Thanks Moose -- I am shooting a 400mm f2.8 nikkor AF-I on a D4S. When the light is good I have no hesitation about using the 2.0 TC III. I appreciate your very practical advice about TCs and the depth of field thing is new information to me. Thanks again.
mooi formule het licht neemt af met de kwadraat van de afstand, dus daarom het verlies van licht. zoom lenzen die een hoog diafragma getal hebben moet je meestal met statief gebruiken. wat de scherpte diepte betreft hangt inderdaad samen met uw ingestelde diafragma op de lens. En zo kom je tot een opname met een onscherpe achtergrond. dank u voor de eerlijke uitleg over converters.
thnakyou moose.......very clear and with a great sense of humour........I feel you have cut through all the misunderstanding and confusion about this useful peace of kit.
Glass doesn't really suck up light. It's not attenuation due to additional glass that diminishes the amount of light, it's the fact that the exit pupil diameter of the optical system becomes smaller due to the increase of the focal length. Just my 5c :) Nice video nevertheless!
Comment on an old video, but hey, I've been coming to you for advice since the Magic Lantern guide days! Maybe this will revive the vid... Lol, the physics isn't that the light is lost in the elements. Yeah, a little, but more like one percent with modern coatings, but it's more about distance and inverse square law. The objective lens is gathering the same amount of light, but it acts like it's farther away, so the sensor gets a smaller section of the cone of light from the objective. It's logarithmic, so it's not as simple as saying, it's like the lens is twice as long, so you are getting half the light-- it's a quarter of the light.
I am going on an Alaska cruise this August (2018). My longest lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. To increase my reach on a whale-watching excursion, I'm vacillating between the 1.7 and 2x teleconverters. Body is the D610. I've never shot whales before, but from what I hear, 400mm is the minimum focal length I'll need, but bumping my minimum aperture to f/5.6 when shooting from a boat that's bobbing on the ocean seems like an exercise in frustration. Your thoughts?
thanks for the great informative review! I have an older manual Nikon 300 mm 4.5 ED IF that I use a TC-14B with on my fuji xt2. I love the results. do you have experience with the TC 300 for 2x? I've been considering getting one but I'm concerned because it will push the f-stop to f8 and that would decrease the usefulness and maybe the sharpness on the smaller sensor. I guess I could splurge anyway they aren't that expensive. your thoughts?
Hey Moose, if at an effective f/8 in light reduction you get an effective f/5.6 DOF you get a 1/3 DOF increase (from f/4 ) or 2/3 reduction from f/8 - with the TC20, but what is the equivalent DOF, then, with a TC17 and TC14 ?
Mr. Peterson...I have a Canon 5Ti with kits lens i.e 18-55/75-300/and i have a Sigma 120-400 zoom lens. I am looking at perhaps buying a teleconverter. My issue is the confusion of using a Canon one or the Sigma one. I hear the Sigma should be used only with the Sigma lens and same for the Canon to use only with the Canon lens. but if I use the Sigma with Canon lens, will it work as designed and the ame if i purchase the Canon converter, will it work just as well with that Sigma lens. I know it will work with the Canon lens. I am in Taipei, Taiwan so I am not in the states to get good advice due to language barriers. Any advise will help. J Mundy
Is that Canon 700D?It should not be problem using lens from one and converter from another manufacturer.But both lenses are slow for converter.I mean,their apertures are too small for use with converter.Some AF converters dont work on small apertures,and beside that scene in viewfinder will be dimmer.
My question is about the squeeze effect of long lenses. Obviously, a longer lens squeezes distance, so that things appear to be closer to each other. Wider lenses expand distance, so things appear to be further from each other. If I was going to get a teleconverter, I would want it to act as it if it really was a longer length, and squeeze the distance in the longest range, rather than just enlarge it the way digital zoom does. Does the teleconverter also extend the squeeze effect of longer lenses?
Lenses don't actually do most of that, that's mostly perspective distortion and based only on distance to the subject. So the answer is that, if you shoot things that are further away when using the teleconverter than you would without, then yes you will get more of the squeeze effect. But if they are the same distance, then it is like cropping in that it does not change the perspective distortion. Unless I misinterpreted what you meant and you were actually talking about the slight pincushion distortion long telephotos tend to have, whether that is made worse or not is dependent on the optical design of the individual teleconverter model, but it sounds very much to me like you're talking about perspective distortion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
zvxcvxcz We're talking about the same thing in different words. A long lens does squeeze the depth of field, so that someone walking towards the camera appears to be moving slower than if it were a wide lens.
