Nikon Compatibility question

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jamezynj, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. jamezynj

    Peter Guest


    I use a Kenko 1.4 tale extender and an extension tube on my 70-200 with
    little noticeable difference.
     
    Peter, Oct 4, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. jamezynj

    Paul Furman Guest

    I use an ancient E2 Nikon tube (small, only 12mm) and it has a plunger
    for the aperture which can be fitted with a nut & bolt from any hardware
    store to (imprecisely) stop down a G lens on a bellows.

    The problem with Kenko tubes I've heard is they are wobbly when you try
    to stack for longer extension. Would be handy though. My (sturdy old)
    PB4 bellows gives 50mm minimum extension (plus the 12mm) and I also have
    a 25mm PK13 tube.

    Regarding compatibility; it is confusing that the D60 with a larger
    numeric model number has less functionality than a D50 but that was just
    a change in approach to remove the AF motor in the body for cost & size.
    You would want a D80 or D90 to get that AF back. The E2 tube btw is
    actually pre-Ai but will not damage anything mounting. I think there is
    an adapter for it's plunger designed for bellows but that's more hassle
    than it's worth and it's just a coincidence that it is useful for G
    lenses & mounts on the newest bodies. :)

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 4, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. jamezynj

    Peter Guest

    Never tried stacking them.

    Does anyone here have experience with the Nikon tubes?

    Until about a month ago I had a Nikon 200 A! Macro, that was sharp as a
    tack. It even worked well with an old 2x extender. I hope the basta--d who
    stole it ........
     
    Peter, Oct 4, 2008
    #23
  4. jamezynj

    Joel Guest

    Most tube(s) should work similar to each other, or in general.

    - Macro tube should have no optical

    - Stacking multiple tubes to bring the lens further away from the body, so
    you can be able to have the lens closer (?) to subject. I have tried
    ON/OFF to remember all small detail

    - And there are at least 2 different type of tubes. (1) one has no AF so
    you have to focus manually, (2) one with PIN to have full AF.

    The main thing that a true macro is 1:1 macro and tube is 2:1 macro (or
    1:2 ?). With film system I used to have (2) 1:1 macro lens and 1 2:1 macro
    lens, the DSLR or EF lens system I have the AF macro Tube. I don't do macro
    photograph but can't stand reading without trying it myself so I ordered one
    from Hong Kong which is much cheaper than from US (exact same tube but
    $50-60 cheaper).
     
    Joel, Oct 5, 2008
    #24
  5. The Kenkos are plastic, aren't they? If yes, might that be relevant?
     
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 5, 2008
    #25
  6. jamezynj

    Joel Guest

    I doùnt know about Kenko for Nikon, but I know both of my Kenko Macro Tube
    & Extension are AF (Auto-Focus) so they both have metal rink with AF PINs to
    turn the lens.

    Also, unlike the Canon brand which has to tape some PIN in order for the
    AF to work with aperature >5.6 (?), I tested the Kenko without some PIN
    taped on the Bigma 50-500mm f4-5.6 and it worked without tape. Other than
    that the Bigma 50-500mm, I don't have any lens less than f2.8 to test.

    Also, I bought it to test to see how the AF works with & without some PIN
    taped, I almost have no use for the extension so never test for quality.
     
    Joel, Oct 5, 2008
    #26
  7. I wasn't talking about mounts and contacts; I was talking about barrels.
     
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 5, 2008
    #27
  8. jamezynj

    Peter Guest


    The barrel on mine is definitely plastic. But then so is the barrel on many
    Nikon lenses, except for my 70-200 and 80 -400.
     
    Peter, Oct 5, 2008
    #28
  9. Are the Kenkos polycarbonate, like the lenses?
     
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 5, 2008
    #29
  10. jamezynj

    Peter Guest


    I don't know. All I do know is that I got the 1.4 extender because it seems
    to work reasonably well on three of my lenses, while the Nikon 1.4 at twice
    the price, does not.
     
    Peter, Oct 6, 2008
    #30
  11. jamezynj

    Joel Guest

    Around 2 years or so ago some folks at www.dpreview.com posted the samples
    and passed the information between Canon 1.4x & 2X vs Kenko vs other 3rd
    party extension, and Kenko got very high score. They think the Canon is
    slightly better but not much, and Kenko is/was 1/2 the price.

    Me? if it has to zoom in real close to take a very very close look to see
    the difference, then to me it's close enough or too close for me to care.
     
    Joel, Oct 6, 2008
    #31
  12. jamezynj

    Paul Furman Guest

    I was told stacking them on a big lens gets wobbly. But no Nikon tubes
    will give any AF connection or VR, just the aperture lever. I forget the
    model but there is an old large-ish (100mm?) Nikon tube with a tripod
    mount which would be useful because it is very sturdy & stable. The only
    way to get the electronics through for something that stable would be to
    know the glass out of a 2x teleconverter :)

    Most of the TCs only work with longer/larger AF-S/AF-I lenses which are
    recessed for the protruding front element of the TC. The Nikon 1.4x is
    exceptional for these lenses and very compact compared to the 2x. There
    are some really old ones that'll work on 'normal' lenses.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 11, 2008
    #32
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.