the teleconverter and the nikon fm3a.....
Recently, I was out taking photos with a nikon fm3a and a 135mm manual lens.
I was shooting off a bridge - late afternoon, teams of rowers on a broad river below etc. - and I got off a few shots before the boats moved quickly out of range. The shot I would have liked to take was too far away.
I have decided to get a 2x teleconverter for the nikon fm3a instead of a longer lens but have no experience of teleconverters.
Can anyone recommend any brands? Or contribute any tips? etc. Or share experiences?
Appreciate greatly any help or advice.
A tele converter simply magnifies the image. Right ?
And, for the highest quality results, you must use a lens without a converter. That said, there is a good reason to own one, and to make good pictures with them.
Start with a good prime lens and you're far better off. Nikkor converters are pretty inexpensive used, and do a good job. Converting a long lens is more successful than a short lens. So, if you want to magnify the image of a Nikkor 135, I'd say you've got a pretty good case for success.
Follow the same rules for shooting a 270mm lens ! Tripod or fast shutter speed, suitable subjects, and good quality converter. The volume of good used Nikkor stuff on the market makes the case for a TC 200 / TC 201 ( for AI-S lenses and to use Matrix metering ). For a 2x for lenses longer than 200mm, use a TC 300 / 301.
As always, the advantages of using Nikon gear begins with optical quality, but ends with reliability and ease of use.
I love long lenses but use them seldom, and almost always for the long-reach pictorial scenic. I carry a 180 in my bag, and a TC 200.
You’ll probably be quite happy with a TC 200.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
That's great. Thank you. M.
I have a TC201 which I use with my AIS 180mm and the F90X.
The only (but major) drawback is the lack of triod collar on both the lens and the TC201. Pictures taken with that combo are very sharp though.
Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting
Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed
For the flip side. The 300mm F/4.5 isn't much more expensive then a convertor might be. Adding a 2 stop convertor to a F/2.8 135mm is going to make it F/5.6. The 300mm is ALOT bigger then the 135mm but it's not huge.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You might want to pick up a 200/4. It will be about the same cost as a good teleconverter (maybe cheaper) and a full stop faster. Shorter, mind.
The 300/4.5 is a great lens but it is not that cheap yet. Some of the zooms that go to 300mm aren't too bad. The AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 is alright. It's not the greatest lens to use in manual focus mode, but it's alright because it's a one-touch zoom.
Teleconverters are okay but seldom better than that. I've never used one that I was happy with, so I gave up trying to find a great one. The Nikon ones are just too much money for what they do.
I'm going to take a slightly contrary view to the other responders.
I've owned a teleconverter of some form for more than 35 years. I don't find it to be all that useful, but to be honest, that may be partly because I don't photograph sports or other subjects where I need long lenses.
When I first started out with 35mm I bought a teleconverter to extend the effective length of my 135mm lens. Later, I found that a could purchase an aftermarket-brand 80-210 mm lens that was sharper and faster than the 135mm plus 2x teleconverter. Remember that a 2x teleconverter costs two stops of exposure. And the advantage of the zoom was that I didn't have to remove and reinstall the lens to get the different focal length.
Some years later, my old SLR (a late-1960's screw mount beast that weighed a ton) died and I purchased a Nikon FM2. I sold off all my accessories and started over with the Nikon bayonet system, and while I tried to be logical and not buy everything that was offered in the bazaar, the temptation of toys was too great and I did purchase a teleconverter. But this time, I bought a model that featured a removable lens cell - pull out the lens set and you have an extension tube. I don't think I've used it as a teleconverter more than half a dozen times since I bought it, but I do find myself using it as an extension tube on occasion.
So if I were to start over again (and I hope this never happens - my FM-2 is still going strong after 24 years), I would not buy a teleconverter. Instead, given the options available in today's market, I would buy a couple of wide-range zoom lenses (say 28-50 and 80-210) and a set of extension tubes.
Well, I do a lot of wildlife work, where even shooting with a 600mm f/4 is sometimes just not enough, most of us that shoot wildlife, regulary use high qualty convertors for published images, so you can get good images with a convertor, but in the focal length range you are looking at, the good quality zooms and primes are going to be your best bet, prices and design technique have come down so much in the last few years, there is no reason not to shoot with focal length needed for the job..