>>Either with or without the TC it's nothing special... my copy of the 55-300 isn't too sharp when focused near infinity, to the point that I'd rather use my 70-200 and crop.<<

Yeah, the longer the zoom range, the crappier the lens. However you should have better IQ at anything 300mm or below just using the lens as is.

new jersey doesn't have wildlife to shoot? you are looking in the wrong places then! foxes, deer, wild turkey and other large birds, black bear, etc.

Spy Black said:
Unless you want to use it beyond 300mm, I don't see the point of using the converter at shorter lengths. You can see how it's really hurting at the long end, but of course if it would be the only way to get a pic then so be it. I wonder however how a cropped version with the straight lens at the long end would look compared to the TC shots at the long end. Of course if you want the optical effect than that's another story. :-)

Either with or without the TC it's nothing special... my copy of the 55-300 isn't too sharp when focused near infinity, to the point that I'd rather use my 70-200 and crop.

NSXType-R said:
An odd combination indeed, I didn't know that off party teleconverters might work.

I would be worried about damaging my equipment, I don't think the 55-300 was meant to be used for teleconverter work.

It doesn't display the metadata right in this case, factoring in the aperture and focal length change (it does that properly with my 70-200). However it seems the Kenko teleconverters are designed with the front element more deeply recessed in the converter, so you can use lenses that aren't intended for use with the Nikkor TCs.

I have no clue what I'd really use 420mm f/8 for either. New Jersey doesn't really have wildlife to shoot. Just wanted to see if it would work. :P And hey, it's a way to get to 630mm effective focal length for $400 or less, without having to use a cheapo mirror lens. And you still get VR! :D

An odd combination indeed, I didn't know that off party teleconverters might work.

I would be worried about damaging my equipment, I don't think the 55-300 was meant to be used for teleconverter work.

Still, seems to be handy in a pinch, but I wouldn't know what to do with 420mm of reach. :D

Unless you want to use it beyond 300mm, I don't see the point of using the converter at shorter lengths. You can see how it's really hurting at the long end, but of course if it would be the only way to get a pic then so be it. I wonder however how a cropped version with the straight lens at the long end would look compared to the TC shots at the long end. Of course if you want the optical effect than that's another story. :-)

Purely out of curiosity I tried this combination out the other day whilst out walking about. While it certainly isn't a great combination, in good lighting running at ISO 400 (and later in slightly worse lighting going up to ISO 800) it got the job done! In many cases the autofocus still worked fine when I had time to get proper placement. It hunted quite a bit when trying to focus on smaller targets like slender branches and sticks, but hey getting any autofocus at f/8 is good news to me.

I do have a 70-200mm lens and that with a 2x teleconverter would certainly be a better option, but I guess for those without that option or who don't want to carry that weight and don't mind working with one stop less light, this does work! A few samples:

In-camera JPEG, because I forgot it was set to JPEG

D7000 - 55-300mm w/ Kenko 1.4x TC @ 154mm - f/8 - ISO 400 - 1/1600sec

The rest processed a little in lightroom, just fill light and highlight recovery added and exposure decreased if anything

@77mm - f/8 - ISO 400 - 1/1600sec

@420mm - f/8 - ISO 400 - 1/25sec (handheld but braced, several shots taken)

Just a sliver of bark floating down the canal, and it was able to successfully autofocus here

@420mm - f/8 - ISO 640 - 1/125sec