where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Just curious. Anyone with a TC1.4 and an FX camera and some DX glass?
I am thinking that this should work. If you take a dx lens like the 17-55 F2.8 add a TC1.4 on it then mount the pair on a FX camera you would get a 24-77 F4 lens right? Without vignette?
Theoretically, it should work (I can try this out when I get home), although I'm curious why anyone would want to, considering that the FX wide and normal lenses tend to be much better quality than their equivalent DX versions (compare 14-24 or 16-35 to 11-16 or 10-24 for instance), and that is before adding in your multi-element teleconverter.
I'll post when I get a chance to try this.
There have been so many people wanting to go to fx from DX just thought that this would be a quick and rather painless upgrade solution to FX for many.
Sorry hearty, this will not work. The rear element of DX zoom lenses are either too small for the TC14E to fit, or when in the widest position would smack the front element of the TC14E. All that you would end up with is smashed or scratched front element on the TC and rear element of your lens. The shortest lens that can safely mount the TC14E is the 70-300mm VR @100mm+.
heartyfisher said:
There have been so many people wanting to go to fx from DX just thought that this would be a quick and rather painless upgrade solution to FX for many.
there is only one way to go fx if you have dx and that is to buy an fx camera. Going dx if you have fx however is easy enough.
PB PM said:
Sorry hearty, this will not work. The rear element of DX zoom lenses are either too small for the TC14E to fit, or when in the widest position would smack the front element of the TC14E. All that you would end up with is smashed or scratched front element on the TC and rear element of your lens. The shortest lens that can safely mount the TC14E is the 70-300mm VR @100mm+.
:-) I am not giving up yet. I actually have a Kenko 1.4 TC that can mount all my DX lenses.
@Gareth : ?? Huh? I was thinking of a person who had mostly good DX lenses and cameras but wanted to get an FX camera. however was holding back because the cost of replacing all his great DX lenses in one big hit. What I am saying is if he had a TC1.4 he could use all his DX lenses on his new FX camera with only a minor loss of 1 stop of light. Also because of the more forgiving nature of FX towards IQ then the loss of IQ due to the TC may well be acceptable. and it would buy him time to slowly build up his FX lense collection.
jerl said:
Theoretically, it should work (I can try this out when I get home), although I'm curious why anyone would want to, considering that the FX wide and normal lenses tend to be much better quality than their equivalent DX versions (compare 14-24 or 16-35 to 11-16 or 10-24 for instance), and that is before adding in your multi-element teleconverter.I'll post when I get a chance to try this.
Be careful! Check out PB PM's warning !!
Is a larger image circle part and parcel of how a TC works? I didn't think it was.
heartyfisher said:
:-) I am not giving up yet. I actually have a Kenko 1.4 TC that can mount all my DX lenses.@Gareth : ?? Huh? I was thinking of a person who had mostly good DX lenses and cameras but wanted to get an FX camera. however was holding back because the cost of replacing all his great DX lenses in one big hit. What I am saying is if he had a TC1.4 he could use all his DX lenses on his new FX camera with only a minor loss of 1 stop of light. Also because of the more forgiving nature of FX towards IQ then the loss of IQ due to the TC may well be acceptable. and it would buy him time to slowly build up his FX lense collection.
oh so you were talking about saving money on lenses. i didn't understand and I feel i'm not the only one.
sell all you dx glass and buy one lens that is really good. you owe it to yourself if you have fx.
heartyfisher said:
I enjoy thinking outside the square.. ;-) lol couldn't help myself. soz. but yes I think a TC magnifies the image so the image circle also increases.
That is faulty reasoning.
Just because the image is magnified does not mean the image circle must be larger. I don't know how specifically how Nikon TCs work, I have never bothered to look, but there are ways to achieve their performance without a significant increase in image circle size.
To think outside the box one must know the box.
If they increase the image circle significantly one should be able to modify a cheap on into a shift adapter, which would be fun.
i may have fx, but i shoot dx too.
i'm serious about what i said, i really think you are better off with one fantastic fx lens than trying to make you dx work on fx.
fx glass does a great job on dx though.
@Gareth : Nice shot! (maybe needs some fill flash?) I can see your point of view. But, say you have 2 great DX cameras and happy with a hand full of great DX glass including a 11-16F2.8 and a 17-55 F2.8. 50-150 VR/OS F2.8 and maybe 1 FX say the 300 mm F2.8. and you always wanted to try that quaint old format called the FX aka FF ;-) and you so happen to find a nice D700 in the second hand shop. I would say stick the dx Glass on a TC and have a go ... No?
It is an interesting idea, and I did try it myself, since I just got a D700 a few days ago, but still have some DX glass. Of course the Nikon TC14E only accepts AF-S lenses, so my Tokina 12-24mm wont even mount. I find the Tokina 12-24mm works fine on my D700 from 24-18mm and is decently sharp. Still plan on dumping it for the 16-35mm VR sooner rather than later.
None of my other DX glass is mountable, 35mm f1.8G, rear element too close to the rear of the lens, 85mm f3.5g, rear element too small. Rest of my glass is FX already, so I'm mostly good to go.
Ok, just tried my Kenko pro 1.4 with my slow 10-20 on an FM, and it seems to work fine. You get the same field of view on FX as you do on DX (eg. with the lens set to 10mm, you get the same field of view with the teleconverter on FX as you do on DX without it), but you lose 1 stop of light, and you are putting more elements in the path, so there is not advantage whatsoever.
As mentioned earlier, the Nikon teleconverters won't allow you to mount. I don't have a digital FX body, and I'm not willing to waste a film frame on this (maybe later) so I don't know how good this actually is. I still think the reason for this is dubious, but it does indeed work, in case someone want to go do this.
Hi Jeri, Thanks for testing that out. I just tried my kenko on my film camera and as you say its all good. So it looks like its a viable compromise if you don't want to fork out for new expensive pro glass on a FX camera then you can stretch the usability of your current set of DX lenses. Hopefully some FX shooter with a Kenko drops by and provides us with some sample pictures :-). I would guess that it would be fairly viable for scenery and landscape as you would be stopping down anyway. Further it may be a better option than putting the dx lens on the FX camera as I understand the edges tend to smear even if the image circle covers the FX sensor.
@PBPM - If you are moving to fx yes that 16-35 does seem a great choice for that range. PS: congrats on the new D700 !!
You must log in to post.
