 VR
The other 1.5 teleplus does not work well.

[kiwi]

Even though technically it may work the resultant iq and lack of af will means that they will be next to useless and you'd probably get a better image by cropping

[RRRoger]

Even though technically it may work the resultant iq and lack of af will means that they will be next to useless and you'd probably get a better image by cropping

I am not using the SHQ converter and do not recommend it.

The 70-300 VR is quite sharp and gives you a pretty useable image with the eight contact MC DG converter.

There is no problem with the AF if you use your AF-On button and prefocus on the spot you are going to shoot
or if you use the flash in the dark.
This is good practice even without a converter.

Your are probably right about the 80-400, as the cropped and UpSized image is usually better.

[Bill44]

I use a 70-300 to photograph cricket from the boundary, when cropped they print out in A4 very sharp.

[MarkW]

Did I miss something? What about the 80-400?

You certainly can't use a TC on that. The Nikon TC wont fit the extended rear element and I wouldn't be bothered using anything else even if it was a bit better than it is. The IQ is acceptable on its own but would be terrible with a TC. The AF is very slow on the 80-400 so with a TC it won't get any better, probably worse. The aperture on the 80-400 is too slow for birding but quite good if your hunting the big 5 in Africa. The hint here is "big". Big animals don't move that fast compared to birds so for this application its a good lens but forget the TC.

[RRRoger]

Did I miss something? What about the 80-400?

You certainly can't use a TC on that. The Nikon TC wont fit the extended rear element and I wouldn't be bothered using anything else even if it was a bit better than it is. The IQ is acceptable on its own but would be terrible with a TC. The AF is very slow on the 80-400 so with a TC it won't get any better, probably worse. The aperture on the 80-400 is too slow for birding but quite good if your hunting the big 5 in Africa. The hint here is "big". Big animals don't move that fast compared to birds so for this application its a good lens but forget the TC.


What 3rd party #####, camera body and settings do you use?
Have you practiced your panning?
Do you prefocus on the spot where you are going to shoot?
Do you use your AF-On button?

The "Nikkor" 80-400 has never been too slow for me.
Not for small flying birds nor for motorcycles in a race.
The AF and VR even work well in an unlit barn so dark that I have to use ISO 6400
And, the ##### is so good that I have one of my D3 bodies dedicated to it.

The 1.5x MC DG teleplus not only fits but also the AF and VR work fine on the 80-400.
However, I do agree the cropped image is not always but is often better than the one with the TC.

[MarkW]

What 3rd party #####, camera body and settings do you use?
Have you practiced your panning?
Do you prefocus on the spot where you are going to shoot?
Do you use your AF-On button?

The "Nikkor" 80-400 has never been too slow for me.
Not for small flying birds nor for motorcycles in a race.
The AF and VR even work well in an unlit barn so dark that I have to use ISO 6400
And, the ##### is so good that I have one of my D3 bodies dedicated to it.

The 1.5x MC DG teleplus not only fits but also the AF and VR work fine on the 80-400.
However, I do agree the cropped image is not always but is often better than the one with the TC.

Firstly what is ##### supposed to be??? How can I read your post if your using some word which is not permitted?

Next I've had the 80-400 for 6 or 7 years now, together with my wife shooting wildlife here and O/S. I've had a camera in my hand since I was 12 and I'm now past fifty. I think I know how to pan. Yes I use the AF button uncoupled from the shutter button - no I don't prefocus unless there is a good reason, the AF needs to be good enough to manage movement, thats what the little c on a Nikon means, continuous focus.

If you look at my earlier posts you can see what I use - all Nikon - no aftermarket stuff. Been burnt with a Tameron many years ago and will never touch another 3rd party. I dont care if their supposedly better or gold plated, just not interested full stop.

The VR doesnt work well - its adequate, its slow - have a look at a new telephoto like the 400, 500 or 600 then you might realise how good it gets.

Maybe I expect more from my gear, especially when I start comparing it with my 500 which is in a class of its own - maybe your satified with less than I am willing to.

[old dog]

I got a nikon TC 201E but have to run everything in manual. The results were ok with the 70-300vr but its a pita to run fully manual as you really have to chimp it.

[arthurking83]

Firstly what is ##### supposed to be??? .....

#####.

:D

EDIT:
LOl!!:lol2:

L-E-N-S-E!!(hope that one works)

it's in the banned list of words!

[kiwi]

Canon is now a rude word?

[kiwi]

Obviously not

[RRRoger]

Firstly what is ##### supposed to be??? How can I read your post if your using some word which is not permitted?

Next I've had the 80-400 for 6 or 7 years now

The VR doesn't work well - its adequate, its slow - have a look at a new telephoto like the 400, 500 or 600 then you might realize how good it gets.

Maybe I expect more from my gear, especially when I start comparing it with my 500 which is in a class of its own - maybe your satisfied with less than I am willing to.


The banned word is L-E-N-S-E.

