question about teleconverter and lens compatibility

[rsg127]

<div>I have a Nikon D200 and a Sigma 70 mm - 2.8 macro lens. I was interested in getting a teleconverter to use with the lens but I couldn't figure out what would be compatible. I know some of you have used the combination with great results. </div>

[Landscaper]

As a general rule, teleconverters are designed to work with lenses longer than 135mm. A good quality TC will likely run you more than a hundred dollars, so why not ut that money toward a telephoto of the length you really want?<br><div></div>

[peirceman]

<div>I use the Kenko Pro 1.4X TC. As long as you are careful and make sure that the rear element of the lens and the front element of the TC do not contact, you should be fine.</div><div> </div><div>However, you should consider Landscaper's advice. The Kenko ran me close to $200 from B&amp;H. The Sigma 105 MM Macro is only $399. The TC, however, will work on more lenses and may give you more flexibility.</div>

[JMS]

<div>This looks like a question for Chris.</div>

[rbsinto]

<div>A nature shooting photobud has used &quot;incompatible&quot; teleconverters and lenses together by seperating them with an extension tube to keep the glass elements apart.</div>

[peirceman]

<div>That's a great suggestion. But then, the cost would get even closer to the longer macro lens with both a TC and extension tube.</div>

[ronk]

<div>Manufacturer's web sites will usually have a tc and extension tube compatibility chart for their lenses.</div>

[coppertop]

<DIV>The Kenko TC should work, as would the Tamron 1.4x TC (the black, inexpensive one - not the SP version) and I would suspect the Sigma 1.4x TC would work as well..&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I would think that most of the 2x TCs wouldn't simply because the TC element protrudes too far into the lens.&nbsp; As someone suggested, you might be able to use an extension tube to accomodate the 2x TCs but I wonder what that would do to image quality?</DIV>

[dinged]

Get Nikon's new wunderkind lens. The 55-200 VR. At 250 bucks, it's not much more costly than a TC. When Pop said &quot;...steal this lens&quot; in its review, they weren't kidding. It's deadly sharp. VR does wonders. No distortion to speak of. Using this lens in deep deep shade on a heavily overcast day made me a believer in this lens. Buy this lens before Nikon wakes up and increases the price.<br><br>The older 55-200 wasn't a very hot performer, but Nikon reworked the optics and added VR in the new model.<br><br>I'm afraid to look at pix from this lens and my 70-200 f2.8 side by side. I will probably have to fall on my sword when I realize its better than the $800 f2.8 lens.<span>:cool:</span><br><div></div>

[JeffA]

<DIV>Sigma does not list this lens as teleconverter-friendly.&nbsp; To be absolutely sure go to <A href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com" target=_blank>www.sigmaphoto.com</A> and look up their customer service department.&nbsp; Give them a call, or fire off an e-mail to technical support over there.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Jeff</DIV>