tele converter for my tamron 2.8 28-75 on Nikon D200

photocatphotocat Registered Users Posts: 1,334 Major grins
edited March 24, 2007 in Accessories
Hi, I want some advice...
I would like to buy a lens really, 2.8 28-200, but the price of those things is around a 1000 dollar. Maybe a bit less, I don't seem to find them in used version on ebay...

My eyes fell on the tele converters, and I wonder if that would be a wise choice till I can save up enough to get a decent zoom lens.

I shoot mainly families, kids and weddings, my goal is to have a good walk around lens on the weddings. I have macro and other lenses that I am happy with, but sometimes it is not convenient to change lenses.

I am still in the beginning fase, my name is starting to spread, but I still don't have that much spending money... So where do I go from here?
Do any of you use these things on Nikons? I found some canon users, yes Aurora, you too, but would appreciate some more comments on this!

Thanks in advance...
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes

Comments

  • gryphonslair99gryphonslair99 Registered Users Posts: 182 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2007
    photocat wrote:
    Hi, I want some advice...
    I would like to buy a lens really, 2.8 28-200, but the price of those things is around a 1000 dollar. Maybe a bit less, I don't seem to find them in used version on ebay...

    My eyes fell on the tele converters, and I wonder if that would be a wise choice till I can save up enough to get a decent zoom lens.

    I shoot mainly families, kids and weddings, my goal is to have a good walk around lens on the weddings. I have macro and other lenses that I am happy with, but sometimes it is not convenient to change lenses.

    I am still in the beginning fase, my name is starting to spread, but I still don't have that much spending money... So where do I go from here?
    Do any of you use these things on Nikons? I found some canon users, yes Aurora, you too, but would appreciate some more comments on this!

    Thanks in advance...
    Teleconverters have their place however they will degrade your image. How much will depend on the quality of the lens and the quality of the teleconverter. A teleconverter will also cause you to loose an f stop or two depending on the converter you use. A high quality telecoverter on a high quality lens will normally yeild better results. 1.4 converters also seem to be a bit sharper than 2.0 converters. At least in the Canon digital world. When I was shooting Nikon film cameras it also held true, but my Nikon glass is 30 years old now.

    As for e-bay, I would be hesitant to buy an expensive piece of glass there. That is just me. Rather than ebay check out these locations:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
    http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=26
    http://www.phototakers.com/forum/forum15.html
    http://forums.popphoto.com/camera/board?board.id=12
    http://www.photozo.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

    There are others but these five are a good place to start. Especially at Fredmiranda. Very active selling forum.
  • gryphonslair99gryphonslair99 Registered Users Posts: 182 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2007
    Sorry, my bad. Totally forgot to include this forum. DUH?ne_nau.gif

    http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18
  • photocatphotocat Registered Users Posts: 1,334 Major grins
    edited March 18, 2007
    gryphonslair99 wrote:
    Sorry, my bad. Totally forgot to include this forum. DUH?ne_nau.gif

    http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18


    thank so much for the links! My lens is a tamron... I know, not the best of lenses, but still a 500 dollar lense. I am kind of hoping to put the big buy off for a while by going to the tele converters. I had no idea they take off 2 stops... Means I could as well shoot with my 28-200 I have with 3 and a bit aperture...
    I will check out the forums that you gave me! Thanks
    http://photocatseyes.net
    http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
  • gryphonslair99gryphonslair99 Registered Users Posts: 182 Major grins
    edited March 19, 2007
    photocat wrote:
    thank so much for the links! My lens is a tamron... I know, not the best of lenses, but still a 500 dollar lense. I am kind of hoping to put the big buy off for a while by going to the tele converters. I had no idea they take off 2 stops... Means I could as well shoot with my 28-200 I have with 3 and a bit aperture...
    I will check out the forums that you gave me! Thanks

    When I was choosing a walkaround lens I was looking at the 17-40 f4L and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I took both lenses for a test drive so to speak and found that the Tamron out performed Canon's L lens in most areas. I ended up with the Tamron. All of the reputable manufactures such as Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make some really great glass and some stinkers. Even the valted Zeiss made some lenses that were shall we say pretty second rate. Not many, but a couple. Don't look down on second party lenses just because they don't have you camera's name on it. I would venture a guess that most of the photographers on this board have a second party lens or two.

    The one thing to remember about with DSLR's is you did not buy a camera, you bought a system. If you save your money and buy good glass and then take care of it, it will last you several camera bodies.
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,245 moderator
    edited March 19, 2007
    I am using the Tamron 1.4 TC with my Tam 28-75. It works only when set to 75 though. Below about 70, it is useless. Quality is OK; it will auto-focus at 75, just a little more slowly as light is cut by one stop.

    It is the cheaper of the two 1.4 models. I bought it for eventual use with the Canon 400 5.6.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • gpphotosgpphotos Registered Users Posts: 266 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2007
    im pretty sure that the 28-200mm f2.8 lens that you keep mentioning does not exist. try doing a search for the sigma 70(80?)-200 f2.8, or a nikon 80-200 f2.8.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited March 20, 2007
    gpphotos wrote:
    im pretty sure that the 28-200mm f2.8 lens that you keep mentioning does not exist. try doing a search for the sigma 70(80?)-200 f2.8, or a nikon 80-200 f2.8.

    I don't know of one either. Perhaps the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX is what was meant and I can find it just under $900-$1000USD.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2007
    gpphotos wrote:
    im pretty sure that the 28-200mm f2.8 lens that you keep mentioning does not exist. try doing a search for the sigma 70(80?)-200 f2.8, or a nikon 80-200 f2.8.

