I have a Sony a6400 with a Sony 55-210mm lens.
What would you suggest to get a better length without spending $$$?
Moved the conversation to a new thread
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sony 2x extender or tele-lens
- Thread starter katbel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What would you suggest to get a better length without spending $$$?
Moved the conversation to a new thread
The lens you have will NOT work with the two teleconverters that Sony makes for a couple of its telephoto zoom lenses and its $$$$$$ telephoto prime lenses. In the zooms, you would need either the 100-400mm or the 200-600mm. Sony is very clear about which lenses on which their TCs will fit. I don't know, but I doubt that a third-party TC would work on that lens, either.
The 100-400mm is a fantastic, wonderful lens, and quickly became one of my favorites, but it is expensive. The 200-600mm is less expensive but it is also a bit heavier. I find that it's great for using on my tripod or on my deck where I have the railing for support, but as a walk-around, it is just too awkward and heavy for me. The 100-400mm, while also large and heavy, works better for taking a stroll around the lake. Both are full-frame lenses.
I think Sony makes a 70-300mm lens, either in FF or APS-C, not sure which. Tamron and Sigma both make fairly long zoom lenses, too, which are compatible with Sony's e-mount.
The 100-400mm is a fantastic, wonderful lens, and quickly became one of my favorites, but it is expensive. The 200-600mm is less expensive but it is also a bit heavier. I find that it's great for using on my tripod or on my deck where I have the railing for support, but as a walk-around, it is just too awkward and heavy for me. The 100-400mm, while also large and heavy, works better for taking a stroll around the lake. Both are full-frame lenses.
I think Sony makes a 70-300mm lens, either in FF or APS-C, not sure which. Tamron and Sigma both make fairly long zoom lenses, too, which are compatible with Sony's e-mount.
Last edited:
I've was never a fan of teleconverters in the film days. There were cheap generic TCs which were awful. The image ended up soft and the hit on effective aperture was too much for me.
That opinion has been modified with modern TCs from the main camera companies, who have increased the quality of their offerings. I've managed to end up with a couple and use them now and again.
If considering a TC, then i would suggest thinking about how many times you would use the resulting focal lengths.
1) If it just now and again and you are on a low budget, then a good TC can be the way to go.
2) If its a focal length you would use often, then look at lenses on that range and consider paying a bit more.
just my opinion
Ken
That opinion has been modified with modern TCs from the main camera companies, who have increased the quality of their offerings. I've managed to end up with a couple and use them now and again.
If considering a TC, then i would suggest thinking about how many times you would use the resulting focal lengths.
1) If it just now and again and you are on a low budget, then a good TC can be the way to go.
2) If its a focal length you would use often, then look at lenses on that range and consider paying a bit more.
just my opinion
Ken
Teleconverters can certainly be a mixed bag, but typically they are only offered to pair with the higher end lenses in the lineup (though there are exceptions). I think at least part of the reason for that is you lose 1 stop of light with the 1.4x, and 2 stops with the 2x. What that means is if you start with a f2.8 lens, the 1.4x will drop your largest aperture to f4, and with the 2x to an f5.6. If you were to start with one of the slower lenses, the TCs would really hamper your light gathering, which is extra tough when working with telephoto lenses where you generally already need to keep shutter speed up.
When I had the Olympus 40-150 2.8, I got the 2x TC, and I thought the combo did pretty well. The 40-150 is already an awesome lens, so that helps. I didn’t use it as much as I thought I would though. Nothing beats just getting a lens made for a specific range of focal lengths from the start.
When I had the Olympus 40-150 2.8, I got the 2x TC, and I thought the combo did pretty well. The 40-150 is already an awesome lens, so that helps. I didn’t use it as much as I thought I would though. Nothing beats just getting a lens made for a specific range of focal lengths from the start.
I believe there is a Sony sale going on right now, as I got something in my email from the local camera shop. At the moment I'm not in the market for any more lenses so didn't pay close attention, but I think the 200-600mm is one that is on sale.
Even back in the film days, good teleconverters were available.
They've unfortunately always been "tainted" by the cheap "Turn your 50mm lens into 100mm" TCs, and yes most of them are awful.
Good teleconverters tend to only work with longer lenses, and can complement their optical design. The good ones tend to only work with telephoto lenses also.
One of my favorite use cases at one time was using the Canon FD mount 1.4x with the 200mm f/2.8IF. The IF version specifically was the only one that would work with the 1.4x as it had the rear element recessed enough to not touch. It made a really nice lightweight 280mm f/4 lens that I found to be excellent optically.
