Tele-extender quandary: 1.4x or 2x

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?

TIA
Norm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
>the extra stop be damned.
>
>What do you think?

The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
point with auto everything cameras.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

McLeod wrote:

> The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
> calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
> different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.

Is this some kind of joke?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
>the extra stop be damned.
>
>What do you think?
>
> TIA
> Norm

Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
extra telephoto length of the 2x.
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 6 Jun 2005 15:08:42 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>McLeod wrote:
>
>> The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
>> calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
>> different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.
>
>Is this some kind of joke?

Nope. I'm not sure if I understand your question.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

McLeod wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
>>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
>>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
>>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
>>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
>>the extra stop be damned.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>
> The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
> calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
> different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
> point with auto everything cameras.

I don't know about Nikon system.
But with Canon, my DSLR will auto focus if the combined max apperture is
f5.6 or greater. My zoom is a 70-200 f4 L. It should (the converter is
still on the shopping list) AF with 1.4x as it looses only 1 stop.
However, with 2x I'd loose AF.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:iqt9a1pfdpt3nlh9sqo53kblu0jcr39ca3@4ax.com...
> On 6 Jun 2005 15:08:42 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >McLeod wrote:
> >
> >> The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
> >> calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
> >> different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.
> >
> >Is this some kind of joke?
>
> Nope. I'm not sure if I understand your question.

With the 2x, the difference is exactly 2 stops. 1 stop or 2 stops, it's
just as easy either way.

Norm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:d846bt$fnk$1@dns3.cae.ca...
> McLeod wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
> >>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on
it, I
> >>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I
get
> >>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?
It
> >>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --
purchase,
> >>the extra stop be damned.
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >
> >
> > The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
> > calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
> > different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
> > point with auto everything cameras.
>
> I don't know about Nikon system.
> But with Canon, my DSLR will auto focus if the combined max apperture is
> f5.6 or greater. My zoom is a 70-200 f4 L. It should (the converter is
> still on the shopping list) AF with 1.4x as it looses only 1 stop.
> However, with 2x I'd loose AF.

Actually, with my Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6, I'm already having difficulty
autofocusing at the 300mm end without any additional light loss. Most of
the time, just zooming out to around 250mm, focusing, and then zooming back
is all it takes. But given that I'm already having difficulty with the
autofocus, I don't see that adding any additional "autofocus trouble" is
that much of a loss anyway.

Norm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:55:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
>>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
>>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
>>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
>>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
>>the extra stop be damned.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>> TIA
>> Norm
>
>Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
>2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
>to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
>The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
>extra telephoto length of the 2x.
>-Rich

I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
a more "professional" body?). Depending on the sort of photos you're
taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
manually, it probably makes no difference.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Graham Holden" <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message
news:0o7ba19pkegfoem9dp54vmbujvap9tq28j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:55:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
> >>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on
it, I
> >>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I
get
> >>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?
It
> >>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --
purchase,
> >>the extra stop be damned.
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> Norm
> >
> >Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
> >2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
> >to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
> >The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
> >extra telephoto length of the 2x.
> >-Rich
>
> I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
> D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
> the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
> a more "professional" body?).

Yeah. With the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED lens, the D70 (but not the N90)
often has trouble focusing at the 300mm end -- just zooming in to around
250, focusing, and zooming back out works but so does manual focusing and it
isn't (IMHO) any slower or less accurate. Given that I've already lost the
AF at 300 mm, I can't see that losing it when either converter is in place
is any great loss and even the 1.4x would lose at almost any focal length
past 125-150mm anyway on the D70. The other long lens I have is a manual
focus 500mm Mirror whose use isn't affected by these considerations.

Depending on the sort of photos you're
> taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
> make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
> manually, it probably makes no difference.
>

Any extender provides better printed enlargements than just increasing the
magnification from the "negative" to the print.
BUT ... I've been making most of my 4x6 sample and test-prints at 300 dpi
because I don't really see any great difference between 300 and 400 dpi.
Since the D70 has 3000 pixels (the long way), that's a 10:1 ratio I have to
play with in making enlargement so an 8x10 would have the same (printed)
resolution as my 4x6 do. Certainly limiting the enlargement to 5x7, I
haven't lost anything by enlarging by, say, and extra 50% rather than using
a 1.4x converter. And certainly any really critical pictures are taken with
the N90 on either ISO 64 slide film or ISO 100 negative so going to 8x10
from a, say, half-frame usually isn't that much of a compromise.

