Http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5.

Nicholas vajda wrote:.

I am buying a Nikon d200 and a Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5GIF-ED Zoom plus a AF-S VR 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Zoom. Mywife who photographs wide life wants to get a teleconverter so as tohave a 450 mmDo Nikon make them. If they can be got do you stillhave the automatic functions of the lens, AF etc ? .

I wouldn't be surprised if you lost autofocus once you went past f/5.6 effective..

I am aware that a 300mm works as a 450mm on a digital body (d200) butwhat happens if you use a teleconverter.

Sacrificing much of the light, using only the center portion, placing a higher demand on the lens resolution and on your ability to keep the camera stable...

You might also look at the Kenko telecoverter. I use one with my f/2.8 lenses and it works great. My son has also used it with his standard Sigma lenses and has had no problems..

You will lose 1 stop of light and so you have to take extra carel in a low light situation. This applies to both Nikon and Kenko converters, by the way..

Http://www.adorama.com/...14XPDNKAF.html?searchinfo=kenko%201.4&item_no=3.

Jerryhttp://www.jbellphotography.com..

First, about Nikon's TCs....

Nikon make the TC-14E II (1.4x), TC-17E II (1.7x) and TC-20E II (guess...) teleconverters (all current models), plus a few others. Image quality-wise, the 14 is the best, followed narrowly by the 17, with the 20 a long (comparitively) way behind these 2 (it's not BAD, but it does have more penalties than the others). They're not cheap, but are the best you'll find. Kenko, Sigma, Tamron and probably others also make TCs - some recommend them, some don't, I can't as I never used them, but they're a lot cheaper than the Nikons. Pop over to the D200 forum and do a search for the topic - it's been discussed a few times recently, IIRC..

Now, about TCs and image quality....

TCs work by taking in the image put out by the lens and magnifying it; that's all. The Nikon ones (except the 20, I THINK) couple all lens features to the body, including VR. HOWEVER... there is a loss of light and image quality involved in using a TC, whoever makes it. This means that you'll need to start with a fast lens of good quality and be prepared to push the ISO up a bit to compensate, but it's not usually a big problem IF YOU HAVE A FAST LENS, but fast lenses are expensive. Most people seem to settle for the 17 as a reasonable compromise between length and light loss, as I have - it's not too bad, especially if you can't afford really long glass.

That will result in slow focus (if at all) and very low shutter speeds or high ISOs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, unfortunately. If you want longish reach on a reasonable budget, the Nikkor 300mm f/4 and a TC-17 makes for a pretty good weapon (f/5.6 and 765mm eq)..

The way that the lens focal length is affected on the D200 is that the Field of View is made smaller. The focal length of the lens remains the same, but you see less of the image circle - it looks like you see more magnification, but you don't. The 'image crop' as it's called, is 1.5x the focal length of the lens, so 300mm is eq to 450mm, as you already know. Add in a 1.7x for the TC and you get 765mm (plus maybe another crop factor of 1.5 - I've never even tried to work it out...). Sounds good, doesn't it? Trouble is, that 765mm means that to have any chance of hand-holding the set-up for a steady shot, you'll need a shutter speed of around 1/800 second, which means a lot of light needs to be available. Quite possible in good light with a fast lens, but almost impossible with a slow one.

Which is why a fast lens is a good place to start - if you have an f/2.8, you'll only drop to f/4.8 with the TC in place - makes a lot of difference..

Why do you feel the need for a D200? In your case and assuming a not unlimited budget, I'd be looking at a D80 and faster lenses (f/2.8) to do the job, at least until the budget allowed a body upgrade. Good glass lasts, bodies can be upgraded easily. Another option would be to chase down some fast 2H lenses..

For the best info on these things, visit the Nikon global website and hunt down the page referring to the TCs - that will give you the details about the light loss and what lenses will fit. A lot (most?) of the DX lenses can't use the TCs due to the protruding rear element of the lens, details of exactly which ones will fit are on the Nikon site..

I think that's all I want to say... :~).

Here's a little tutorial I found that may interest you.

Http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/ATeleconverter.asp.

And a discussion of f/stop progressions too.

Http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Leff.

HTH, and hope to see you on the D200 forum soon..

EDIT: You might consider lenses from some of the 3rd party guys as a way to get more reach a little cheaper. I've met people who love their Sigma 50-500 zooms, but I've met people who couldn't wait to get rid of theirs... And there are other options - search the forums!Rob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no failure in failure, only in failing to learn...

