1.4x Teleconverter


jonah794 12 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
8 Nov 2009 8:00PM
Hi ereryone,

I've currently got a Nikon 70-300mm lens - its just superb!
However, I am trying to capture a very nifty Kingfisher who always lands on perches far from the hide. I have decided that I need to try and get closer to him, than hope that he comes closer to me Grin

So therefore I was thinking of a teleconverter. I will be using it mainly at the 300mm and usually I can achieve shutter speeds of around 1/2000 with ISO 400 at f/5.6.

So please can you guys on here tell me which teleconverter to get with this lens. I want to get very close in.

Thanks,
Jonah
jonah794 12 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
8 Nov 2009 10:02PM
What about the 1.7x?
Jonah
Overread 13 4.1k 19 England
8 Nov 2009 10:13PM
I'm not 100% sure on the quality of image of the 70-300mm Nikon lens, but my overall impression of these lenses is that they don't really have the quality to take a 1.4TC and work well. First off whilst you will still retain your auto focus when using the 1.4TC you will lose one stop of light (so that f5.6 becomes f8) which will obviously affect your shutter speed and also affect your auto focus speed (and accuracy) as well. AF results might become too slow to work with reliably when working in even good lighting.

Further results you get will be softer - a 1.4TC is the more forgiving of the TCs and will give you thebest image quailty results but on a 70-300mm I would expect you to still see a noticable drop in overall image quality at the long end.

My personal feeling is that you should save your pennies and work at getting close to the bird or try controling him. I recall reading on EPZ how one photographer would setup a tray with water and small fishies inside and then set natural perches around that tray (as well as his remote flashes). Of course you need to position the tray in a position where the bird will see it and it will likey take time to get used to it.
There are also baiting considerations to take into account with this method as well - mostly just keeping an eye on how often the bird feeds from it and not turning it into a regular source of reliable food for the bird in a set location - which thus when moved might adversly affect the bird (him having not moved to more favourable natural hunting locations for example).
cameracat 17 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
8 Nov 2009 10:27PM
In all honesty Jonah, You would stuggle with that lens and a telecon.

You would be a whole lot better of with a longer lens, Something like the Sigma 150-500 ( OS ) For sure its more expensive than a telecon, But it will work soooooo much better.....Smile

So what are you gonna put on your " Christmas " wish list...Wink


Quote: would setup a tray with water and small fishies inside


Now that is really taking the mick....Sad Not to mention being nasty to poor little fishes.

Whate ever happened to patience.....Wink
8 Nov 2009 10:50PM
I asked for a stone of pigeon meal in the local shop. The shopkeeper, who knew me, said "When did you get the pigeons?" Told him I hadn't. Said I was going for a shot and intended throwing the meal all round the decoys. He called me a ******* so he did.
Sold me the corn though!
I remember sitting in a sheugh one day, camo net up in front, decoys set (Pigeon meal scattered) and me in camo with the terrorist balaclava on, when a sparrowhawk stooped to my number 1 pigeon decoy, a full body one. He pulled out of the deathdive and hovered for a few seconds, wingtips fluttering over that decoy before mooching about over a couple of my cheapo half-shell stacking decoys. I had about twenty of those set out, but he just looked at two or three, all this no more than 25 yards away, before pitching up into the hedge above me. I could have almost touched him with the gun barrells. So small a wee bird at rest. When you see them in flight or attacking their prey they look much bigger. Saw one in Belfast the other day attacking a starling on the Antrim road. Middle of the city more or less, lots of tall buildings for them to nest on. I live in hopes of photographing Kingfishers. I've had them pitch up above me when fishing, but never yet had one perch on my fishing rod. Set food for them to draw them in? Absolutely!
jonah794 12 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 7:24AM
Thanks a lot for the help.
The Sigma 150-500mm is on the wish list anyway so I will wait for that to come Smile Would a teleconverter work with that out of interest?
JOnah
WildLight 14 145 3 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 9:25AM
I don't expect it will because the 150-500mm has a minimum aperture of f/6.3 at 500mm so with a converter that would go down to f/10.7 which is way too small for autofocus to work which is at f/8.
But anyway, who needs a teleconverter with a 500mm lens?! (I expect quite a few actually, including me!) Smile

Joe
Wilmot 13 338 1 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 10:59AM

Quote:I don't expect it will because the 150-500mm has a minimum aperture of f/6.3 at 500mm so with a converter that would go down to f/10.7 which is way too small for autofocus to work which is at f/8.
But anyway, who needs a teleconverter with a 500mm lens?! (I expect quite a few actually, including me!)

Joe


I DO
jonah794 12 1.7k 11 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 11:12AM
OK.... I suppose that I should just get the Sigma 150-500mm. I am sure that will go far enough. I don't mind manual focussing though.
Jonah
WildLight 14 145 3 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 2:37PM
Yeah, but it's not just manual focusing which would be a problem, there will be quite a lot less light getting in which, at 500mm, will make it almost impossible to handhold. Then there's the fact that the image quality would go down significantly in terms of contrast, abberations and diffraction - these are usually a lot more prominent on zooms compared to prime lenses too.

If I were you, I'd save up for a Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC which will be an excellent combo and razor-sharp Smile
samfurlong 15 2.5k United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 2:42PM

Quote:So please can you guys on here tell me which teleconverter to get with this lens.


None.
Sorry it's not what you want to hear but even if a TC will physically fit, your AF performance is going to be dreadful and image quality probably the same.
When I was a young lad just getting into photography I found it frustrating too, trying to get extra length on a 14 year olds budget. Unfortunately I quickly realised that lenses of above 300mm or so require soem cash to be spent to get a setup that is workable so I dedicated my time to improving technique and fieldcraft in order to get closer to the subject.
lawbert 14 1.8k 15 England
9 Nov 2009 4:09PM
I totally agree with what Mr Furlong has said.


Quote:
When I was a young lad just getting into photography I found it frustrating too, trying to get extra length on a 14 year olds budget. Unfortunately I quickly realised that lenses of above 300mm or so require soem cash to be spent to get a setup that is workable so I dedicated my time to improving technique and fieldcraft in order to get closer to the subject.



Im afraid I cant do a link thingy but copy and paste the link below which is a fantastic photogapher who gets very close to his subject and uses thought and planning more than mega expensive euipment to achieve outstanding results.

http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1148495
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 4:28PM

Quote:more than mega expensive euipment

That was intended as a joke wasn't it. There is some serious glass in use here Smile
lawbert 14 1.8k 15 England
9 Nov 2009 4:37PM
If your talking wildlife lenses, Then not really, He even uses a 17-40mm, yes it is an L but its more to show what Mr Furlong was saying, about getting closer to the subject.. Did you look at his set up page?
Obviously no offence meant to your good self Mr Harwood.
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
9 Nov 2009 5:18PM

Quote:If your talking wildlife lenses, Then not really, He even uses a 17-40mm

Me take offence LOL

That lens poking out of his hide is no 17-40 though Grin (assuming it is his lens (blush)

You are right though of course, good fieldcraft is extremely important but long (expensive) glass makes a humungous difference too Smile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.