Since the vast majority of my pictures are either nature/macro shots of
flowers and insects or the grandkids, either converter is irrelevant. But I
like to do some bird photography and an occasional distant landscape for
which both the 300mm zoom or the 500mm mirror are inadequate. I also do
some sports photography, but only as a spectator, and there I need all of
the lens I can get but since it's almost always in daylight (my choice),
lens speed isn't a major factor.

In a perfect world, we'd all own f/1.0 zoom lenses that cover the 12-1200mm
range and weigh about 4 oz. Oh, yeah, and they'd cost $99 at Wal-Mart!
But this is the real world and I have only a limited budget for photo
equipment since travel is so expensive and equipment is bulky and heavy. I
think that I'm willing to suffer the extra f-stop of light loss for the
extra extension of the focal length but there's still that damned daemon in
the back of my head that says, "If you'd only have bought ..."

BTW, Generally my philosophy is that film is the cheapest thing I have and
that the right lens is worth its weight in gold compared to the cost of
going back to take another shot. But at ~25 pounds, my 35mm Nikon-crammed
backpack is getting heavier with each thing I add to it and the ~15 pound
bag with the Bronica isn't any lighter since it also mandates that I carry
an additional tripod adequate to the camera.

Norm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Graham Holden wrote:
>
> I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
> D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
> the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
> a more "professional" body?). Depending on the sort of photos you're
> taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
> make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
> manually, it probably makes no difference.


I use 2x on a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S. AF-S means it has it's own
focus motor and the TC is only usable with AF-S lenses. It autofocuses,
having f/5.6 but not nearly as well, maybe 1/3 of the time it needs help
or fails to lock focus. But I can point up at a bird swooping over me
and it will lock on without branches confusing things. The images are
probably not the sharpest possible but pretty darn good. I also find it
useful for closeup (from a distance) and artistic extreme blur effects
that just aren't possible at a shorter focal length. It is a lot of fun
to use. I can get a good shot of a butterfly from 5 or 10 feet away.

Very tiny butterfly (50% reduced for web):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=6>
Crazy blur:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=3&PIC=13>
Birds across the street 60 feet away (40% reduced for web):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=7>
Tiny song bird 20 feet away(50% reduced for web):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=10>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> Graham Holden wrote:
>
>>
>> I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
>> D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
>> the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the
>> N90 is
>> a more "professional" body?). Depending on the sort of photos you're
>> taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
>> make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
>> manually, it probably makes no difference.
>
>
>
> I use 2x on a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S. AF-S means it has it's own
> focus motor and the TC is only usable with AF-S lenses. It autofocuses,
> having f/5.6 but not nearly as well, maybe 1/3 of the time it needs help
> or fails to lock focus. But I can point up at a bird swooping over me
> and it will lock on without branches confusing things. The images are
> probably not the sharpest possible but pretty darn good. I also find it
> useful for closeup (from a distance) and artistic extreme blur effects
> that just aren't possible at a shorter focal length. It is a lot of fun
> to use. I can get a good shot of a butterfly from 5 or 10 feet away.
>
> Very tiny butterfly (50% reduced for web):
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=6>
>
> Crazy blur:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia>
>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=3&PIC=13>
>
> Birds across the street 60 feet away (40% reduced for web):
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=7>
>
> Tiny song bird 20 feet away(50% reduced for web):
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=10>

Some nice shots there. Part the b'fly and flower.

Some distracting oof highlights.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Some distracting oof highlights.


