Hi, David.

For about a year I have been photographing with a Nikon 300 mm f4 with 1.4x teleconverter on a Nikon D300. Because I wanted the extra oomph of a 420 mm lens, I haven't even used the lens without the TC. I have been completely satisfied with it, but maybe I'm like those Canon shooters and have lower standards (I have to say at this point that some of my best friends are Canon people). I took a lot of dragonfly photos with it at Magnuson Park last fall, as well as bird photos, and I was delighted with the results. I post-process in Photoshop as a matter of course to adjust lighting and sharpness. I doubt if I get photos as good as the really high-end cameras and lenses, but my photos are showable and publishable without a doubt.

Now my affections have been won by a newly purchased Sigma 50-500 mm lens that I really like a lot, although its photos don't seem sharper than those by the Nikon, which is still being used whenever my wife and I are both taking bird shots at the same time. Both lenses focus down to about 6 feet and are useful for butterflies, lizards, flowers, etc., as well as birds, but I really like being able to pull the Sigma back to 50 mm to take scenery shots, so I can do a lot with one lens.

Dennis Paulson
Seattle, WA

On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:00 PM, tweeters-request at mailman1.u.washington.edu wrote:

> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:57:27 -0400
> From: cgluckman at aol.com
> Subject: [Tweeters] Tele-converter debate
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <8CDC12A6C4BA19B-19F0-4BD0 at webmail-m093.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> For you non photographers, stop reading. I have been looking for the last 3 years for a good comparison of tele vs. non-teleconverter for sharpness and have yet to find one that passes any reasonable test for scientific objectivity. Here's my personal experience. I have a Nikon 1.4 TC which is the best Nikon makes and have not been satisfied with the results. It loses 1/2 to 1 stop of light (and speed), it cuts down the field of view and produces images that are not as sharp as those without it. That having been said, I only formally tested it once in a semi-valid way. Three years ago I photographed a Short-eared Owl that was sitting on a tree stump 30 feet away (yes it does happen occasionally) with my Nikon 600mm lens and D300 at Rawlins Rd. with a photographer from Canada at the same distance who was shooting the exact same camera and lens I was using (including the same tripod) except he was using a 1.4 TC at one f/stop number larger. The light was good and the owl was s!
> itting still. He later sent me a raw copy of his image which I compared with a raw copy of mine, cropped to the same size as his. Mine was noticeably sharper. This is not a real vaid test. I might have had better telephoto technique, my focus could have been better, etc. I have been looking for a study that actually takes pictures with the same camera, same settings, with and without the TC, under the same light conditions of a static subject, at the same distance, etc. and so far no one has produced one that came even close to covering the possible variables. I am very suspicious of TC's because they were developed when big lenses were too expensive for most amateurs and few photographers had the ability to crop their photos from the slides they usually shot. The TC gave them an easy and less expensive way to produce bigger images for showing and there was no easy way to compare them. If they worked as advertised, it would be very easy for the companies to produe good stud!
> ies and include the T-C technology in their big lenses at rela!
> tively low cost and substantially increase their focal lengths with only a small increase in price. The only company that's come close to doing that seems to be Canon with it's 800mm (meaning no disrespect Gregg). For what it's worth, I have found that Canon shooters are more satisfied with their TC's than Nikon shooters which may say something about the quality of the Canon TC's or the lack of discrimination of Canon shooters (I know this is a cheap shot so ignore it). I guess the bottom line of all this is that if you like the results you get and can afford the extra $400-500, use it, if not, don't. However, you might want to borrow one first before you buy.
>
>
> David Gluckman
> 811 22nd St.
> Pt. Townsend, WA 98368
> 360 379-0360


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20110405/52c5b233/attachment.htm