    Yup a 28-200mm/2.8 does not exist. But Tamron just came out
    with a 70-200mm/2.8. I'm very curious at the first reviews.

    Tamron's Annoucement: http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2007/0307_a001.html

    Btw. A teleconverter for lenses below 135mm is likely a very bad idea
    because teleconverters are designed for the path the light takes from
    long focal length lenses. Image quality will otherwise suffer alot.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • photocatphotocat Registered Users Posts: 1,334 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2007
    Manfr3d wrote:
    Yup a 28-200mm/2.8 does not exist. But Tamron just came out
    with a 70-200mm/2.8. I'm very curious at the first reviews.

    Tamron's Annoucement: http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2007/0307_a001.html

    Btw. A teleconverter for lenses below 135mm is likely a very bad idea
    because teleconverters are designed for the path the light takes from
    long focal length lenses. Image quality will otherwise suffer alot.

    I wanted something more then 70-200, as you loose so much of the foreground then. If you have 28, you can include much more in your photograph without actually bodily go backwards. I find that for a lot of weddings, 70 puts me too close, and if I can't go backward, I am stuck there. Same for my 85 prime lens... Which is a marvel, it is only the zoom that is missing.
    I don't know why I was thinking that there is a Nikon 28-200 or 300...
    It does not really have to be Nikkor, I am happy with Sigma and Tamron too...
    I will have a look at that tamron page mentioned above!
    Thanks for the hints and suggestions
    http://photocatseyes.net
    http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2007
    photocat wrote:
    I wanted something more then 70-200, as you loose so much of the foreground then. If you have 28, you can include much more in your photograph without actually bodily go backwards. I find that for a lot of weddings, 70 puts me too close, and if I can't go backward, I am stuck there. Same for my 85 prime lens... Which is a marvel, it is only the zoom that is missing.
    I don't know why I was thinking that there is a Nikon 28-200 or 300...
    It does not really have to be Nikkor, I am happy with Sigma and Tamron too...
    I will have a look at that tamron page mentioned above!
    Thanks for the hints and suggestions

    There is a Sigma 50-150/2.8 if thats more what you need :)
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • StormdancingStormdancing Registered Users Posts: 917 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2007
    I just got this.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=185148&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

    Because of what it says - for lenses longer than 90mm and max aperture 2.8 or larger, I didn't think I could use it on my Tamron 28-75 2.8.
    Dana
    ** Feel free to edit my photos if you see room for improvement.**
    Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if
    no birds sang there except those that sang best.
    ~Henry Van Dyke
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,245 moderator
    edited March 22, 2007
    Tamron TC for 50mm or longer. Works fine with 28-75 at 75mm. I am using it with a Canon 20D.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • StormdancingStormdancing Registered Users Posts: 917 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2007
    I didn't realize the difference. Interesting. I just got mine yesterday and took it out for a run on the Bigma. IT SUCKED. More likely, I did. I need to play with it in a more controlled setting.

    I really don't have a need to put it on my Tamron 28-75 as I have other lenses to cover the range.
    Dana
    ** Feel free to edit my photos if you see room for improvement.**
    Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if
    no birds sang there except those that sang best.
    ~Henry Van Dyke
  • photocatphotocat Registered Users Posts: 1,334 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2007
    Stormdancing wrote:
    I didn't realize the difference. Interesting. I just got mine yesterday and took it out for a run on the Bigma. IT SUCKED. More likely, I did. I need to play with it in a more controlled setting.

    I really don't have a need to put it on my Tamron 28-75 as I have other lenses to cover the range.

    Why did it suck? Does it distort the image? Can you tell me some more please, I am very eager to know more about this... ;o)))
    http://photocatseyes.net
    http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
  • StormdancingStormdancing Registered Users Posts: 917 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2007
    Image quality was poor. Now take into consideration that I was shooting on a monopod out in my backyard doing one of those quickie I'm excited got a new toy tests. As I said it was more than likely me and my technique than the TC. Rainy and gloomy today, so no shooting after work for me. Maybe this weekend I can get it on a tripod instead of a monopod and try it again.

    PS. Having two cats rubbing their way around my legs, a dog jumping and trying to lick me every minute and a 4 year old who announced every bird within two miles might have had something to do with it too.:D
    Dana
    ** Feel free to edit my photos if you see room for improvement.**
    Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if
    no birds sang there except those that sang best.
    ~Henry Van Dyke
  • photocatphotocat Registered Users Posts: 1,334 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2007
    Stormdancing wrote:
    Image quality was poor. Now take into consideration that I was shooting on a monopod out in my backyard doing one of those quickie I'm excited got a new toy tests. As I said it was more than likely me and my technique than the TC. Rainy and gloomy today, so no shooting after work for me. Maybe this weekend I can get it on a tripod instead of a monopod and try it again.

    PS. Having two cats rubbing their way around my legs, a dog jumping and trying to lick me every minute and a 4 year old who announced every bird within two miles might have had something to do with it too.:D

    I see... I never use a mono pod though, have one but don't like it...
    The cats and four year old must keep you busy! Thanks for sharing your experience with us. Let us know when you shoot more!
    Snap your daughter!
    http://photocatseyes.net
    http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
  • saurorasaurora Registered Users Posts: 4,320 Major grins
    edited March 24, 2007
    One complaint I have about using an extender (I have the Canon 1.4) is that for me, it seems to throw the balance off when hand-holding a long lens. It just doesn't feel as comfortable (balanced) in my hands....somewhat awkward....and harder to hold steady. So of course, the answer is to use a monopod or tripod, which I still resist!!! rolleyes1.gif Unless you have a really sharp, light-sucking lens, you probably wouldn't use it much with the sacrifice in aperture. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.