Why don’t they make a standalone teleconverter like on the new Z 400TC?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

W

WBYonder

Member
Member's gallery
That is, a teleconverter that is either 1.0X and either 1.4X or 2.0 X, so you could switch between magnifications the same way as the Z 400 TC, rather than have to take the lens off to put on a teleconverter. I don’t know enough about optics to tell how practical it would be to make, but it seems that if you can build it into the lens ( like the Z 400TC and the F 180-400TC), you should be able to make a standalone teleconverter that could be used the same way with different lenses, like the current teleconverters.
 
Member's gallery
The flange to mount length on the 1.4x and the 2x is quite different. What you’re suggesting is akin to a small integral zoom. As we know zooms are complicated and perform less well than their prime counterparts. The use of a tc already comes with trade offs, not sure I’d want to trade off much more.
 
Member's gallery
WBYonder said:
That is, a teleconverter that is either 1.0X and either 1.4X or 2.0 X, so you could switch between magnifications the same way as the Z 400 TC, rather than have to take the lens off to put on a teleconverter. I don’t know enough about optics to tell how practical it would be to make, but it seems that if you can build it into the lens ( like the Z 400TC and the F 180-400TC), you should be able to make a standalone teleconverter that could be used the same way with different lenses, like the current teleconverters.
Click to expand...
I’d think that’s a good idea. After all, they’ve done it with the 400mm lens. I’d love to have the ability to switch off the 2xTC without having to remove it.
 
Member's gallery
Steve W said:
The flange to mount length on the 1.4x and the 2x is quite different. What you’re suggesting is akin to a small integral zoom. As we know zooms are complicated and perform less well than their prime counterparts. The use of a tc already comes with trade offs, not sure I’d want to trade off much more.
Click to expand...

I believe that he meant one or the other; a 1.4x or 2x, not both in one TC, with the ability to turn if off or on.
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
Where did that come from? I doubt Nikon would release a £13,500 lens with a built in TC if there was even the slightest doubt over the integrity of its image quality.
Click to expand...
The built in TC is part of the optical design for that specific lens. When not using the 1.4x there is nothing in the optical path. When using a separate TC you are altering the distance between lens and sensor. So if the TC had a 1.0x option as the OP suggests there still has to be a lens in the optical path to correct for the altered flange distance. So whether using the magnification or not you've introduced another lens element. Since it is a generic TC the optics can't be optimized so will degrade IQ. That's what I meant.
 
Member's gallery
In addition to what others have already said, or to say it in a different way, I'll add that to do so would likely have to be lens model specific. In other words, doing so would require you to purchase a TC for each of your lenses, and would require Nikon to design, manufacture, and produce a multitude of them.

It would be a great innovation if they could make it possible for a universal model like you say.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
In addition to what others have already said, or to say it in a different way, I'll add that to do so would likely have to be lens model specific. In other words, doing so would require you to purchase a TC for each of your lenses, and would require Nikon to design, manufacture, and produce a multitude of them.

It would be a great innovation if they could make it possible for a universal model like you say.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if they sold all of the big prime lenses with a TC tuned specifically for that model. Like they do for the 800mm 5.6. Then again maybe the new 400TC is a sign of things to come.
 
Member's gallery

The two above links show the lens design of the respective TC1.4III and 180-400mm TC with and without TC in use. It is clear there is no one design for a 1.4x TC in the Nikon system and the TC does not have to be added at the end of a lens. Nikon's lens design folks have more than one way to do this and I suspect that if designing a TC where the elements could be in line or out of line of the optical path where a goal they can do it.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
So in other words you'd like to shoot with compromised optics all the time and not just when you need the additional reach?
Click to expand...

That sounds to me like a “zooms vs. primes” argument. I realize there would likely be degradation either way, but sometimes convenience might be worth some minor degradation.

NorthernFocus said:
The built in TC is part of the optical design for that specific lens. When not using the 1.4x there is nothing in the optical path. When using a separate TC you are altering the distance between lens and sensor. So if the TC had a 1.0x option as the OP suggests there still has to be a lens in the optical path to correct for the altered flange distance. So whether using the magnification or not you've introduced another lens element. Since it is a generic TC the optics can't be optimized so will degrade IQ. That's what I meant.
Click to expand...

That was a more helpful answer, thanks.

RoyC said:

The two above links show the lens design of the respective TC1.4III and 180-400mm TC with and without TC in use. It is clear there is no one design for a 1.4x TC in the Nikon system and the TC does not have to be added at the end of a lens. Nikon's lens design folks have more than one way to do this and I suspect that if designing a TC where the elements could be in line or out of line of the optical path where a goal they can do it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, it illustrated what you were saying well. Having to make one design that works well for a variety of lenses makes sense as a reason. Not being an optical engineer, I’m guessing that this may be the main reason. I imagine if it could be done, with minimal image degradation, they would have made it.

Thanks all for your responses, and Steve for the forum. It’s a great resource.
 
Member's gallery
WBYonder said:
That is, a teleconverter that is either 1.0X and either 1.4X or 2.0 X, so you could switch between magnifications the same way as the Z 400 TC, rather than have to take the lens off to put on a teleconverter. I don’t know enough about optics to tell how practical it would be to make, but it seems that if you can build it into the lens ( like the Z 400TC and the F 180-400TC), you should be able to make a standalone teleconverter that could be used the same way with different lenses, like the current teleconverters.
Click to expand...
The built in teleconverters are matched closely to the lens reducing some of the deficiencies of teleconverters and would be less effective on other lenses...🦘
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top