How is "perspective distortion" different than what I'm saying? Of course it's a distortion. I didn't say that long lenses actually physically change the distance of a street. It's an illusion. But yes, long lenses give the appearance of less distance, while wide lenses do the opposite. Cropping does not change the appearance of distance. It just crops the image.
angelthman I think we're on the same page? What I'm saying is that if you get use the TC, but stand in the same place, it will be like a crop. If you use the TC and are standing further away because of it, then it will give more of that effect.
hey nice video, i m using Nikon d5100 with 55-300mm AF lens, i just bought Kenko MC4DGX teleconverter, which is 4 element lens, do you have any idea of any difference between 4 elements and 7 elements kenko teleconverters??
Hi Moose, Do we see notable difference between TC 1.4x II vs TC 1.4x III. I am planning to use it with Nikon 500mm f/5 G VR lens. I already have 1.4x TCII and thinking about TC 1.4x III.
Let's say I use a f5.6 lense with a d7100. Witch teleconverter should I use to retain my auto focus? Or will I lose it anyway? Thanks you for your time.
Haha. You shouldn't use any of them. The D7100 has a 1.3 crop feature option built in. By doing this, you gain increased FPS (from 6-7), increased AF coverage (almost covering the entire frame in 1.3x), additional buffer depth shooting RAW (due to decreased file size) and less cropping/processing time in post. You also do not lose sharpness of the photo this way.
I have done that but it still will not balance out. Nikon should have moved the lens ring/foot forward on the lens like they did on the 600. A bad design in my opinion. Thank you for the reply.
I have been using the Kenko 1.4 convertor for over 16 months now . It's great, i have won a few local club comps with it . It really depends on what sort of lens and camera it's put on to . I use a canon 5d3 and all L Glass lenses. Really to pay for a Canon convertor you must have rocks in your head. I have tried the 1.4 yeah !! but it is still up the person holding the camera.
But the 1.7 and 2.0 on the 600mm f4 has focusing limitations. I went 400mm 2.8 with 2.0 TC LOSING TWO STOPS TO f5.6 with no limitations. Auto focus stays fast and just great. Oh, and have a focal length of 800mm @ f5.6
Hello Moose. I found your serious video very entertaining, and even funny, but very good and educational. I´ve heard stories and read opinions that TCs are not good and not sharp to be worthy for usage, but you put screws in my head, so I went shopping today. Brought home two TCs. One Sony VCL-HGD1758 1,7x, heavy beast mounted on front of the lens, and one Kenko 1,4x HD. The kenko is AWESOME and sharp, contrasty, nice! But they let me pay the price. Thank you for that you made me look at it. The Sony is not good, and propably doesn´t like my lens either. I got comparable, if not better results without it, using upsizing methods. But it was cheap at least. So I´ll sell that one, and I´ll be happy with Kenko. I´m almost where I wanted to be with the reach. So maybe next gen higher res/full color sensor in next camera body will help. Anyway, thank you again.
I have the Kenko. I checked the performance on my setup. The image quality I get is worse than I would get by cropping without it. Am disappointed, a waste of money for.
Hi Moose, I have a nagging question that I know that you'd have an answer for.... You shoot with a 600 f/4 with an FX camera. Instead of using a 1.4 converter and losing a stop of light, wouldn't it be better to set your camera in DX mode which will then get you the 1.5x magnification with no loss of light? Am I missing something here? Thank you for all of your educational videos.... They are a big help. Don
Setting it to DX mode is exactly equivalent to cropping it in post, so shooting with the 1.4x you can still crop later or use DX mode for a total 2.1x, but since we effectively cropped by using DX, or actually cropped, the image has much less megapixels. Using only the 1.4x you still have the full number of megapixels.
Fortunately there are many options for most needs in photography. Ya, you could do what you mention but it won't be quite the same. Personally, I prefer the smaller DoF and that's what it's really all about. Yes, we could get into a long technical discussion but what really matters is how you want to tell the story. That will always be the best answer.
Thanks for the informative video. I have a question, these teleconverters lenses that go on the front of your existing telephoto lens, are they any good?
