Converters

[LFF 0]

Hi folks,

Another newbie question for you pro's out there.

I have been trying to get some pics of birds of prey here in the UK. This week I have taken ove 150 shots and got 2 that were any good. Camera is a Canon 350 with a 300mm lens on board. The question i have is can I use converters on a DSLR or is it a waste of time? Will they take a 300 up to a 600 or not? I guess i would lose a few of the bells and whistles but if it gets good shots then I am happy with that.

I ask because I got some good shots of birds that were souring on thermals but they go to yukk when i crop them.

I guess you are all shaking your heads and saying Dumb Limey!

 

So am i dumb or wott :dunno:

 

Cheers

Keith

[mtbbrian 0]

Regarding your 300mm lenes on a digital camera.

Without the converter, you already have 450mm or so, depending on the size of the ccd of your particular camera.

So if you throw a 1.4 converter on, you'll have something a lenes that is now somewhere near 675mm.

On top of that, your f/4 lenes is now a f/5.6.

And yes, depending on the converter and lenes you may loose some of it capabilities, which are likely to be focusing speed and metering options.

You will loose a bit of sharpness too, and your viewfinder brightness will likely be less too.

I have never been much for teleconverters, but they are an inexpensive option.

Brian

[Wulff 0]

LFF it really depends on the specific, body, lens and converter.

 

Some like mine do ok. Thats the ID + 400 + Canon 1.4 TC. Most of my recent White tail images were taken wth that set up.

 

 

Virtually no loss in Image Quality but there is drop off in Focus speed. Not a huge amount but enough that its makes a in focus vs out of focus image dicey. Sometimes it will lock on fast enough other times it wont.

Those by the way are all full frame.

 

With bodys below the 1D series, if the addition of te TC brings you to f8 you'll lose auto focus.

Theres 2 ways around that. 1 you can tape the pins or 2 use non reporting TC.

 

I used the 30D + 400mm f5.6 + Tamron non reporting 1.4 TC for quite awhile. Results were mixed, sometimes good, sometimes not god but when faced with a shot vs no shot I didnt mind adding it.

 

That said if I was after birds in flight I would not add as even though auto focus worked it was slow, way to slow for birds in flight. Not that I couldnt get BiF with it, I ould and did but that the chances of a great series being missed due to slow focus were unacceptable and Id rather have the faster, more reliable focus of just the Bare lens.

 

The following were all with the 30D + 400mm + 1.4 Tamron non reporting TC

 

Cropped if I recall between 30 and 50 %

 

Not cropped, full frame

 

 

 

The only reason I had te TC on though is the birds especially the Snowy were waaaaay away and ended up flying right at me. In fact the first words out of my mouth after the snowy flew at and by us within about 40feet was

 

%^&*!! I had the TC on.

 

Luckily it grabbed and held focus. I tried a TC with the Canon 100-400L and did not like results at all. Therefore I would recomend not using one with zooms. The build and complexity in design between zooms and primes really doesnt do well for TCs an zooms. They should be used with primes.

 

BUT

 

Define "well".

My definition of acceptable might be more stringent than the next persons and far be it for me to say, thats not a good shot. Its too soft or whatever. Its your shot and if your happy thats all that really matters.

Just because Im nit picky means squat if "you" like the shot. Again, Im trying to sell some images to mgazines so I very well may be deleting "unacceptable" shots that others would be happy or more than happy with. Bu I have to have tack sharp images with little room for error.

 

If you have a 300 zoom like the 70-300 and the rebel XTI and sometimes get frustrated by the lack of reach and would like the shot of some distant bird/deer/fox get a Tamron 1.4 NON REPORTING TC. They retail for about $100.00

 

If I saw an Eagle tomorrow way yonder and the only chance at any kind of a decent image was to stack my Canon 1.4TC on the Tamron 1.4 non reporting, then add them to the 400mm for an effective range of about 1,200mm and manually focus

 

Id do it, even if the image was "unacceptable" to some people.

 

Id do it again the next day and next day until such time a I got some snappy Eagle shots at closer ranges to call my own.

[LFF 0]

Thanks for the info guys.

I was aware that it (the lens + camera) would be about a 450mm equiv. I will have to try a friends convertor before I make a final decision. Some of the shots I have taken have been nice and sharp but too far out to be good after cropping.

Its a pain but wearing specs does not help. I need them to see the target but the shots seem out of focus after the picture is taken. Thats with adjusting te diopter on the eye piece.

I guess I must be just being a little too ambitious with some of the shots I am trying.

Plus I am still learning how to use the camera properly.

As for your shots Wulff well i guess you know but WOW is a small understatement.

 

Thanks again

Keith

[Will Milne 0]

Something to watch out for when evaluating a lens/convertor combo- is chromatic aberations- they tend to be enhanced/magnified by convertor additions- I have a nikor 300 mm AF- EDIF f2.8 astonishingly sharp and produces very very clean images on its own. Add a Nikon 2x convertor - I have the TC-301 and chromatic aberations rear their ugly head. The only software I have found that does a good job of removing them is Capture NX - Nikons own Raw Convertor/Editor.

 

Will

[troutgeek 0]

Please watch out when calculating crop factors and focal lengths. A 300mm is a 300mm. If your shooting with a cropped camera, you're getting a cropped picture not a magnified picture. You don't really get more reach. It only appears that way.

[Wulff 0]

You right TG is isnt actually more reach its the cropped appearance of more, or an effective xxx rather than actual xxx.

 

So a 400mm on a 1.6body has for lack of better words, the effect of shooting at 520mm but without the detail or magnification of an actual 520. It also is without the lack of loss in IQ cropping in post would accomplish. Your stil left with ## number of pixels shot on a X lens on a Z body that have been "cropped" to apear as though the image were taken with Y lens. So its not quite a true crop either

[troutgeek 0]

Yep, the pixel density does make a difference, but as far as focal length is concerned, it's basically incorrect to muliply everything by 1.6 (or 1.5 for the Nikon users) and thinking one is gaining more reach. Of course, some camera shops sell this way...