brian_tilley1

Edward - the Nikon TC-xxE II converters will not fit the original poster's lens. These TCs mount only on the longer (70-200mm and up, currently), AF-S Nikkors. His lens is not AF-S.

 

Like others, I would recommend the Kenko Pro 300, or optically-identical Tamron SP converters. The 1.4x will give noticeably better quality than the 2x.

This combination works fine for me, on a D70 and on an F100.

Bernard,

 

The link that Jeroen provided DOES contain information about which hood a lens requires - you just have to click on the "accessories" tab.

Yes, VR will work fine on the D50.

Dan,

 

The 17-55mm DX is a BIT smaller than the 28-70mm, but not a huge amount, I agree. It is around 10mm shorter, a little slimmer, and 180 grams less (i.e. about 20% lighter). It also has a wider zoom range, remember, at 25.5-82.5mm equivalent.

The answer depends on which Nikkor lens you are asking about. Since you mention ED "version", you may mean the 70-300mm f/4-5.6, which come sin both G and ED versions. If so, there is no Nikon TC that will give you AF and metering with this lens.

 

You could try a Kenko Pro 300 TC; these are pretty well-regarded and fit most of the longer Nikkors.

Other than build quality and so forth, one clear difference between the two is that the Nikkor has a fixed maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout its zoom range, whereas the Tamron is f/2.8 at 17mm but f/4 at 35mm.

Joseph,

 

Not that I doubt your geometry and arithmetic, but the Nikkor lens catalogue quotes an angle of view for the current AF 16mm f/2.8D fisheye of 107 degrees on a DX body. Not 118 or 120 degrees.

Nikon's stated limit for full AF performance is f/5.6 - slower combinations are not guaranteed.

 

However in practice, many people find that AF is possible in bright conditions, with a contrasty subject, at smaller apertures.

 

I don't have the TC-17E II, but I have used the TC-20E II on a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4, and found that AF works pretty well much of the time. I'd expect the 17 to AF OK most of the time.

I had the Sigma before changing it for the Nikkor. The Sigma is a very good performer, the Nikkor maybe a little sharper and higher contrast, but it's hard to tell as I never had the two side-by-side to test.

 

The VR facility (the main reason I upgraded) is very effective. Focus speed is pretty similar on the two lenses. The Nikkor feels a bit better built, though the Sigma is very solid. The zoom and focus rings are smoother on the Nikkor, and you get the "focus hold" button and better sealing around the mount. I preferred the hood on the Sigma; the Nikkor feels like it's going to fall off, even though it has a press-button catch.

And there was the Nikkormat range of cameras (1965-1979), of course...

Chuck,

 

As Robert pointed out above, the TC-14E II will only mount on Nikkor AF-S lenses. The 180mm is AF-D, not AF-S (it does not have the SWM motor), so it will not fit.

 

As others have said, the Kenko Pro 300 is probably your best bet.

Christophe,

 

I'm in the other camp. As a long-time transparency shooter who is just getting to grips with digital capture, I'd rather get the exposure, white balance and contrast right in-camera. As such, I've not yet felt the need to shoot RAW. The smaller file sizes and simpler workflow are by-products.

Maurik,

 

Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other ;-)

 

Obviously, aperture and shutter speed control the amount of light reaching the sensor - I thought that's what I said. Changing the ISO setting certainly does not affect the amount of light reaching the sensor. Your original post, where you said "Better not to add more photons (i.e. a lower ISO value)", suggested you thought the ISO setting DOES affect the light reaching the sensor, hence my first reply.

 

Hope this clarifies my remarks!

Maurik

 

I think you're misunderstanding how ISO settings work on a DSLR. Adding a lower ISO setting (if it were possible) has no effect on the number of photons hitting a photosite (as you say). Only aperture and shutter speed affect this. Lower ISO settings simply amplify the signal less.

Ilkka - A3 and A4 (as well as the rest of the "A" series of paper sizes) are 2:2.82857..., which is close to 2:3, but not the same.

Andy - if you want a super-wide that you can use on a film body as well as digital, look no further than the Sigma EX 12-24. It covers the full 35mm frame at all focal lengths, and distortion is very well-controlled. As you say, it's a "G" lens, which is a bit limiting on MF bodies. Also you can't use front filters, and it's a bit bulky. I think the Tamron 11-18mm is out imminently. Pricing should be similar to the Sigma and Tokina 12-24mm lenses, I expect.

 

Ellis - there is no Sigma 15-40mm lens. Did you mean the 20-40mm or 15-30mm? Either way, the latest Sigma EX wide zoom lenses are significantly improved over these older designs.

Alan, if you're sure you want to go down to 1/20th of a millimetre in these calculations, perhaps you should also be considering that film has more than one layer in the emulsion, so when the red elements of the image are in precise focus, the green parts are not, not quite, anyway...

38 that I can remember, over the past 33 years.

Kelvin, I agree that the Nikkor 105mm is a great lens. However, AF speed would not be one of the reasons to choose it over the Sigma 150mm EX Macro. The Sigma has HSM and is likely to be faster focusing than the Nikkor. The Sigma also has a tripod collar, which is useful in keeping the lens/camera balanced and simplifying portrait orientation shots.

What do I like about Nikon...?

 

Rugged build

Ergonomics and handling

Flash system

Backwards-compatibility

www.nikonians.org

Lens quality

Sensible product life-cycles

I'd go for the Minolta 7000 - the first practical AF SLR.

A cut-away or petal hood does not work on a lens where the front element rotates while focusing or zooming. This is the real reason why the 28-100 lens cannot have one.

Bill,

 

The Tamrac QR or OpTech Pro/Classic straps have quick-release buckles, so that you can use one strap on multiple cameras. I have the OpTech straps myself and am very happy. They have enough stretch to make heavy equipment seem lighter, but aren't so stretchy that the camera "bounces"

 

Brian

I've had the Sigma 500mm for a few months, using it for wildlife and sports. I'm very pleased with it so far. It's usefully smaller and cheaper than the Nikkor equivalent. I use it with a Wimberley Sidekick on an Arca-Swiss B1 head, and find it very controllable and stable.

 

You can't mount the TC-20EII to this lens (or to anything other than a Nikkor AF-S lens) without doing some surgery on the front mount of the converter. The previous poster was correct that the lens will mount and meter with the Sigma 1.4x EX converter, but you lose AF. However, I have used the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x successfully, including AF, on this lens. I have tried the Kenko 2x as well, though this DOES lose AF and results were rather soft.

 

Brian