The speckles of circles is a wierd one for sure. This one really bugs me
with those gritty looking branches:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=10>
But I got the darn little birdie fairly well. No way to approach those
guys with 200mm.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:p8mdnW8tZ-T1XTjfRVn-tA@speakeasy.net...
> I use 2x on a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S. AF-S means it has it's own
> focus motor and the TC is only usable with AF-S lenses. It autofocuses,
> having f/5.6 but not nearly as well, maybe 1/3 of the time it needs help
> or fails to lock focus. But I can point up at a bird swooping over me
> and it will lock on without branches confusing things. The images are
> probably not the sharpest possible but pretty darn good. I also find it
> useful for closeup (from a distance) and artistic extreme blur effects
> that just aren't possible at a shorter focal length. It is a lot of fun
> to use. I can get a good shot of a butterfly from 5 or 10 feet away.
>
> Very tiny butterfly (50% reduced for web):
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/
our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=6>
> Crazy blur:
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/
our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia>
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/
our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=3&PIC=13>
> Birds across the street 60 feet away (40% reduced for web):
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/
our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=7>
> Tiny song bird 20 feet away(50% reduced for web):
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/
our-garden/more/2005-06-03-triteleia&PG=2&PIC=10>
>

Okay, what brand TC do you use?

Norm
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Norm Dresner wrote:

> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>I use 2x on a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S. AF-S means it has it's own
>>focus motor and the TC is only usable with AF-S lenses.
>
>
> Okay, what brand TC do you use?


Nikon. I understood that's the only option for the AF-S connection to
maintain autofocus.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:31:20 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Norm
Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:

>"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:d846bt$fnk$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>> McLeod wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
>> >>system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on
>it, I
>> >>started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I
>get
>> >>almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?
>It
>> >>now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --
>purchase,
>> >>the extra stop be damned.
>> >>
>> >>What do you think?
>> >
>> >
>> > The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
>> > calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
>> > different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
>> > point with auto everything cameras.
>>
>> I don't know about Nikon system.
>> But with Canon, my DSLR will auto focus if the combined max apperture is
>> f5.6 or greater. My zoom is a 70-200 f4 L. It should (the converter is
>> still on the shopping list) AF with 1.4x as it looses only 1 stop.
>> However, with 2x I'd loose AF.
>
>Actually, with my Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6, I'm already having difficulty
>autofocusing at the 300mm end without any additional light loss. Most of
>the time, just zooming out to around 250mm, focusing, and then zooming back
>is all it takes. But given that I'm already having difficulty with the
>autofocus, I don't see that adding any additional "autofocus trouble" is
>that much of a loss anyway.

The Nikon prosumer dslr is the same. You need a max f/5.6 or greater for
the AF to work. I'm using a TC-20E-II with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR AF-S
and you see a noticeably change in AF performance with the 2x. Not only
noticeably sluggish, but hunts a lot as well in lower light situations.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
>
> I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
> D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
> the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
> a more "professional" body?). Depending on the sort of photos you're

no, auto focus will stop working at f/5.6 on pretty much all Nikon bodies.

> taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
> make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
> manually, it probably makes no difference.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:33:04 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>> Okay, what brand TC do you use?
>
>
>Nikon. I understood that's the only option for the AF-S connection to
>maintain autofocus.

Actually the Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 for Nikon provides both the
electrical contacts for lenses with built-in focus motor (it has a
full set of 10 contacts) and the mechanical "screwdriver" connection
using the camera's autofocus motor. Probably the 1.4 model does too,
but I don't have it and can't confirm this.

Sigma has teleconverters for Nikon that provide autofocus, but I don't
know whether they provide both methods like Kenko's.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Deedee Tee wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:33:04 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Okay, what brand TC do you use?
>>
>>
>>Nikon. I understood that's the only option for the AF-S connection to
>>maintain autofocus.
>
>
> Actually the Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 for Nikon provides both the
> electrical contacts for lenses with built-in focus motor (it has a
> full set of 10 contacts) and the mechanical "screwdriver" connection
> using the camera's autofocus motor. Probably the 1.4 model does too,
> but I don't have it and can't confirm this.
>
> Sigma has teleconverters for Nikon that provide autofocus, but I don't
> know whether they provide both methods like Kenko's.


Thanks for clarifying. It was pretty expensive for just one or two
little pieces of glass on the end & what mostly looks like a 2" long
high tech empty tube.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
 

marius

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2002
25
0
18,580
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I also use a Canon DSLR (10D) and don't experience this limitation, using a
Tamron-F 1.4x Teleconverter.
And Fred Miranda gives you an simple solution when you should experience
AF-problems: http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/

Cheers,

Marius