SANParks.org Forums

Hi Guys,

first of all thanks for the enthusiastic forum, I'm looking forward to visit KNP!!!

This is my first post in forum and I've already read lots of threads, but somehow none about using tele converters. Hope not to post this topic for second or even more time.

I'm not sure if there's an advantage to use an teleconverter for my EOS 400d.

I got following lenses:

Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 - very old one, no IS, but still works fine
Sigma Macro 105mm f2.8
Canon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6

I intend to use all lenses with polarizing filters, beanbag as "tripod"

Who can recommend (and why?) using a teleconverter additional to above lenses?

Hope my English is sufficient to understand, didn't speak English for a long time...

Thanks for your answers in advance.

Stehan.f

Hi Stehan, and welcome to the forums!

In short, you can use teleconverters as much as you like, but... !
Teleconverters cost you a stop. And if you use a 2.0 teleconverter they cost you a stop more.
That's not really important, but what is important is that your camera will stop using Autofocus at f/5.6.....

So on your Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 (f/5.6 + 1 stop is f/8, = No AF!) it wil revert to manual focus.
The Sigma Macro 105mm f2.8 however, plus 1 stop = f/4 will work perfectly, even with a 2x converter. (f/5.6)

The 300 mm will however be enough in Kruger, in most cases. Unless you start birding that is...
My longest lens is the 100-400, and except for birding I never had trouble with that lenght. Well, you always want more, but still...

Hi DuQues,

thank you for your fast and helpful answer!

This makes my decision easy: No converter for my 75-300.

But I still consider thinking about the Macro+converter because the lens is of excellent quality compared to the others.

Do you think it should be worth trying although the focus is limited to 210 mm?
Would you recommend a original Canon converter or compatible e.g. Sigma?

Regards
Stehan.f

Macro is macro, and the macrolens is will serve you very well at landscape photography. I'm not sure what it'll do at longer distances though.

But I'm sure if that baboon or lion will let you near enough to make a photo of the cavities in their teeth... Would be nice photos, but I'm I'd not like taking them!

OK. I am convinced. No teleconverter. Thanks a lot!!

Using the macro regarding the lion's teeth... Uhh I guess he'd prefer me to being my object of (photographic) desire.

Maybe you could take the photo of me trying to be the lion's dentist... Should be worth an award of photographer of the year...

My experience of a 1.4 converter on the 70-300 is usm was very not good at all and dont forget the canon teleconverters mainly only work with the L lenses (white lenses or lenses with the red ring on the front)
I now use a 100-400 and it is a very versatile lens I dont recommend the 1.4 even on this lens.

wingman: I didn't know that it works only with the L Lenses. Good luck I didn't order one, because my lenses are no L lenses.
Other forumites might be interested to know. Thank you!

I've been shopping around looking for "thee" lens that will capture what I see, the way I want it and impressive. But it seems that the more I shop the more I get really confused with the sales people, some suggest converters although I'll loose 2 f-stops, on the other hand some say buy the sigma 150-500mm or telephoto lens 600mm.

I know and trust you forumites will come with the better solution. Converter or Telephoto lens?? I've seen beautiful pics in this forum, of running/flying animals but clear as crystal and that's my kind of pics I like. some are as close as if the photographer was 1meter away from the animal.

You should take the more expensive option....

And there are reasons of course:
A 2x converter does indeed take two stops of light. That in itself isn't too bad, but you run into a little problem then, no autofocus!
Almost all cameras will stop with AF above f/5.6, so unless you have a f/2.8 telelens yours will be manual focus only, at two stops slower shutterspeeds.

A second problem is image quality. It does degrade, unless you buy the top of the bill ones.
Personally I use a 1.4 extender only (and yes, on my camera it'll be manual focus only), and as it's a good brand (Canon) I can not see it in my photos.

There are converters that don't tell the camera it's there, like Kelko's, but the hit in image quality makes them less usable.

Thanks, DuQues!!

Hi Mavusana.

I have been doing photography since about 1958.
I still have a Pentax Spotmatic and a Pentax K1000 with these I used a Bruno Werth lens with extension rings, unfortunately it was stolen, as well as a Polaris f4.5, 7 - 230 mm zoom lens with this I used a Pentax 2x converter and took wonderfull colour slides and photographs.

