To Keep or To Return my new 2x TC

asp87

I did my research before purchasing and decided that either the 1.4X or 2X Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX was the way to go. I bought the 2x with the intent to use it behind my 70-300mm VRII knowing that it was not recommended for that application. I really enjoy shooting wildlife and sometimes it's not easy to get close, as we all know. I don't have the money for professional glass like a 400mm f/2.8 or something - I was looking for an easy fix. That said, everything I read is true and I'm an idiot for thinking that I would be able to get better results. I can get properly exposed images, but keeping them sharp is very difficult bordering on physically impossible. The only other lenses I have that it would maybe be useful with are my 35mm f/1.8 and an old 90mm f/2.8 macro that's fully manual. I can't decide if it's worth the $220 that I paid to keep it for those very rare occasions that I need it or if I should just return it.

angevin1

asp87 wrote: »

I did my research before purchasing and decided that either the 1.4X or 2X Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DGX was the way to go. I bought the 2x with the intent to use it behind my 70-300mm VRII knowing that it was not recommended for that application. I really enjoy shooting wildlife and sometimes it's not easy to get close, as we all know. I don't have the money for professional glass like a 400mm f/2.8 or something - I was looking for an easy fix. That said, everything I read is true and I'm an idiot for thinking that I would be able to get better results. I can get properly exposed images, but keeping them sharp is very difficult bordering on physically impossible. The only other lenses I have that it would maybe be useful with are my 35mm f/1.8 and an old 90mm f/2.8 macro that's fully manual. I can't decide if it's worth the $220 that I paid to keep it for those very rare occasions that I need it or if I should just return it.

It is not overtly clear what your question is. But, if your original intent was to get 600mm from the 2.0Tc and it isn't working for ya, can it, send it back and move on! We all buy crap at some juncture that we think we can overcome the shortcomings of...but in the end, we're wrong. the Hat trick is to always buy from a reputable dealer so we can return it, and ....move on! Lesson learned....next!

angevin1

Also, if it is any consolation ...the Kenko 1.4x Pro is a fine piece! At least on my Nikon!

asp87

Thanks for taking the time to answer my ill posed question. I purchased it from Amazon, so I know I won't have a hard time returning it. I considered switching to the 1.4X instead but I can probably get sharper images using my 2x with the lens set at 205mm than I would with a 1.4X and the lens at 300mm, though. It's a known fact that these lenses aren't tack-sharp fully open and zoomed. Part of me thinks, well, you already bought it, might as well use it to its limits. I have another 23 days to decide if I want to return it or not. Might as well use it some more and see how I like the results.

rpcrowe

Generally TC's are best with high quality telephoto lenses such as the Canon L series glass. Often they will not work at all or work very poorly using them with condumer grade lenses.

On the other hand, I don't like the quality of a 2x TC on any lens. They generally degrade the imagery beyond what I am willing to accept. However, I have a 1.4x Canon TC (the Kenko 1.4x is equally as good) which I use with very good results on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and very good to excellent results on my 300mm f/4L IS. The TC will degrade both the IQ and Af slightly when used with either lens but, not enough to bother me...

asp87

Yeah, I knew that TC's were best with pro-glass before I bought. ...So why the heck did I buy it anyway?

The extra zoom is nice, but I almost feel that it's not worth it. I pretty much have to have it on a tripod to get anything useful, and even then it's just not super sharp. If I back the lens itself off to 250mm of zoom it is sharper... We'll see. I took some test shots of last nights full moon. I'll go through them and see how they look. I think that will be a deciding factor in whether or not I keep it. Thanks for your input.

asp87

I think I've decided to return my TC. I'll start saving my pennies for an 80-400mm VR for use on my DX body. That will give me the same reach as this but with much more sharpness and usefullness. If I return this and sold my 70-300mm DX VR II I'm already most of the way to affording the 80-400.

Edit: damnit, I just realized the 80-400 isn't AF-S...

asp87

Richy, Thanks for your thoughts. We must have been posting at the same time.

See my above post: I will be returning it. For now, I think I'll be sticking with my 70-300 mm DX. Nikon does have an 80-400mm FX lens but its AF system is incompatible with my camera body (granted, I have a lower level body...)

I shoot a decent distance too often to want to rent, and I'm no pro. I wouldn't get any $ back from renting and shooting with it so I really don't see that as an option. Thanks for suggesting it because I hadn't even considered it yet.

I guess I could look into an old Nikon MF tele. That is something I hadn't considered...

I'm starting to want a better camera body too, but I know that's a whole different battle. I can't even make my mind up on which one I want (I think the D300s, but don't quote me on that...)

I think the route to go is to get the D300s (or similar body) and the 80-400mm FX VR (which would act like a 120-600mm DX) and be AF compatible.

You only live once, and it's only money, right?

basflt

asp87 wrote: »

Richy, Thanks for your thoughts. We must have been posting at the same time.

See my above post: I will be returning it. For now, I think I'll be sticking with my 70-300 mm DX. Nikon does have an 80-400mm FX lens but its AF system is incompatible with my camera body (granted, I have a lower level body...)

I shoot a decent distance too often to want to rent, and I'm no pro. I wouldn't get any $ back from renting and shooting with it so I really don't see that as an option. Thanks for suggesting it because I hadn't even considered it yet.

I guess I could look into an old Nikon MF tele. That is something I hadn't considered...

I'm starting to want a better camera body too, but I know that's a whole different battle. I can't even make my mind up on which one I want (I think the D300s, but don't quote me on that...)

I think the route to go is to get the D300s (or similar body) and the 80-400mm FX VR (which would act like a 120-600mm DX) and be AF compatible.