I have read that they can stress the af motors, so it is suggested to use manual focus. I just purchased one like the kind in your video, a used Promaster AF 2x teleconverter for Canon EF lenses. Going to try it on my SL2 and the EF-S 55-250mm STM lens. We'll see how it works.
your call, your gear. I can only tell you what I do all the time. But I'm not sure how electrical current traveling through them can stress a motor. NikontTeleconveters have no moving parts .
What I meant was that the teleconverters that screw onto the filter threads add weight to the lens, and the part that moves in and out. It's this extra weight that could possibly stress the motors. That's why I chose to go with the teleconverter that goes on the camera body instead of the end of the lens.
Ok,,, Moose has taken a lot of flack for this, and he's a working pro. Do teleconverters affect DOF,,, well if you shoot ball games you might never notice what he is seeing when he shoots wildlife. I have a D7200, and couple it with a X2 TC and a 300mm f2.8,,,, and i've noticed what he has, that TCs do affect your DOF quite a bit. I think his vid didn't put this across well, but having been a fan for some while, i am not gonna disrespect his knowledge and fieldcraft. This is something that's hard to prove,, except in practice in the field. Simple maths its not!
+Zonda Grattus ah ... you don't have to take my word for it, its right in the instruction book for the teleconverter the loss of DoF. And if you do math, you can see for yourself how it works. But you raise and important point, though it's true, doesn't mean you'll see it effect. All depends on what you're shooting!
"i've noticed what he has, that TCs do affect your DOF quite a bit." They do not. It's just a fact of optics that they do not *assuming the same subject distance*. The reason you think TCs reduce your background blur (ie increase the DoF) is because when you have a teleconverter on then chances are you're shooting something further away. If you shoot a subject at a given distance with a 300mm lens at f/2.8 and then the same subject at the same distance with a 600mm f/5.6 *they images will have exactly the same DoF*.
"Depth of field, it's a formula: focal length related to the hole in the lens is how you determine depth of field" This is wrong. That's how you determine aperture, which is not the same as depth of field. Depth of field is determined by aperture and reproduction ratio. Teleconverters reduce the f stop, but also increase the reproduction ratio, so the depth of field stays the same (assuming the same subject distance).
You can disagree all you like, you're incorrect. You gave the formula for F stop, depth of field also depends on reproduction ratio (which is essentially subject distance assuming a constant focal length).
Ok, you think you're right, go shoot your way. Obviously, you've not bothered to go read what Nikon has written. Go shot, enjoy photography and I will keep doing what I do which, after 40yrs, permits me to keep doing what I do.
I just looked at the nikon manual for the tc-14eiii and it supports what I said. I know you work for nikon so maybe you should talk to one of their engineers before you make misinformed statements about optical physics.
I think there are times that you really deliver concise information. And maybe I just misread you, but there are times that I just think man is he conceited in his delivery. I wish there was less smart azz in play in your presentation to people that watch.Otherwise good deal!!
Thanks Moose -- I am shooting a 400mm f2.8 nikkor AF-I on a D4S. When the light is good I have no hesitation about using the 2.0 TC III. I appreciate your very practical advice about TCs and the depth of field thing is new information to me. Thanks again.
thanks for watching!
One of the few videos I've seen where is talks about using TC's to help adjust or control the DOF. Nicely done!
Recorded in 2010 and still pertinent to my query in 2018.
Good video. Thank you. Short and to the point
Great video and a very clear explanation! Thank you for posting.
I felt in a class on this video! nice job!
For a moment, I had thought you had the 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0x mounted onto each other in series.
mooi formule het licht neemt af met de kwadraat van de afstand, dus daarom het verlies van licht. zoom lenzen die een hoog diafragma getal hebben moet je meestal met statief gebruiken. wat de scherpte diepte betreft hangt inderdaad samen met uw ingestelde diafragma op de lens. En zo kom je tot een opname met een onscherpe achtergrond. dank u voor de eerlijke uitleg over converters.
thnakyou moose.......very clear and with a great sense of humour........I feel you have cut through all the misunderstanding and confusion about this useful peace of kit.
The whole time I was worried that the TC's are going to drop lol
The moose, the moose, the moose is on fire.
Thanks Moose for the clear and concise lesson, made perfect sense.
Glass doesn't really suck up light. It's not attenuation due to additional glass that diminishes the amount of light, it's the fact that the exit pupil diameter of the optical system becomes smaller due to the increase of the focal length. Just my 5c :) Nice video nevertheless!
Moose is just dumbing things down a hair is all.
You're explaining HOW the glass is sucking up the light, not that it doesn't lol.
