Skip to Content

Teleconverters/extenders

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Teleconverters/extenders

Unread postby DuQues » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:21 pm

ceruleanwildfire wrote:Scruff, you realise you have just made me extremely jealous. 800mm, enough to take a picture of a tick smiling on the butt of a buffalo from a mile away. Seriously jealous.

Shall I make it even worse? :twisted:
800mm plus the 20D's cropfactor is 1280 mm....
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
ceruleanwildfire
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Born and Bred in SA, Living in NZ

Unread postby ceruleanwildfire » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:39 pm

DuQues wrote:Shall I make it even worse? :twisted:
800mm plus the 20D's cropfactor is 1280 mm....


And even worse, add a 2x convertor giving you 2560mm. Take a picture of a mite smiling on the butt of a tick smiling on the butt of a buffalo from a mile away. Depressing really.

User avatar
Loams
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Unread postby Loams » Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:52 pm

ceruleanwildfire wrote:
DuQues wrote:Shall I make it even worse? :twisted:
800mm plus the 20D's cropfactor is 1280 mm....


And even worse, add a 2x convertor giving you 2560mm. Take a picture of a mite smiling on the butt of a tick smiling on the butt of a buffalo from a mile away. Depressing really.


Talk about go big or go home. Now, could someone tell me how far that thing can zoom?? In meters?

Don't you get less than 2x with the converter? something like 1.6 instead??
Operation "Duke" Member

Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart

User avatar
ceruleanwildfire
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Born and Bred in SA, Living in NZ

Unread postby ceruleanwildfire » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:54 am

Loams wrote:Don't you get less than 2x with the converter? something like 1.6 instead??


Depending on your camera make and model you can get a 1.4x and 1.6x or 1.7x convertor.

User avatar
francoisd
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1937
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:38 pm

Unread postby francoisd » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:10 am

bert wrote:
Scruff wrote:I am using a Sigma 300-800 on my 20D and have not experienced any problems (although I always underexpose by 1/3 stop anyway). Actually the quality of pics with this lens is superb. Just a bit of a dog to handle (5.8 kg)


Protruding from the vehicle :wink:

As long as there is no belt around the lens that sticks out of the window Scruff will be fine :D
"The measure of life is not its duration but its donation." - Peter Marshall
www.flickr.com/groups/birdssa

User avatar
Loams
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Unread postby Loams » Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:03 pm

francoisd wrote:As long as there is no belt around the lens that sticks out of the window Scruff will be fine :D


:funny:
ceruleanwildfire wrote:
Loams wrote:Don't you get less than 2x with the converter? something like 1.6 instead??


Depending on your camera make and model you can get a 1.4x and 1.6x or 1.7x convertor.


Sorry CWF, I meant with a 2x converter you don't get full 2X conversion, you get something like 1.4 or 1.6 with the actual 2x converter. Is this true?

Also how many meters does that lens with converting (roughly) bring the object closer??
Operation "Duke" Member



Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17941
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread postby DuQues » Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:13 pm

Loams wrote:Sorry CWF, I meant with a 2x converter you don't get full 2X conversion, you get something like 1.4 or 1.6 with the actual 2x converter. Is this true?

No. You get the quoted amounts, so 1.4 times with the 1.4, 2x with the 2x converter. The 1.4 will cost you one, and the 2x converters two stops of light. Something to keep in mind, as most camera's lose autofocus above f/5.6, and some (like the EOS 1 series) above f/8.
Loams wrote:Also how many meters does that lens with converting (roughly) bring the object closer??

Not a single nanometer. Good thing, imagine someone using it on the moon, and we wake up to find it nearly on top of us! :lol:
Arriving currently: The photos from our trip! Overhere! :yaya:

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
Obelix
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: A little village in Gaul

Unread postby Obelix » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:04 pm

Bought the Canon Powershot S2 quite a while ago. Thinking about buying Canon’s 1.5X telephoto converter (with adapter) – I need, as always, as much zoom as I can afford.

I thought Canon’s 1.5X telephoto converter was the only option for the S2. However, was told over the weekend by "reliable" shop that you can buy, for less, a generic 2x converter (to be used with the Canon adapter on the S2) and that it works just as well (with the extra zoom as a bonus). Does anyone know about these generic converters and whether they will work specifically on the S2 as well? Any other suggestions would be appreciated as well (good idea / bad idea?). I’m just concerned I might run into trouble if I buy it, seeing as it is not a Canon converter? Also, I assume I’m going to lose light with the converter, but will the image stabiliser still work?

User avatar
pictureman
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:59 pm
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby pictureman » Fri May 19, 2006 4:13 pm

8) Teleconverters as they are also known do vary in quality a bit but if you go for a good name like for instance Tamron or similar then the quality is pretty good. I have used one in the past and found the results good.
WE have the ability to control nature....and destroy it quicker than ever before.

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Fri May 19, 2006 4:34 pm

In europe we can buy
Soligor and Kenko convertors for all brands
But they dont have the same image quality as the originals
Soligor isnt to bad

danieldoesamerica
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:11 pm

The teleconverters topic

Unread postby danieldoesamerica » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:46 pm

Canon 300mm IS 4.0 with 1.4X converter or Canon 400mm 5.6 (no IS) I am looking at buying one of these two setups. They are both about the same cost. Both are "L" series lenses. Looking mostly at amateur bird photography as well as general wildlife. Any comments or suggestions?

User avatar
j-ms
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: Schoenmakerskop (near Port Elizabeth)

Unread postby j-ms » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:41 pm

My wife has the 300 f/4.0 IS L & I have the 400 f/5.6 plus 1.4x & 2x converters. With the copies that we have (remember, every lens varies, even L lenses QC is not 100%) the 400 slightly shades the 300 in IQ and with the 1.4 attached there is a definite IQ difference in favour of the 400. Of course, the 400 doesn't have IS but it is probably the best hand-holder-able lens for bird photography. Both lenses have great contrast and clarity with lightening fast AF. Check out www.fredmiranda.com for reviews and you will notice that, apart from Canons 600 F/4.0, these 2 lenses consistently score tops in users' reviews of longer lenses.

User avatar
Mars
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 10:22 am
Location: gauteng

Unread postby Mars » Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:41 am

Danie

Canon 300mm IS 4.0 with 1.4X converter will give you 420 mm which is better than 400, and at 420 it is eqw to 12 x optical zoom, you would wish you had is, so go for the one with is !!!! or you might get blurry shaky pics all the time

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17198
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:50 am

A friend of mine, coming to Kruger with us, bought the 400 5.6
Brilliant optics and light to handle. The big difference imo is the IS. My friend always uses the lens from a tripod,except in Kruger, and doesnt find a need for IS.

danieldoesamerica
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:11 pm

Does 1.4x converter change a lens' minimum focusing distance

Unread postby danieldoesamerica » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:08 am

Does adding a converter (either a 1.4x or 2x) change a lens' minimum focusing distance? Any answers?


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”