Shobhit the problems with a teleconverter are 2 fold
first there is some degradation of Frame Quality due to the
additional elements in the TC no getting around that but if you can
live with it there is the problem of AF.
Auto Focus and metering are not reliable at apertures smaller than
F5.6. In very bright light it will work beyond that but most of the
time no. That figure F 5.6 is after any additional losses the TC
will introduce.
so F4 glass would be about the Limit on any lens you will have
reasonable success with using a X1.4 TX as that introduces 1 stop of
light loss. a TC that introduces 2 stops of light loss would need an
F 2.8 lens to be reliable most of the time.
the 55-200 is F4 at 55mm and F5.6 at 200mm even a 1.4 TC won't be
reliable
the Nikon 70-300s are all f4-5.6 so again not reliable
the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 would work as would the 80-200 F2.8
the 80-400 F4-5.6 might be an option without a TC but would not be
reliable with 1
a dillemma I know but what we have to work with.
Personally i am looking at a 300 F4 and 180 F2.8 and Considering an
X 1.4 TC from Kenko as the information i have seen indicates none of
Nikons TC's will af with Af or AF D lenses .
Good shooting
Mike
--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLenses
yahoogroups.com, "Shobhit Bhatnagar"
<imshobhit...> wrote:
>
> Folks thanks for all the suggestions, but here is where my problem
lies, i
> checked in the retail market in India and the 55-200 VR lens is
costing me
> INR 14000, whereas the 70-300 VR costs something like INR 30,000.
>
> Though I would definitely like to have the extra focal lengh, does
it really
> make that much difference to pay double the money. unfortunately I
dont have
>; a reliable second hand market in india to procure it from.
>
> Another option I have is to go for 70-300mm without the autofocus
or VR on
> my D40x, I have never tried manually focussing in a spontaneous
situation,
> so not sure how effective I will be in just using the metering while
> focusing manually. This lens will cost me INR 10,000.
>
> Also is it advisable to use a teleconveter with the above lenses?
>
> Thanks
>
> Shobhit
>
> On 10/10/07, Chris Stanford <stanford4110...> wrote:
> >
>; > Prashanth (I keep wanting to type 'Prashnath' for some
inexplicable
>; > reason!), thank you for a very helpful post.
> >
>; > Note that the 80-400 on a D70 becomes quite something else! This
lens,
> > of which there are two versions (of VR design) is becoming
somewhat
> > dated, but is, as you point out, an excellent glass for wildlife
> > particularly under better lit conditions.
> >
>; > -Chris
> >
>; > --- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com <NikonLenses%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Prashanth Aditya Susarla"
> > <prashanth.susarla> wrote:
> > >
>; > > Shobhit, Ken Rockwell's reviews are meant to be
> > > taken with a pinch of salt. As a real-world user
>; > > of the 70-300 VR on a D70, I have absolutely no
> > > problem with recommending this lens to you for
> > > your wildlife shooting. First of all, it gives
> > > a better tele range than the 55-200 or the 18-200
> > > and I also believe is the better optical performer
> > > than either. It helps that it is very sturdy and
> > > can take a fair bit of pounding on long hikes in
> > > the wilderness.
> > >
>; > > If you wish to have a lens with longer focal length
> > > you are looking at very high-end lenses (the 400,
>; > > 500, 600 primes and the 200-400 VR, for instance)
> > > that cost a *lot* of money, or the 80-400 VR which
> > > is heavier than the 70-300 but is probably better
> > > than the 70-300 for wildlife shooting.
> > >
>; > > Many believe (or wish) that the 80-400 is due for a
> > > refresh sometime soon (it uses old generation VR and
> > > doesn't have an SWM for auto-focus). I don't know
>; > > if waiting (indefinitely?) for this lens is an option
> > > for you or not.
>; > >
>; > > Regards,
> > > Prashanth
> >
>; >
> >
>;
.