I now have a Nikon D1 and a Nikon D50 with Nikor lenses 18 - 55 mm and a 70 - 300 mm zoom lens. Together with this I have a Sigma 150 - 500 mm zoom lens and I also use a 2 x converter with these lenses. With digital photgraphy I have noticed a quality reduction when using the converter but not much, you will lose two f stops but that can be compensated for by increasing your ISO settings on your camera. By doing this you will increase the grain on your photograph but not as much as it was with film photography.

Please always remember that a telephoto lens enlarges the image before taking the shot but again this cannot be done infinitely. Most of the bird shots you see have not been taken with the object far away, they were still relatively nearby and then the shot was taken after much patience had been spent.

When doing wildlife photography our rule is set your camera at as low an fstop as possible and then on aperture priority, the camera will select the correct shutter speed for the shot.

Also another simple rule rather over expose a shot slightly as this can be corrected when editing the shot without risk of increasing noise, should you underexpose you will always increase noise white brightening up the shot. I always take at least two photographs of my object, one with the suggested shutter speed and one with the next slower shutter speed in other words I set my bracketting accordingly.

We have had great success with with what I have mentioned above.

Furthermore when purchasing a lens get a zoom lens, they are much more suited to wildlife photography, also save a bit longer and purchase one with "vibration reduction" and auto focus this helps a lot, most poor photos are due to camera shake, use a bean bag resing on a wall or a car window for thye stability of the camera and lens.

A bit of advice - do not buy something now what you really need, if you cannot afford it yet, rather save a little while longer and get the best for your requirement as buying now and improving later is not good economics.

Very often you can get a very good quality second hand lens at a reasonable price, check it yourself let it be checked by a reputable person, if necessary have it serviced by an institution that is qualified to do so and enjoy your photography. We will be looking forward to your shots in future. Also remember practise makes perfect and also that not every shot is the ultimate if you get more than 15% real good shots - you will be doing extremely well.

Thank you GMLSMITH, you sound like a very experienced person. thanks once again for your sound advice, I'll post some of the pics I've taken few weeks ago at KNP. And your sincere comment on them would be highly appreciated.

We need people like you, who don't mind to share their knowledge with others.

Nicely put gmlsmit
I used a 1.4 converter on a Canon 300 mm 4.0 L lens
Made a few tests at Lake Panic some years back
And the same bird without the converter
The image is still great but misses the sharpness and crispness
So i believe in not using the converters, unless you have a prime lens of top quality.
Read through many tests this weekend for the Sigma 150-500. Friend of mine thinks of buying one. And with all Sigma zoom lenses the conclusion is that at the biggest reach (500 or with the 120-400 at 400mm) the sharpness is the worst.
Not bad but will show if you decide to make a poster.
So if you use a converter it will show at the biggest reach.

And i use Adobe Lightroom and it has a great tool. Adjusting noise in the color and luminous (white) sections of the image. Works great. Tested it on snow images.

With photo editing in Lightroom for eg you can adjust the sharpness, so some corrections are possible

btw, the Sigma scored great, but always with the remark price versus quality.
The Canon 100-400 did better, but then that one is much more expensive, so should be better

Going offtopic a bit here, but this I don't agree to:

Instead of overexposing you are better off underexposing. White = white, and all the other colour information is gone. The underexposed bits can be (at the cost of grain) revealed as the information is still there.

Just to show you, I put up an example to play with on one of my sites. Grab this (7MB!) original photo and play with it. Up the exposure by 1.5 or more stops, and look at the colours. The ellies become brown, and you can see what happens to the background and such.
(It's not the best of photos, but keep it on your own pc only for playing please...)

I am weary of overexposing (but then I own an inexpensive lens -Canon 55-250). I set Exposure Comp. 1 to 2 notches darker in sunlight.
I find that in most compositions there is always a bit that is very light and if you overexpose you run the risk of getting blown highlights on that spot. It may be an important area like an eagles beek, like has happened to me. As far as I know blown highlights are irretrievable.
I'm going to upgrade my lens in the new year and I've set my mind on a Prime 400 for wildlife and birds in flight. I feel it gives you more quality than a zoom which will allow 1 or 2 notches of cropping in post processing, if required.