Nicholas,.

You already have much of the answer. A couple of extra points:.

1. A TC will be virtually unworkable past f5.6. Canon's system I believe just cuts out at f5.6. Nikon's struggles on past f5.6..

2. A 1.4x will lose 1 stop of light, 1.7x = 1.5 stops and 2x = 2 stops. There is also a progressive deterioration in image quality..

3. Nikon, Sigma, Tamron & Kenko make TCs. All will work on AF-S lenses. But only Tamron and I think Kenko have models that will work with AF and AF-S lenses. THE Nikon TCs are much more expensive for very little benefit..

4. You need to rethink how you are going to get extreme telephoto. Nikon do an 80-400 VR. That has got to be worth a look but it is something like 3 x the price of the 70-300. There iare reviews here:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_80400_4556/index.htm.

Http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/125/cat/13(this includes some user reviews).

5. You may be heading for a really big and heavy camera/lens combination that will need to be tripod mounted. That may mean VR will have no real benefit..

6. You may need to think in terms of 3 lenses 18-70, 70-200 to carrry around and 100-400 or whatever to get the extreme telephoto. Maybe you could stick with the 18-70 plus 70-300 VR then another. Alternatively consider the 18-135 plus a heavy powerful tele zoom..

7. Have a look at the Sigma 80-400. It is about 2/3rds the cost of the Nikon..

Http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/80-400mm.htm.

There is a review here (BUT it is on a Canon mount. The results may be a little different on a Nikon BUT it has Sigmas version of VR (OS)):.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_80400_4556os/index.htm.

And an user review here (also on a Canon):.

Http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/754.

It is an AF not an AF-S lens so it will focus more slowly..

Hope that helps!.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Thank you all for the information and advice you have given me a lot to think about. I should explain that I have been using the same old F Nikon and Nikkormat Ft since 1968. the Nikkormat (my favorite died) Hence the leap into digital. I chose Nikon as the first job I had (in 60s) was in a newspaper darkroom and it was always 35mm Nikon s amd 400 ASA kodak Tri x. The cameras were the ones I used when I worked in London and the nikon lenses are magnificent..

This Nikon d200 and lenses was to be my first try at both digital plus all the wizz bang stuff such as sophisticated I-TTL, AF etc etc. I down loaded the Manual from the Nikon site I even got the book on the d200 (magic lantern press) BUT I did not realise the following.

BraveUlysses wrote:.

Your real problem is going to be the light loss involved with the slowishlenses you are looking at - AF really doesn't like operating withless than f/5.6.

Leejay wu wrote.

I wouldn't be surprised if you lost autofocus once you went past f/5.6 effective..

I am not that bothered about not getting a teleconverter but to be honest my worry was a loss of lens functions for mechanical reasons or a loss of image quality, I had no idea about the f5.6 / AF stuff. WOW thank you for the warning.

As to the question.

Why do you feel the need for a D200? In your case and assuming a notunlimited budget, I'd be looking at a D80 and faster lenses (f/2.8)to do the job, at least until the budget allowed a body upgrade. Goodglass lasts, bodies can be upgraded easily..

I looked at the specs for the other Nikon Ds, I wanted the higher pixels as I am used to if I want to be able to enlarge a portion of my "neg"I also wanted to try all the wierd things that are possable wioth the d200. lastly I planned to get a SB 800 Flash and it and the 200 seemed to be a a pretty sophisticated combanation..

Thanks again time for a rethink.

PsWhat does 2H mean in regards to lenses..

Nicholas vajda wrote:.

I am not that bothered about not getting a teleconverter but to behonest my worry was a loss of lens functions for mechanical reasonsor a loss of image quality, I had no idea about the f5.6 / AF stuff.WOW thank you for the warning.

Officially it won't focus with anything slower than f/5.6, but if there's a reasonable amount of light (even indoors seems to be enough) and there's a good sharp edge on which to focus, it will more than likely work. It's just not 100% guaranteed...

Nicholas vajda wrote:.

PsWhat does 2H mean in regards to lenses.

Sorry for the late reply Nicholas - been away from internet access for a while (travelling). 2H is simply shorthand for second-hand, or used. No big mystery... (c:.

Rob.

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no failure in failure, only in failing to learn...