Lens Question

[Bazza]

Hi all
Sorry if the subject has come up before, but being new to the site etc. I have just bought a Nikon D70s camera and a couple of lens.

My question is Which route is the better one to take, getting a 2x
teleconverter lens which in theory should give me the equivilant of having 4 lens. Or spending out loads of cash and buying the actual lens's themselves.

Existing len's are 18-70mm and 70-300mm with a tele converter should give a range from 18mm to 600mm which is far the cheapest option.

If the option finally is to take the teleconverter route would there be much difference in picture quality against getting the proper lens.

Bazza

[erichlund]

Depends a little on how you are going to buy stuff. If you are a Nikon purist, buying only Nikkor lenses, then getting over 300mm gets real expensive, real fast, so teleconverters may be a good choice. There are three, and the 2.0 is the lowest in quality image and highest in light loss (2 full stops). Teleconverters will always result in some degradation of the image, but it's pretty minimal. OTOH, you can get the Sigma 50-500 and get a significant amount of reach. It's not cheap, but it's not exorbitant either.

It also depends on what you want to shoot. The 18-70 gives you a minimum effective angle of 27mm, which is wide, but not super wide. There's a 12-24 (18-36 effective) that will give you the super wide angles.

If you want to shoot the small stuff (Closeups of flowers and insects, etc.), you will want a macro lens. Nikkor calls their macros Micros. It's the same thing. Nikkor fixed micros come in 60mm f2.8, 105mm f2.8, and 200mm f4.

Really, there's lots of choices, and it's difficult to tell you what to get, because only you know what you want to shoot.

Cheers,
Eric