Nikkor 80-200 AFS and tele-converters -> quality?

[Sniket]

Hey all,

First... nice work creating this page!
Hope it will grow big, so we can all help each other!

Am still waiting for my S2 (damn everything is slow in Sweden, we always get the stuff later then everyone else..)

Ive thinking of getting a Nikkor 80-200 AFS. I know it´s an awesome lens... But am planning of using if for nature/animal pictures. And it doesnt really have that lenght i want, but the quality... I know the S2 have 1,5 mulitplier... that will be 300.
If i add an TC-20E tele-converter that will make it 200x2 = 400 x 1.5 = 600 ? now.. will the quality be good? I mean the S2 does only crop the picture (so to speak) it doesnt cut down on the quality... but how much "image quality" do i loose by using the 2.0 extender? Do anyone have some online picture using it? Or have the possibility of using it... I would apriciate it ALOT of anyone could help me out!!

Why i plan not to buy a fixed 400 or something like that, is because am normaly using the 80-200 lenght for other purposes...

thanks /Robert

[kari]

hi!

that nikkor is very excellent lens, i have that af but i have tested afs too
that x1,5 is just the size not multiplying conversation so normal 200 mm will not be 350 mm

i believe but not tested, with tele-converter you'll get very nice shots, because if there is some vinjeting it will occure in corners or probably outside that x1,5 area

with nikkor 300 f4 s2pro worked very fine, a bit slow but nice pictures, sharp and balanced

hope you'll make good decisions

kari

[Sniket]

yeah i "think" it´s the right choice (for me atleast).
I did found a link to a page were they have used the 20E exstender with a Nikon F5, pretty nice!

http://www.outbackphoto.com/nature/2001/20010203_floridabirds.html


am still searching, but i think am going to buy this lens + converter!

/Robert

[Sniket]

Actually i gave you the wrong adress... But that one was better (they used a D1 (1,5x)

The one with the F5 is:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/cg0701-1.html

/Robert

[SSonnentag]

I bought a Kenko Pro 300 3x converter from Adorama http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=102511480512356083&sku=KN3XPNKAF, but I only received my S2 last night and haven't had time to try out the converter yet. I did try out all three of my new lenses though. :) The sample pictures I saw on the internet when I was researching lenses and converters looked really good though.

http://sonnentag.net/temp/kenko3x.jpg

Shawn

[SSonnentag]

Here's a sample shot using a Sigma 100-300 lens and the Kenko 300 Pro 3x together. The Sigma was at 300mm. Settings were f11 for 10 seconds (night time with poor lighting :) ). The Sensor Swab box was taped up to my cabinet and shot from 41 feet down my hallway. The box measures 4x5.5 inches. I have cropped the image from around the box, but the box image itself is the original size. The image was saved in PhotoShop at a quality setting of 3 for size purposes. No in-camera or PhotoShop sharpening was done.

Shawn

[SSonnentag]

Here are four shots of a nearby mountain with radio towers. It is over 108 degrees F today, so there was a LOT of heat boil, making the pictures more blurry than they would be on a cool day.

The first shot was taken at 24mm using a Tamron 24-135 f3.5/5.6
http://sonnentag.net/temp/24mm.jpg


The next shot was taken at 135mm using a Tamron 24-135 f3.5/5.6
http://sonnentag.net/temp/135mm.jpg


The next was taken using a Kenko Pro 300 3x converter and a Sigma 100-300 f4 lens at 100mm
http://sonnentag.net/temp/3x-100mm.jpg


The next was taken using a Kenko Pro 300 3x converter and a Sigma 100-300 f4 lens at 300mm
http://sonnentag.net/temp/3x-300mm.jpg


Shawn

[Tom V]

Any teleconvertor is going to cost you sharpness. How much is lost is subject to debate.

Matched teleconvertors - those made specifically for a particular lens - usually cause the least amount of image degradation, but there are not many of those around nowadays.

Nikon makes high quality convertors that are recommended only for certain focal length lenses (ie: 300mm and above).

Kenko, Sigma, and others make good quality convertors that may or may not be recommended for certain lengths.

Other lower-tier manufacturers make converters that are a waste of time and money IMHO.

High quality teleconvertors usually are better corrected and cost more than lower quality convertors. High quality convertors typically are constructed with 7 elements (pieces of glass that make up the lens), while lessor teleconvertors are made with fewer elements. The additional elements reflects the manufacturers' diligence in creating a sharper teleconvertor. It also adds to the cost.

Low quality teleconvertors are far more affordable, but can degrade an image substantially.

I have read that a good rule of thumb for judging high-quality teleconvertor sharpness loss is that a 1.4 convertor loses about 10% of the image quality, and a 2x convertor loses about 20%, and 3x about 30% quality.

With a teleconvertor of lesser quality, the loss is greater.

Adding even a high quality teleconvertor ot a marginally performing zoom will likely push your resulting images in the poor category.

Remember too that light reaching the film diminishes along with the increase in power. The viewfinder image is darker, you need a higher shutter speed, or increased sensitivity, or more light to make up for the smaller effective aperature. The camera probably cannot autofocus when the effective maximum aperature is greater than ƒ5.6 (So you won't be able to autofocus a ƒ5.6 zoom with a 2x convertor attached).

Also realize that the extra mechanical joints add a measure of slop to the assembly, and that extra caution (bracing) may be required to obtain maximum sharpness. You need to hold your camera steadier, the longer you focal length.

In any case, if you can keep the rig steady, you are almost certainly better off using any decent (or better) teleconvertor than you would be to just enlarge the center of straight telephoto shot