/p/ - Photography » Thread #2909437

[17 / 3 / ?]

DX lens to FX converter?

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 18:56:47 No.2909437 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2909445 >>2909453 >>2909465 >>2909936

I've got these Nikon 55-300 mm lens (pic related).
Problem is, these are made for a DX DSLR, and I recently swapped out for a newer FX.

Sure the camera is able to crop out and adjust to the DX lens, but in my opinion, it seems like I'm not using the full capability of the sensor.

I'd hate to buy new lens and I was wondering, are there are any special adapters that could enlarge it to FX?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:03:17 No.2909445 Report

Quoted By: >>2909447

>>2909437
Try an FX 1.4x teleconverter but don't expect any useful results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:05:57 No.2909447 Report

Quoted By: >>2909449

>>2909445
Could you expand "useful"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:07:15 No.2909449 Report

Quoted By: >>2909466

>>2909447
Soft, CAs, low contrast, unpredictable sharpness at different focal lengths.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:09:16 No.2909453 Report

Quoted By: >>2909473

>>2909437
Why upgrade to FF if you don't want to shell out for the glass? Dumb move.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:15:05 No.2909465 Report

Quoted By: >>2909470

>>2909437
There was a thread a while back along these lines.

If you use a teleconverter for FF lenses it will cover the whole frame. I haven't done it but it makes sense.

On the other hand you could sell it and get the 70-300mm VR, probably a cheaper option, better image quality and build.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:15:17 No.2909466 Report

Quoted By: >>2909783

>>2909449

Shit, my biggest concern is the ca.
I'm guessing the cheap ones are cheap for a reason?

Anyways thanks anon. I think I may have seen one of these in a local shop- I'll go try one out and see how bad it looks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:16:54 No.2909470 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909465

Because I really wasn't giving a shit at the time until I starting thinking straight a month later.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:18:55 No.2909473 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909453

Because I really wasn't giving a shit at the time until I starting thinking straight a month later.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:30:44 No.2909485 Report

Quoted By: >>2909496

Maybe if you weren't such a dipshit you'd have bought a 70-300VR in the first place. Only a little more expensive, speedier, sharper, better all around. Sell it and buy a 70-300 VR or stop posting and kill yourself. Those are your only two solutions.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM (...).jpg, 28KiB, 400x224

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:42:14 No.2909489 Report

Quoted By: >>2909495

Fuck it. I'm going in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:46:02 No.2909495 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909489
What's all this? This is a Nikon thread for Nikon people. We'll have no canon here!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 19:46:41 No.2909496 Report

Quoted By: >>2909928

fuck it. I'm going in.

>>2909485
Remember, I had a DX camera before I got this new FX. Only dipshitting I'm doing is trying to hold out with these old lens.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO smirk.jpg, 22KiB, 620x330

Anonymous Wed 24 Aug 2016 09:13:48 No.2909766 Report

Quoted By:

Not worth it brah. Sell all your crop shit and go full fool frame.

And if you think the 70-300mm VR is an expensive lens, pucker up yo butthole cause it's all going to be downhill for you.

KP !s8sTqWso7Y

KP !s8sTqWso7Y Wed 24 Aug 2016 10:20:44 No.2909783 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909466
>Shit, my biggest concern is the ca.
>I'm guessing the cheap ones are cheap for a reason?
TCs are almost always made of extremely high quality glass, unless you get some no-name China brand. There might be no IQ difference between a $150 Kenko or $500 3rd revision converter from Canon or Nikon, but the latter ones are likely optimized for work with specific lenses and AF capabilities.

You will get more CA and softening of the image no matter what you do, it's just part of the physical process. On a lens that's already absurdly sharp, like a 300mm f/2.8, the difference is likely to be less pronounced. Also, there's no such thing as a good 2X TC, if 1.4X doesn't work out for you, just get a different lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Aug 2016 15:28:55 No.2909928 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909496
>Remember, I had a DX camera before I got this new FX.
You'd still buy a 70-300 VR because the 55-200/300 is shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Aug 2016 15:38:37 No.2909936 Report

Quoted By:

>>2909437
FX lenses are so cheap now that you might as well just buy those.

70-300 is like $400, most primes (without the gold ring) are in the $200-$400 range

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

DX lens to FX converter?