More recently, I've been using a Nikon 1.7x with my 70-200mm f/2.8. A TC actually has a rather interesting effect with my lens. I have the first generation 70-200mm f/2.8, which was released when Nikon was only making DX DSLRs. Center sharpness on this lens is excellent, but it falls off toward the edges. The VRII version, which was released right about the same time as Nikon's first FX DSLRs, is usually considered less sharp in the center than the first version, but better at the edges. Since TCs magnify the center part of the frame, even though I do lose some absolute sharpness using one on the lens, I get more even across the frame sharpness.
One of the slickest, if not necessarily the best, TCs I've used is Nikon's 1.6x AF TC. It's meant to be used with normal to moderately long lenses, and the teleconverter itself has a focusing helical and consequently can turn any lens mounted on it into an AF lens. It's not perfect, and the focusing range is such that you need to manually focus to get in range, but it does work. Unfortunately, it only officially works on older film SLRs, although I've seen ways reported to modify it to work on newer cameras.
you make many good points, and I fully agree on the Nikon 70-700f2.8 and tc1.7. I use the same combo on a D7100. It serves me well on the few occasions that I need the extra reach.
Maybe another good post topic for another day...
The only modern TC I have is the TC17II, but I have several manual focus era Nikons and some off brand F mount ones from the 70s-80s. I think the worse of these is a 3x Vivitar. A lot of them have been part of camera kits I've bought(usually for one specific item in the kit...trolling Ebay for someone's 70s or 80s camera bag for sale can yield bargains on desireable bodies or lenses and often bring some other wanted or unwanted stuff along with it) but I saw the 3x on the table at a local camera store back room cleanout for I think $2 and couldn't resist because I knew it would be terrible.
As I mentioned, the old off-brand ones were not only bad to begin with(mostly) but also often used inappropriately. There's a reason why camera brand ones often are physically incompatible with lenses shorter than ~200mm(or at least high end zooms that cover that range).
A few high end super-teles now even have built in TCs that can be added or removed from the optical path just by flipping a switch.
There's another sort of niche use for TCs that I've personally only experimented with since it can make aperture calculations...fun...but that's in macro photography to extend the reach of your extension tubes/bellows/lens helical. Stick a 2x at the back of your 25mm extension tube and it acts like a 50mm tube. If you favor 100mm and longer macro lenses for many uses as I do, that can be a real help as you can run out of extension on your bellows to get your desired magnification and/or end up with an unwieldy number of tubes.
I took a look at what Sony has to offer for long lenses since the OP is in the Sony system now....
APS-C:
70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 (probably not compatible with a Sony or other brand of teleconverter)
Full Frame:
70-200mm GM (there's just been a new v.2 released so the first version may be sale-priced now) (Compatible with TC)
70-300mm G (don't think this one is compatible with a TC)
100-400mm GM (Compatible with TC)
200-600mm G (fantastic lens, but heavy and awkward) (Compatible with TC)
400mm GM Prime (Compatible with TC)
600mm Prime (Compatible with TC)
I didn't check into what Tamron or Sigma offer, but I know that both of them do have long zoom lenses available for E-mount/FE-mount. One of them, I think it is Sigma, offers a fairly inexpensive lens with a reasonably impressive range that reaches to 600mm.
APS-C:
70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 (probably not compatible with a Sony or other brand of teleconverter)
Full Frame:
70-200mm GM (there's just been a new v.2 released so the first version may be sale-priced now) (Compatible with TC)
70-300mm G (don't think this one is compatible with a TC)
100-400mm GM (Compatible with TC)
200-600mm G (fantastic lens, but heavy and awkward) (Compatible with TC)
400mm GM Prime (Compatible with TC)
600mm Prime (Compatible with TC)
I didn't check into what Tamron or Sigma offer, but I know that both of them do have long zoom lenses available for E-mount/FE-mount. One of them, I think it is Sigma, offers a fairly inexpensive lens with a reasonably impressive range that reaches to 600mm.
I have the Nikon 2xTC and it works well with my 70-200mm f2.8. But I don’t often use it like that since I now have the 200-500mm. Both end up being f5.6 so no real advantage to the TC option.
Also keep in mind that for most uses, a full frame camera captures enough detail to allow for a fair bit of post image digital cropping.
There's an argument to be made that carrying the 70-200 with a 2x would allow you to cover the 70-400mm range with only a single lens, although of course that's situation dependent and the extra 100mm on the long end might be more important to you than having the wider end of the range.
That's one of the appeals to me of the 80-400...
There is that. But I usually opt so for the extra 100mm. And normally on my APC sensor camera, D7100. Then it’s a 750mm reach.
Definitely all in what you're doing.