You only live once, and it's only money, right?

there is life beyond Nikon
Today i purchased a Sigma 120-400 , to replace a Tamron 18-270 , and i am allready happy , without even shooting yet

[ Nikon D60 ]

asp87

basflt wrote: »

there is life beyond Nikon[ Nikon D60 ]

Yeah, I recognize that... We'll see. Time to research more.

asp87

basflt wrote: »

there is life beyond Nikon
Today i purchased a Sigma 120-400 , to replace a Tamron 18-270 , and i am allready happy , without even shooting yet

[ Nikon D60 ]

Just curious to know why you didn't go for the Sigma 150-500...

richy wrote: »

If your intent is to shoot long and often there is no substitute for long glass really. Putting too much moolah into the body 'may' be a mistake. One thing (now i open my eyes and check you sig) is that you arent too heavily invested in kit, so you could swap to sony, canon or olympus. Not trying to tempt you but sometimes its worth looking to see if any one system has a cheaper entry into the 400-600mm club. olympus with its built in vr and 2x effective focal multiplier is an idea. Although you are already at a 1.5x crop.

Are you shooting stuff that moves quickly? if its bird on a wire then MF tele may work but for birds in flight you will probably struggle and hate your purchase. Sigma make fairly good glass, the build quality can be horrifying but i hear they are improving and some of their recent lenses are as good as canons (if you get a good un). Keh and adorama and b&h should have a decent set of used glass.

The two big argument for going to another body for you are putting more pixels on the target to help crop and better af. The new d7000 is fairly high res, not sure what you have now. a d300s would have better af and the built in motor but it would be a chunk of money from the glass budget. I think siggy also has something like a 400 4.5? that was well rated, coupled with a 1.4x with its pins taped (not sure if that trick works with nikons) youd have some serious reach, stopped to f8 should be pretty sharp.
The issue with used gear is it might die a month later and you blew all your cash on it with no recourse.
Hope you find an answer, i know how frustrating it is!

I realize that I don't have all that much (compared to a pro) invested in my setup, but at the same time I feel like I have quite a lot and if I were to sell off even my most expensive stuff, I still would be left at quite a loss.

Sometimes I shoot birds but haven't had much chance (or luck) with shooting them in flight. I'd be more than willing to give it a shot, though. I just don't think that I have the right setup for it. I started with a 55-200mm VR lens. That was fun for a month and a half while I learned how to use my camera. Then I realized I needed more so I bought the 70-300. Cool, now I can shoot stuff that is reasonably far away with decent success. Then I went to Alaska and had a ball shooting moose and bear that were only 50 yards from the road. My 70-300mm was being put to the test and I got some good, some not so good results. I really enjoyed that style of shooting and would love to be able to do it more. But I want better equipment for it. I didn't find that lens speed was hindering, but length. I am really, really tempted to switch the 70-300mm VRII for the 80-400mm VR I and get a second (better) body...

I realize that upgrading the body is really not going to get me much. Sometimes I get frustrated with the processing speed (or lack thereof) with the D60. I also would like more than 3fps (the D300s is 7 and D7000 is 6). The D60 is 10.1 MP, D300s 12.3 MP, and D7000 is 16.2 MP. Anything I buy for a body upgrade would have to have a built in AF motor. There are too many good pieces of glass out there that are not AF-S.

I don't think I want a tele prime. I know that that really limits my options

Yeah, If I get something it will probably be new or a factory refurbished item. Anything that I purchased old would be fully manual.

asp87

This isn't even close to being in the same league as a D7000 + 80-400mm VR, but it's so much cheaper...

http://cgi.ebay.com/VIVITAR-400MM-1-5-6-MANUAL-FOCUS-TELEPHOTO-LENS-NIKON-/350396387180?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5195408f6c

That lens would put me at the same amount of zoom that I currently have with the teleconverter. Anything that far away I would presume that I have the time to MF.

I know I'll be returning the TC for sure, though.

basflt

asp87 wrote: »

Just curious to know why you didn't go for the Sigma 150-500...

.

i'm an amateur , if i was a professional i would , or,.... its all about money

btw , the extra 100mm make not that mutch different IMO

asp87

basflt wrote: »

i'm an amateur , if i was a professional i would , or,.... its all about money

Yeah, ain't it the truth...

basflt

asp87 wrote: »

Yeah, ain't it the truth...

also ; the 150-500 had a different coating on it in the shop sort of rough like
while the 120-400 has a smooth finish on it
mayby not importent , but it helped me make up my mind ,

asp87

richy wrote: »

To the op, if the d7000 works with all lenses (i.e. doesnt have that funky nikon no motor thing) then that might be an idea then. If the IQ is there, the added pixels on target will (with cropping) effectively add mm to your 300. Then you can bide your time and pickup the 80-400 vrii.

The d7000 does work with all the lenses and is AF compatible with all AF lenses. Maybe I'll make this a tax-return gift to myself. Hell, maybe tax returns will be big enough to get both the glass and the body

Thanks for guiding me through the thought process here guys.

basflt

all modern Nikon's work with all modern Nikon lenses
since all Nikons have 10 MP sensors [ ok , 12 ] except for one , [ 3Dx ] , i think it does not matter much
major different in camera's is advance stuff , like video and bracketing , nice , but not necessary for photo'ing

asp87

the new d7000 has 16 MP. There are a lot of modern Nikons with 12.3 MP sensors, too. (D90, D300s, to name two of the better DX format ones)

edit: but I think the solution for now is to

-return the TC
-maybe buy a long, reasonably fast, MF prime
-save my nickels and dimes for a body that has a built in AF motor then get the 80-400