Cheap lens expansion: teleconverter or low-end mirror lens?

[poemi]

I have a Nikon D80 with two kit lenses: the 18-55 and 55-200 VR. I'd like an inexpensive way to experiment with some more extreme focal lengths.

What I'm looking at (for the tele end of things) is a decision between getting a cheap 500mm mirror lens, or a 2x-3x teleconverter for my 55-200. The cost of each is about the same and I was wondering if anyone has experience with both, or either, and any advice on which would be better.

The trade-offs as I see it so far is this: the mirror lens is all manual, fixed focal length and aperture (and no metering on the D80 that I can tell). The converter would allow more versatility with auto-focus/metering on my current lens--but would image quality be worse?

I fully realize that neither solution will provide high-quality results. I just want to experiment before investing in quality glass

[Dylan8i]

id say between the two, get the mirror.... with the tele ( do they make 3x?) your going to lose so much light that your lense will become manual focus anyways. teles only work good on great lenses.

[Don Schaeffer]

You may not be happy with the quality of the cheap mirror lens. I saw on a photoclub meeting. It was very unsharp. I think you are stuck.

[mjs1973]

Like Dylan said, you are going to have to manually focus if you put a TC on your 55-200mm. It may still AF but it will hunt a lot and be very difficult to lock onto your subject. You will retain the metering function of the lens though. I have an inexpensive 2x TC that I don't use very much because of the poor image quality. That being said, I would still use the TC before I considered a mirror lens. The images that I have seen from them are pretty much crap. Even if you get a fairly sharp photo out of them, the out of focus area in the background forms little donut shapes. I find this to be very distracting.

Go to www.flickr.com and do a search for mirror lens. You will find some examples of what I am talking about. You will also find some very nice images that may make you decide to go with the mirror lens too.

[Dylan8i]

another point i thought of was if you get a 2x you can then also use it in the future (if you get a good quality one) on bigger and better lenses to. with the mirror your just stuck with it.

[another view]

the out of focus area in the background forms little donut shapes.

I have seen very few images where the donut shaped highlights work, IMO. It's a special effect like a fisheye lens - best used sparingly.

Unfortunately long focal lengths, sharp images and low cost don't all go together, pick two!

[almo]

I have a Nikon D80 with two kit lenses: the 18-55 and 55-200 VR. I'd like an inexpensive way to experiment with some more extreme focal lengths.

What I'm looking at (for the tele end of things) is a decision between getting a cheap 500mm mirror lens, or a 2x-3x teleconverter for my 55-200. The cost of each is about the same and I was wondering if anyone has experience with both, or either, and any advice on which would be better.

The trade-offs as I see it so far is this: the mirror lens is all manual, fixed focal length and aperture (and no metering on the D80 that I can tell). The converter would allow more versatility with auto-focus/metering on my current lens--but would image quality be worse?

I fully realize that neither solution will provide high-quality results. I just want to experiment before investing in quality glass

You are going to end up buying the good glass anyway. Trust a man with the L disorder when he says this. Don't waste time and money on crap. Get the good stuff and be happy.

[SmartWombat]

I agree, the big problem is cheap - doesn't often come with quality.
And if you're going to buy quality glass anyway, then you'll be longer saving up for it.
Perhaps lens rental is a solution ?

[Loupey]

another point i thought of was if you get a 2x you can then also use it in the future (if you get a good quality one) on bigger and better lenses to. with the mirror your just stuck with it.

I agree with Dylan on this. Get the best quality 2x TC. Even though the results with the 55-200 may be dismal, the TC will most likely will be a valuable piece in your arsenal later when you do get other lenses.

[deckcadet]

You may run into issues using the TC with the 55-200. I'm not sure how large the rear element is or how recessed it is, but many TCs require part of the TC enter the rear of the lens. If the rear element is too far back or too small in diameter, it will not successfully mount.

[almo]

You may run into issues using the TC with the 55-200. I'm not sure how large the rear element is or how recessed it is, but many TCs require part of the TC enter the rear of the lens. If the rear element is too far back or too small in diameter, it will not successfully mount.

This is not true of the Kenko teleplus TCs, of which I own the 1.4x 300 DG.

[freygr]

The problem with 2X and more so with 3X Teleconvert is the DIM view finder! In most cases a mirror lens is better, but its will be a fixed F stop.

[Don Schaeffer]

You can get good mirror lenses. They are no cheaper than good straight lenses, but smaller and lighter.

[almo]

You can get good mirror lenses. They are no cheaper than good straight lenses, but smaller and lighter.

Far as I know Canon doesn't make one for the EF line, but Nikon has a wonderful 500mm f/8 one for $500.

I would rather roll that into a nice 70-200mm and a 1.4x TC. Hmm... That's what I did do. Sweet..:thumbsup:

[Loupey]

The problem with 2X and more so with 3X Teleconvert is the DIM view finder! ...

True it does darken the viewfinder by the corresponding number of stops. But since most people couple a 2x with lenses with maximum apertures typically in the f/2.8 ~ f/4.5 range, the viewfinder intensity is still better or on par to that given by a mirror lens (which, to my knowledge, is still no faster than f/8).