Teleconverters?

[JasonM]

What’s your experience with teleconverters? My wife is getting more and more into her DSLR ( Canon) and they seem a relatively cheap way to get some distance shots, her longest lens is a 70-300mm and would like to go further ( moon shots, wildlife etc) they seem to range from £80 to several hundred pounds.
Thanks for any pointers.
Jase

[PickleB]

I'd say they can be OK for things like moonshots...tripod mounted, plenty of time for a longer exposure...or wildlife if there's a lot of light about...eg African sunshine. If you need a short shutter speed or there's not a lot of light, they're less than ideal IMO. But here's a professional's take on things...article link (sorry it's Nikon based).

[reggie747]

Teleconverters are designed to work best with fast (f2.8) long (300-500mm) lenses.
As has been said, they rob you of light and limit your possibilities obviously depending what you shoot.

[David_D]

Of course you get what you pay for but I wonder if this might be worth a try?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-650-...opteka+&sr=8-1

You can hire lenses if you just fancy giving certain types of photography a go.

[JasonM]

Thanks all for the advice.

[Taxboy]

Just to add you will probably lose autofocus and have to focus manually. However they can work well if you need more focal length.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Pitfitter]

I use a Canon 1.4 extender with my 400mm Canon lens, loose a little speed/light but cheaper than another lens, no problems with a/f.

[magirus]

I use a Kenko 1.4x HD DGX and a Canon 2x MkIII on my Canon EF70-200L 2.8 IS MkII. This is usually on a 7D, giving decent length with the 1.6 crop factor for such times as I need longer reach, which isn't often. The Canon is used most and gives excellent results, which you would expect with this marvellous lens. The Kenko isn't used that often, only if the light is poor, as you lose 1 stop with the 1.4 and 2 stops with the Canon 2x, so this f2.8 lens becomes f4 and f5.6 respectively. That's the price you pay with converters. The Kenko also gives very good results, many regard it as the equal of the Canon 1.4 MKI/II, and it's a lot cheaper too. For illustration here's a quick grab shot from a few weeks ago in my garden, just time to quickly get the camera out, fit lens and TC, taken through double glazing in dull light, couldn't get the angle with the window open. Taken from @ 50ft and well cropped.





Edit. No problems with AF.

[VDG]

To paraphrase the famous line from a well known movie - "Where we're going we do not need any roads teleconverters."

[JasonM]

Brilliant, thanks all, I think I’ll get one just to see, better to try it than the considerable expense of a long lens.
Cheers.
PS, that’s a great shot Magirus.

[willie_gunn]

I’ve used a 1.4x teleconverter on my Nikon 500mm f/4, giving me an effective 700mm lens.

It works absolutely fine, just so long as I don’t need to squeeze the last bit of available light, as using the teleconverter means my lens becomes an f/5.6.

I often leave the same teleconverter on my 300mm f/4

So long as you stop down from wide open, there’s little if any discernible loss in sharpness.

[Griswold]

You don't say what model of Canon your wife is using, but with modern digital cameras 'light' is less of an issue than it used to be as high ISO performance has improved considerably.

This shot was taken on a cold, (hence the 'breath' from their roars), and overcast day. 150th second, f4, ISO 1000, Fujifilm 100-400 + 1.4 TC.

[Kingstepper]

You don't say what model of Canon your wife is using, but with modern digital cameras 'light' is less of an issue than it used to be as high ISO performance has improved considerably.

This shot was taken on a cold, (hence the 'breath' from their roars), and overcast day. 150th second, f4, ISO 1000, Fujifilm 100-400 + 1.4 TC.

Valid points but to be pedantic, min aperture of Fuji 100-400 is 4.5, loses 1 stop with TC so would have been at least f6.3.

[JasonM]

It’s a new 750D 👍

[Griswold]

Valid points but to be pedantic, min aperture of Fuji 100-400 is 4.5, loses 1 stop with TC so would have been at least f6.3.

Yes, was wide open and fl was 100mm so f6.3 effective. Windows only reads the recorded aperture as selected on the lens.

[Griswold]

It’s a new 750D 

The 750D should be fine up to 1600 ISO, and 3200 should certainly produce acceptable results unless she's shooting in really poor light and wanting really big enlargements and ultra detailed shots.

As someone brought up in the film era and exploiting the advantages of hi ISO, (ASA back then), I quite enjoy the effects that grain can bring to a photograph - adds atmosphere and reduces sterility in the right situation - I don't find 'noise' in my digital photography as unacceptable as others often do. In fact, I'll add digital 'noise' in post if I feel the shot could benefit from it. Worth deliberately exploiting anyway as yet another tool in the box - yes, even for enlargements.

[Tooks]

Teleconverters generally work best on wide aperture prime lenses, and results from those will often be quite different to the results you’d get on a ‘consumer zoom’ like a 70-300.

What 70-300 lens is it? You will find that if it’s a Canon, then Canon Teleconverters either won’t mount on the lens at all or you’ll have issues with the rear element of the lens interfering with the teleconverter as you zoom.

You might be restricted to 3rd party teleconverters such as Kenko etc.

I use a 1.4 teleconverter on my Fuji 100-400 quite often, but I’ve learned that ‘zooming with your feet’ is often the better solution image quality wise, there is often no substitute for getting closer to your subject!

[UKMike]

With a cheap teleconverter it is entirely possible that you will get better results using the original lens and cropping the image. Considering that the average consumer DSLR/mirrorless camera has around 24 megapixels and a 4K TV only uses about 8.5, unless you are making huge prints you have quite a bit of resolution to play with.

[murkeywaters]

I use a Kenko 1.4x HD DGX and a Canon 2x MkIII on my Canon EF70-200L 2.8 IS MkII. The Kenko also gives very good results, many regard it as the equal of the Canon 1.4 MKI/II, and it's a lot cheaper too.

That is interesting what you say about the Kenko as I want a 1.4x converter, I have a 300mm f2.8 Non IS with full frame bodies, so the AF and image quality isn't affected too much in your opinion?

[magirus]

That is interesting what you say about the Kenko as I want a 1.4x converter, I have a 300mm f2.8 Non IS with full frame bodies, so the AF and image quality isn't affected too much in your opinion?

I'll think on and take some shots to (hopefully) illustrate the quality of the Kenko. The AF isn't affected.

[JasonM]

My Kenko x2 came this morning, I’ll post my thoughts when I have a play around. Thanks all for the discussions.

[willie_gunn]

I have both the Nikon 1.4x and the Kenko 1.4x teleconverters.

The Kenko is fine, but I have certainly found the Nikon to be better optically. Whether it is sufficiently better to justify the higher price is a little subjective, but for me I felt it worth the extra. When spending thousands on a Nikon prime it seemed a false economy to then skimp on the teleconverter.