Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Doubler suggestions?

Discussion

4 replies
Posted by Brian Monk on October 31, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Hi y'all!

I need a doubler for my 300mm lens. What is recommended? I assume all doublers are not created equal. What companies/products/names should I look to first?

Thanks!
Posted by Rod Barbee on October 31, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Your best bet will always be in getting the teleconverter designed for your lens by the manufacturer
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 31, 2006 at 11:48 PM
Depends on what lens you are talking about. If it's something like the Canon 300mm f4 IS (the IS will be crucial for you, BTW,) then of course get the Canon model. If you have a 70-300mm zoom, forget about it. Any teleconverter is going to be useless. Myself, based on my own experience, unless your lens is a 300mm f2.8, forget about a 2x converter anyway. You lose autofocus unless the lens is f2.8, and the odds are you won't be able to focus with a 2X on in the woods anyway. I wouldn't have any qualms about using a 1.4x with a quality lens such as the Canon 300mm f4 IS. I consider an IS lens to be FAR more important for this project than a teleconverter. Again, unless your lens is a 300mm f2.8, a 2x is likely going to hurt you far more than help.

If you are talking about a 70-300mm type zoom lens, I think you're going to find that the Canon 100-400mm IS will be a FAR, FAR better choice for what you want.


Kent in SD
Posted by Alex Lofquist on November 1, 2006 at 3:40 PM
If you do not already have a 1.4X TC, I would suggest getting it first. Its effect on image sharpness is much less than a 2X TC. Additionally, its image, while dimmer than the lens alone, is twice as bright as one with the 2X.
Posted by John W. Wall on November 2, 2006 at 1:48 PM
I have a Nikon 300/4 AF-S and 1.7X that does fine. The 1.7X is much smaller than the 2X. Sometimes the AF will not work well in low light, though.