The new Nikon Z mount teleconverters are testing out very sharp. Even the 2x converter looks fantastic sharp.
the Z1.4x is outstanding! Not tried the Z2x so good to know
@@MoosePeterson tested here th-cam.com/video/2Moy-5OqaZg/w-d-xo.html
Very informative. Just purchased the 300mm f4D and TC 1.4ii. I shoot mostly wildlife here in Florida.
"hopefully that brings a little light into the tele-converter situation" Bauuugghhh !!!!!!
Comment on an old video, but hey, I've been coming to you for advice since the Magic Lantern guide days! Maybe this will revive the vid... Lol, the physics isn't that the light is lost in the elements. Yeah, a little, but more like one percent with modern coatings, but it's more about distance and inverse square law. The objective lens is gathering the same amount of light, but it acts like it's farther away, so the sensor gets a smaller section of the cone of light from the objective. It's logarithmic, so it's not as simple as saying, it's like the lens is twice as long, so you are getting half the light-- it's a quarter of the light.
I am going on an Alaska cruise this August (2018). My longest lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. To increase my reach on a whale-watching excursion, I'm vacillating between the 1.7 and 2x teleconverters. Body is the D610. I've never shot whales before, but from what I hear, 400mm is the minimum focal length I'll need, but bumping my minimum aperture to f/5.6 when shooting from a boat that's bobbing on the ocean seems like an exercise in frustration. Your thoughts?
rent a longer lens!
thanks for the great informative review! I have an older manual Nikon 300 mm 4.5 ED IF that I use a TC-14B with on my fuji xt2. I love the results. do you have experience with the TC 300 for 2x? I've been considering getting one but I'm concerned because it will push the f-stop to f8 and that would decrease the usefulness and maybe the sharpness on the smaller sensor. I guess I could splurge anyway they aren't that expensive. your thoughts?
The TC-20eIII is marvelous but sorry have no experience using it as you are using.
Great stuff Moose, keep it going.
Excellent explanation of converters
Hey Moose, if at an effective f/8 in light reduction you get an effective f/5.6 DOF you get a 1/3 DOF increase (from f/4 ) or 2/3 reduction from f/8 - with the TC20, but what is the equivalent DOF, then, with a TC17 and TC14 ?
Mr. Peterson...I have a Canon 5Ti with kits lens i.e 18-55/75-300/and i have a Sigma 120-400 zoom lens. I am looking at perhaps buying a teleconverter. My issue is the confusion of using a Canon one or the Sigma one. I hear the Sigma should be used only with the Sigma lens and same for the Canon to use only with the Canon lens. but if I use the Sigma with Canon lens, will it work as designed and the ame if i purchase the Canon converter, will it work just as well with that Sigma lens. I know it will work with the Canon lens. I am in Taipei, Taiwan so I am not in the states to get good advice due to language barriers. Any advise will help.
J Mundy
Sorry ... being a Nikon guy ... have no clue what will or won't work for your system.
Is that Canon 700D?It should not be problem using lens from one and converter from another manufacturer.But both lenses are slow for converter.I mean,their apertures are too small for use with converter.Some AF converters dont work on small apertures,and beside that scene in viewfinder will be dimmer.
My question is about the squeeze effect of long lenses. Obviously, a longer lens squeezes distance, so that things appear to be closer to each other. Wider lenses expand distance, so things appear to be further from each other. If I was going to get a teleconverter, I would want it to act as it if it really was a longer length, and squeeze the distance in the longest range, rather than just enlarge it the way digital zoom does. Does the teleconverter also extend the squeeze effect of longer lenses?
Lenses don't actually do most of that, that's mostly perspective distortion and based only on distance to the subject. So the answer is that, if you shoot things that are further away when using the teleconverter than you would without, then yes you will get more of the squeeze effect. But if they are the same distance, then it is like cropping in that it does not change the perspective distortion.
Unless I misinterpreted what you meant and you were actually talking about the slight pincushion distortion long telephotos tend to have, whether that is made worse or not is dependent on the optical design of the individual teleconverter model, but it sounds very much to me like you're talking about perspective distortion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
zvxcvxcz
We're talking about the same thing in different words. A long lens does squeeze the depth of field, so that someone walking towards the camera appears to be moving slower than if it were a wide lens.
