Teleconverters vs. Extension Tubes—Advice?

[Photologyst]

Does anyone have experience with “teleconverters”?

Nikon Store - COMPARE_PAGE_TITLE

How do these compare to extension tubes? Do they also work as macros or is it better to just bite the bullet and get a lens?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[RecurrentNerve]

Extension tubes allow you to get closer to a subject and so are used for 'macro on a budget'. They do not turn your relatively short lens into a longer lens; that's what a teleconverter does.

However, teleconverters are next to useless with standard zoom lenses; you need a fast (f/2.8) lens to begin with. If you have, say, an f/4 70-210mm lens, with a 2x teleconverter this becomes an f/8 lens, which means you'll have autofocus problems, and the doubled focal length coupled with the smaller aperture means camera shake will be hard to control.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by RecurrentNerve

Extension tubes allow you to get closer to a subject and so are used for 'macro on a budget'. They do not turn your relatively short lens into a longer lens; that's what a teleconverter does.

However, teleconverters are next to useless with standard zoom lenses; you need a fast (f/2.8) lens to begin with. If you have, say, an f/4 70-210mm lens, with a 2x teleconverter this becomes an f/8 lens, which means you'll have autofocus problems, and the doubled focal length coupled with the smaller aperture means camera shake will be hard to control.

Thanks, very much, RN!

So, my favorite—always on my camera—lens at this time is the
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR.

Tube extension or just get a macro/micro?

I really hate changing lenses for so many reasons: Weather, dust, carrying the lens, it’s all a pain, etc.

Say I’m in a garden where both regular pix and macros would come into play; what lens would do double duty?

[RecurrentNerve]

Well, you'll still have to take the lens off to put the extension tubes on when you decide you want a macro shot, so if you can afford it you might as well just get a proper macro lens.

The other alternative is to simply get a macro filter. This is essentially a magnifying glass that screws onto the filter thread of any lens. They are cheap and cheerful, but simpler to use than extension tubes. Might give you a chance to see how you like macro photography and help you decide whether to take the plunge and get a proper lens.

[Photologyst]

Hmm, thanks, RN.

I always like things that do double duty. Someone mentioned a micro/macro lens that can double as a portrait?

The thing is that when I am walking about a city, especially one in Europe where there are lots of beautiful parks that one can cut through with plants and flowers for macros and then I go back into the city, all within an hour, I don’t want to keep changing lenses. So I have to go back to carrying 2 cameras or is there a compromise somewhere?

I have a Nikkor 18-200 mm VR lens, that works great, but not at either extreme: Macro or Zoom. I am tempted to use my pocket Canon for macros.

[RecurrentNerve]

Well, try the macro filter and see if it does the trick for you. Just a matter of screwing it on.

[Michael_2010]

I have a 2x TC I bought to extend the range of my Sigma 150-500mm. It works pretty well for specialized shots. I wouldn't even attempt to use it without a tripod and a cable release. It inherently softens the image and in a hand held shot the degradation to IQ quickly goes beyond acceptable.

TC's simply give you some options on the cheap (relatively cheap). There is no way that I am investing in a good 1000mm lens and it is very doubtful it would get much use. So, I got the TC for a little added range in very specific situations.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

I have a 2x TC I bought to extend the range of my Sigma 150-500mm. It works pretty well for specialized shots. I wouldn't even attempt to use it without a tripod and a cable release. It inherently softens the image and in a hand held shot the degradation to IQ quickly goes beyond acceptable.

TC's simply give you some options on the cheap (relatively cheap). There is no way that I am investing in a good 1000mm lens and it is very doubtful it would get much use. So, I got the TC for a little added range in very specific situations.

Thanks, Michael.

Ever in the dual purpose arena I am considering the Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED lens.

Would you know if one also has to use a tripod with that?

[Michael_2010]

Originally Posted by Photologyst

Thanks, Michael.

Ever in the dual purpose arena I am considering the Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED lens.

Would you know if one also has to use a tripod with that?

I don't know that much about Nikon lenses, but I am sure it is like most. It all just depends upon the light. If you have plenty of light and can keep the shutter speed at 1/60 or above, hand held is no problem. I've gotten some pretty good hand held shots with the Sigma and that thing is a bear. The TC interferes with its Optical Stabilization and really limits the maximum aperture, so it doesn't work well hand held in any lighting conditions.

This is a hand held shot I took with the 150-500mm minus the TC, during a recent visit to a zoo. Looks pretty sharp to me but it was a bright, sunny day.

[RichardTaylor]

For a 200mm lens (And I have some zooms that cover 200mm), you won't need a tripod for general purpose shooting in good light.
If you are shooting extreme close ups or macro's you most likely will, unless you are using a flash, need a tripod.