[Banitess]

Hi all,

Need some expert advice.

I have a DA 50-200mm that I use with my K200D for shooting wildlife and sports and have been very happy with it. I'm now considering upgrading to the 300mm level and the available lenses are FAJ 75-300mm and DA 55-300mm.

But since these two lenses also covers the same range as the DA 50-200mm and I'm on a budget I'm also considering getting a teleconverter instead.

For anyone who had had experience using a teleconverter with the DA 50-200mm, can you please share the issues and challenges you encountered? What brands work better?

Thanks very much.

Ben

[steve1307]

Hi all,

Need some expert advice.

I have a DA 50-200mm that I use with my K200D for shooting wildlife and sports and have been very happy with it. I'm now considering upgrading to the 300mm level and the available lenses are FAJ 75-300mm and DA 55-300mm.

But since these two lenses also covers the same range as the DA 50-200mm and I'm on a budget I'm also considering getting a teleconverter instead.

For anyone who had had experience using a teleconverter with the DA 50-200mm, can you please share the issues and challenges you encountered? What brands work better?

Thanks very much.

Ben

Well I dont actually have a tele conveter ....
...but I would think that AF with the 50-200 and a teleconveter would be troublesome in anything less than bright conditions.
Also it limits you to f8 - f11 maximum at the longer end which may not give you an acceptable shutter speed.

The 55-300 is excellent by the way apparently much better IQ than the 55-200 and quite sharp all the way out to 300 (in comparison to its competitors). It is f5.8 max apeture at 300m.

55-300 costs around 350 US new ( or about 300 used in the marketplace here). What does a decent teleconverter cost?

In term of image quality it seems better to "center crop" from a wider shot than use a teleconverter to be zoomed in futher with the light loss experienced. (at least with lenses like the 50-200, 55-300, 75-300 etc). There are a few threads which discuss this question, and this seems to be the consensus.


If you are serious about sports action or wildlife then you probably would have to save up for a 70-200 f2.8, or a 300 prime. Both work with TC. Alternatively there is some older long Pentcax glass but the rarity keeps the price up unfortunately.

I am not so serious so only have the 55-300. I dont know about shooting wildlife but it works a treat at the zoo where the "wildlife" is not so wild.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It doesn't make sense to use a TC with a slow lens like 50-200. People usually buy a fast 2.8 lens that goes to 200mm and use that with a 2xTC to get a 5.6 400mm, and that makes sense, because it's going to cost you a lot to get a 400mm faster than 5.6. But with your zoom that is 5.6 at 200, you'd get an f/11 400mm and that is way too slow for what is a relatively short telephoto.

So just go for the 55-300, or get the nice DA* 200mm/2.8 and get a TC for that one.

You might want to consider a mirror lens if you want to get something beyond 400mm at an affordable price. There's a 500mm f/6.3 made by Samyang for a variety of brands like Vivitar, Bower, Rokinon, and the output I've seen from it is pretty good. Check the mirror lens club.

[omega leader]

I would avoid a teleconverter like the plague. The 50-200 is just too slow to benefit. And price wise you would be better off buying the 55-300mm and selling the 50-200mm to help finance it.

I would even get the 55-300mm L if the normal one is too expensive.

[Marc Sabatella]

A TC "works" on the 50-200, but makes the lens a stop slower, makes AF slower and less reliable, and grealty degrades image quality. In every possible way. you are better off simply shooting without the TC then cropping. Or getting a longer lens. TC's for consumer zooms might have made sense on film when cropping wasn't a trivially simple way to get much better results, but it no longer makes sense on digital. Only higher end lenses will actually produce better results with a TC than by cropping - and you still have to pay the penalty in loss of light, which might make it a wash.

[Banitess]

Thanks all for your comments. This is exactly the info I was looking for.