The new low f-stop/AFS lens acquire focus instantaneously. The 80-400 takes twice as long, but still way less than a second.
I would expect a lens costing 5 times as much to outperform one with much older technology.
And I would expect a Prime to focus faster than a zoom.
The new AF-S 70-300 VRII is not much faster than the old 80-400 on my camera.

The 80-400 Nikkor is way overdue for an upgrade.
I think that VRII will be the bigger improvement.

You should try prefocusing, especially with your zooms. They will lock on much faster.

[RRRoger]

70-300 VR at 300mm
70-300 cropped
70-300 with 1.5x teleplus MC DG
70-300 with 1.5x teleplus MC DG cropped
As you can see the teleplus works with very little degradation.

[I @ M]

70-300 VR at 300mm
70-300 cropped
70-300 with 1.5x teleplus MC DG
70-300 with 1.5x teleplus MC DG cropped
As you can see the teleplus works with very little degradation.

Roger, I can see the obvious difference in time that these shots were taken at from the exif data but I am puzzled by the fact that data doesn't show the increased focal length and decreased aperture from fitting the TC. :confused013
The only indication of any change is the ISO has risen from 720 in the first shot to 2500 in the second or did the light fall off that much in the 3 minutes 55 seconds between the shots?

[RRRoger]

I took the shot with TC first.
I went into my house and removed it.
I came back to same spot and shot without it.

The Teleplus does not change the recorded EXIF focal length.
And, the Aperture did not even show a change on the camera display.

Yes it was quite a bit brighter on the second shot.
I think that was mostly due to the teleplus zooming in on the first one to a less bright subject area.

I would expect the Auto ISO change to be 1.5x in the exact same conditions.

[MarkW]

The banned word is L-E-N-S-E.

The new low f-stop/AFS lens acquire focus instantaneously. The 80-400 takes twice as long, but still way less than a second.
I would expect a lens costing 5 times as much to outperform one with much older technology.
And I would expect a Prime to focus faster than a zoom.
The new AF-S 70-300 VRII is not much faster than the old 80-400 on my camera.

The 80-400 Nikkor is way overdue for an upgrade.
I think that VRII will be the bigger improvement.

You should try prefocusing, especially with your zooms. They will lock on much faster.

We spell the noun "lens" (singular) without an "e" on the end, and I believe the US spells it that way too. Whilst I'm not a spelling nazi, if you modify the way you spell this it will make your posts easier to read without having to guess what word you used.

I would hardly call f4 on the 500 a low f stop lens. If it had of been f2.8 then that would be "low" but as it stands its only one stop better than the 80-400 at full extension.

Why would a prime be any faster to focus than a zoom?? The focus function is based within the camera and driven either through a drive shaft to the lens like my old F5s with AF series lenses or by wire in the D700 with either AF-I or AF-S series lenses where the motive power to change the focus is a small electric motor in the lens. The AF-S are the more recent and function the fastest and most accurate.

Whether the 80-400 is upgraded with VR11 is irrelevant. It needs AF-S with a change to its mechanical system for moving the internal focus components, not just an update to the drive actuation. Otherwise the 80-400 will still be slow to focus and slow in aperture (f5.6). It also needs better IQ due to the softness once past 300mm. Yes you can post all the shots you like but I cant see (or cant be bothered looking) whether they are PP with aditional contrast or sharpening. I have this lens and know its limitations. Thats why I paid $12k for the 500.

[Viewpoints]

Anybody knows how to get one of those TCs, I mean Kenko 1.5x Teleplus N-AF MC DG for Nikon? I found nothing on ebay (there are some C-AF or SHQ TCs there but not N-AF) and Amazon doesn't ship to Australia :confused013.

[ricktas]

Anybody knows how to get one of those TCs, I mean Kenko 1.5x Teleplus N-AF MC DG for Nikon? I found nothing on ebay (there are some C-AF or SHQ TCs there but not N-AF) and Amazon doesn't ship to Australia :confused013.

Umm. go to a reputable camera store and order one???

[RRRoger]

All Kenko 1.5x converters have been discontinued.
The "new" price has doubled if you can find one.
Again I warn you not to get the inferior SHQ.
Too bad cause these were not only cheaper than the 1.4x but also AF on a Sigma f/6.3 lens.
Obviously, Kenko was not making enough money on them.

[Viewpoints]

Thanks Roger, Is there any difference between N_AF and N_AFD version of Kenko 1.5x MC DG? I wanna use it on my D90 with 70-300mm VR.

[RRRoger]

If you have located a teleconverter, be sure N-AF 1.5X TELEPLUS MC DG KENKO is written on it.
It would be wise to ask the salesman to look for you before shipping.
I've seen the D in the product description, but don't know what it means.
They often use pictures of other product and have typos in advertising on the web.

I got a 2x Kenko Pro 300 to try yesterday and was surprised that it would stack on the 1.5x and try to auto focus in very bright light.
The hand held results at 1500mm were inconclusive and blurry as I only had a few minutes between clouds.
I will try again this weekend with a tripod and remote.