How is "perspective distortion" different than what I'm saying? Of course it's a distortion. I didn't say that long lenses actually physically change the distance of a street. It's an illusion. But yes, long lenses give the appearance of less distance, while wide lenses do the opposite. Cropping does not change the appearance of distance. It just crops the image.
angelthman I think we're on the same page? What I'm saying is that if you get use the TC, but stand in the same place, it will be like a crop. If you use the TC and are standing further away because of it, then it will give more of that effect.
i was waiting for some example fotos
The take away from this video is to not ask Moose dumb questions.
hey nice video, i m using Nikon d5100 with 55-300mm AF lens, i just
bought Kenko MC4DGX teleconverter, which is 4 element lens, do you have
any idea of any difference between 4 elements and 7 elements kenko
teleconverters??
sorry I don't, I only have shot with Nikon converters
Hi Moose, Do we see notable difference between TC 1.4x II vs TC 1.4x III. I am planning to use it with Nikon 500mm f/5 G VR lens. I already have 1.4x TCII and thinking about TC 1.4x III.
notable .... ya because vignetting is gone. Sharpness, a tad better but not notable
Thank you
Have you tried the New Tamron G2 2x teleconverter on the Tamron 150-600 G2 Lens
What are your reviews if you have any. Thanks for your response
Sorry ... I only shoot Nikon gear and not in the testing business, so never even seen the gear you've mentioned.
Thanks Mr. Moose Peterson.
Moose, on a 2x TC is there any way to get those 2 stops back like with a speedbooster?
Let's say I use a f5.6 lense with a d7100. Witch teleconverter should I use to retain my auto focus? Or will I lose it anyway? Thanks you for your time.
all depends on the lens, not the f/stop. If you don't know, go rent and test is the best way to finding the answer
Moose Peterson Thanks.
Haha. You shouldn't use any of them. The D7100 has a 1.3 crop feature option built in. By doing this, you gain increased FPS (from 6-7), increased AF coverage (almost covering the entire frame in 1.3x), additional buffer depth shooting RAW (due to decreased file size) and less cropping/processing time in post. You also do not lose sharpness of the photo this way.
I have done that but it still will not balance out. Nikon should have moved the lens ring/foot forward on the lens like they did on the 600. A bad design in my opinion. Thank you for the reply.
I have been using the Kenko 1.4 convertor for over 16 months now .
It's great, i have won a few local club comps with it .
It really depends on what sort of lens and camera it's put on to .
I use a canon 5d3 and all L Glass lenses.
Really to pay for a Canon convertor you must have rocks in your head.
I have tried the 1.4 yeah !! but it is still up the person holding the camera.
But the 1.7 and 2.0 on the 600mm f4 has focusing limitations. I went 400mm 2.8 with 2.0 TC LOSING TWO STOPS TO f5.6 with no limitations. Auto focus stays fast and just great. Oh, and have a focal length of 800mm @ f5.6
that is body dependent, for example on the D6 or Z 9, this is not the case. They work perfectly with the combos you mention.
Hello Moose. I found your serious video very entertaining, and even funny, but very good and educational. I´ve heard stories and read opinions that TCs are not good and not sharp to be worthy for usage, but you put screws in my head, so I went shopping today. Brought home two TCs. One Sony VCL-HGD1758 1,7x, heavy beast mounted on front of the lens, and one Kenko 1,4x HD. The kenko is AWESOME and sharp, contrasty, nice! But they let me pay the price. Thank you for that you made me look at it. The Sony is not good, and propably doesn´t like my lens either. I got comparable, if not better results without it, using upsizing methods. But it was cheap at least. So I´ll sell that one, and I´ll be happy with Kenko. I´m almost where I wanted to be with the reach. So maybe next gen higher res/full color sensor in next camera body will help. Anyway, thank you again.
+CrashPCcz have fun!
I have the Kenko. I checked the performance on my setup. The image quality I get is worse than I would get by cropping without it. Am disappointed, a waste of money for.
Feel bad for you. My piece gave me significantly better results compared to cropping
Great Video, thanks
Hi Moose, I have a nagging question that I know that you'd have an answer for.... You shoot with a 600 f/4 with an FX camera. Instead of using a 1.4 converter and losing a stop of light, wouldn't it be better to set your camera in DX mode which will then get you the 1.5x magnification with no loss of light? Am I missing something here? Thank you for all of your educational videos.... They are a big help. Don
Setting it to DX mode is exactly equivalent to cropping it in post, so shooting with the 1.4x you can still crop later or use DX mode for a total 2.1x, but since we effectively cropped by using DX, or actually cropped, the image has much less megapixels. Using only the 1.4x you still have the full number of megapixels.