It's pretty unusual that 300mm isn't long enough for me personally, so a 70-200+1.7x is fine. I should get a good quality 2x, though, although I'd dread using my 300mm f/4 with one.
Of course I wouldn't say no to a 600mm f/4 or 800 f/5.6, but then I think about how often I'd even haul one of those out of the house.
I’d never leave the house if I had a 600mm f4. My legs would be broken by Mrs AFB!
Years ago, back in my Nikon Days, I had the 70-200mm VR and used it quite a bit, but then I got the 70-300mm and found myself leaving the 70-200mm in the cabinet and taking the 70-300mm or the 80-400mm out with me most of the time. That f/2.8 on the 70-200mm is invaluable, though, for some situations. I remember occasionally putting the 1.7x TC on it but not very frequently. It was just easier to grab one of the other lenses instead if I wanted extra reach in a walk around lens.
Sony has just released an updated version of its popular 70-200mm f/2.8 and a lot of Sony users are debating the pros and cons of buying it and putting a 2x TC on it if they don't already have the excellent 100-400mm. Remembering back to my Nikon time, and how I pretty much neglected the 70-200 after getting the 70-300mm, I have learned from that experience and so the new Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 isn't on my "wanted lenses" list.
But you end up with different results versus using the TC. 200mm cropped to 400mm FOV is going to look different than shooting at 200mm with 2x TC. If it’s a bird in the sky, you might be fine, but a bird in a tree will have different results, even losing 2 stops in aperture. A subject at 200mm 2.8 has 2x the DOF than 200mm+2xTC 5.6. Basically, you’ll get more background separation using the TC.
Yes, that is true that if you're wide open in both situations-which I realize is quite common for me and I'm sure a lot of others using longer lenses.
With that said, if I take my 200mm f/2.8 and stop it down to f/5.6 and then crop, I will get effectively the same result as if I'd used a 2x on it.
I'm not a big time bird photographer by any means, but both with birds and with action I do try to stop down a little bit if I can get away with it. If nothing else, it can give a little bit of margin for things like subject movement from the time you lock focus to the time the shutter opens. There's still no substitute for perfect focus at any aperture, but a smaller aperture does give you a bit of wiggle room and also, depending on the size of your subject, can help keep the entire subject in focus.
Wouldn’t the opposite be true? By stopping down 200mm to 5.6, you widen the area of acceptable focus, which would further reduce background separation. It’s 400mm at 5.6 that already has half the DOF as a cropped 200mm 2.8. You’d need to go even wider than 2.8 at 200mm and then nail focus to get the same DOF as 400mm 5.6.
Yesterday I bought a Sony 70-350 mm G F4.5–6.3.
After long reading, starting from all your precious insights, I went to a camera store: two finalists
Sigma 100-400 mm F5-6.3 1135 g (2.50 lb) and the
Sony 70-350 G F4.5–6.3 625 g (1.38 lb)
Both prices were good sales too.
Weight of the lens helped in my final decision plus the fact that Sony G Lens has a 5x magnification range.
I left the TC idea , convinced by the employee of the store too.
Took few photos and I’m pretty satisfied with my new purchase.
Thanks for your help!
After long reading, starting from all your precious insights, I went to a camera store: two finalists
Sigma 100-400 mm F5-6.3 1135 g (2.50 lb) and the
Sony 70-350 G F4.5–6.3 625 g (1.38 lb)
Both prices were good sales too.
Weight of the lens helped in my final decision plus the fact that Sony G Lens has a 5x magnification range.
I left the TC idea , convinced by the employee of the store too.
Took few photos and I’m pretty satisfied with my new purchase.
Thanks for your help!
Congratulations, Katbel! That 70-350 should work out really well for your purposes, and has a good, flexible range! IMHO it was also a wise choice to stick with a Sony native lens rather than going with a third-party one.
Weight definitely can be a factor in one's decisions, and it is particularly important when one is out-and-about carrying the camera and lens(es) for several hours or more. It's also convenient to have the lens with its full range all ready to go, rather than needing to put on a TC or take one off in order to achieve certain shots. I am lazy about that! It's easier to just leave the TC on the lens all the time, which is fine except in situations where the light is less than good and I need to remove the TC in order to use a larger aperture.
Happy Shooting!
Weight definitely can be a factor in one's decisions, and it is particularly important when one is out-and-about carrying the camera and lens(es) for several hours or more. It's also convenient to have the lens with its full range all ready to go, rather than needing to put on a TC or take one off in order to achieve certain shots. I am lazy about that! It's easier to just leave the TC on the lens all the time, which is fine except in situations where the light is less than good and I need to remove the TC in order to use a larger aperture.
Happy Shooting!