Fortunately there are many options for most needs in photography. Ya, you could do what you mention but it won't be quite the same. Personally, I prefer the smaller DoF and that's what it's really all about. Yes, we could get into a long technical discussion but what really matters is how you want to tell the story. That will always be the best answer.
Thanks, Moose... Well Done !!!
thank you! :-)
Thanks for the informative video. I have a question, these teleconverters lenses that go on the front of your existing telephoto lens, are they any good?
sorry, I don't know of any teleconveter that attaches to a lens via the filter ring so can't say.
I have read that they can stress the af motors, so it is suggested to use manual focus. I just purchased one like the kind in your video, a used Promaster AF 2x teleconverter for Canon EF lenses. Going to try it on my SL2 and the EF-S 55-250mm STM lens. We'll see how it works.
your call, your gear. I can only tell you what I do all the time. But I'm not sure how electrical current traveling through them can stress a motor. NikontTeleconveters have no moving parts .
What I meant was that the teleconverters that screw onto the filter threads add weight to the lens, and the part that moves in and out. It's this extra weight that could possibly stress the motors. That's why I chose to go with the teleconverter that goes on the camera body instead of the end of the lens.
again, I know of no teleconverters that screw into the filters.
Ok,,, Moose has taken a lot of flack for this, and he's a working pro. Do teleconverters affect DOF,,, well if you shoot ball games you might never notice what he is seeing when he shoots wildlife. I have a D7200, and couple it with a X2 TC and a 300mm f2.8,,,, and i've noticed what he has, that TCs do affect your DOF quite a bit. I think his vid didn't put this across well, but having been a fan for some while, i am not gonna disrespect his knowledge and fieldcraft. This is something that's hard to prove,, except in practice in the field. Simple maths its not!
+Zonda Grattus ah ... you don't have to take my word for it, its right in the instruction book for the teleconverter the loss of DoF. And if you do math, you can see for yourself how it works. But you raise and important point, though it's true, doesn't mean you'll see it effect. All depends on what you're shooting!
Moose,
Is the loss of depth of field with a teleconverter why it is more difficult to get a sharp photo with a teleconverter than just the prime lens?
nope, it's the increased angle of view.
rttttttt
"i've noticed what he has, that TCs do affect your DOF quite a bit."
They do not. It's just a fact of optics that they do not *assuming the same subject distance*. The reason you think TCs reduce your background blur (ie increase the DoF) is because when you have a teleconverter on then chances are you're shooting something further away. If you shoot a subject at a given distance with a 300mm lens at f/2.8 and then the same subject at the same distance with a 600mm f/5.6 *they images will have exactly the same DoF*.
Well, if You have one of those supertelephoto monsters that you don't use, send it over to me :D
THANKYOU
what brand are they???
Nikon
Thank You
"Depth of field, it's a formula: focal length related to the hole in the lens is how you determine depth of field"
This is wrong. That's how you determine aperture, which is not the same as depth of field. Depth of field is determined by aperture and reproduction ratio. Teleconverters reduce the f stop, but also increase the reproduction ratio, so the depth of field stays the same (assuming the same subject distance).
nope .. totally disagree. But you don't have to believe me, read the Nikon instruction book or, just go out and shoot.
You can disagree all you like, you're incorrect. You gave the formula for F stop, depth of field also depends on reproduction ratio (which is essentially subject distance assuming a constant focal length).
And I'd be very surprised to see a nikon manual say otherwise since nikon manuals generally have correct information in them.
Ok, you think you're right, go shoot your way. Obviously, you've not bothered to go read what Nikon has written. Go shot, enjoy photography and I will keep doing what I do which, after 40yrs, permits me to keep doing what I do.
I just looked at the nikon manual for the tc-14eiii and it supports what I said. I know you work for nikon so maybe you should talk to one of their engineers before you make misinformed statements about optical physics.
Theyre designed for use on fast pro lenses , which have sharper better quality glass , not reccomended for none pro glass ! That simple
na
I think there are times that you really deliver concise information. And maybe I just misread you, but there are times that I just think man is he conceited in his delivery. I wish there was less smart azz in play in your presentation to people that watch.Otherwise good deal!!
You sound like John C. Reilly
hahaa he does
using on high quality glass yes they work well ..used on budget glass .. dont bother .
So I guess light sucks