DX lens to FX converter?

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

>>2909445
Could you expand "useful"?

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

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>2909453

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

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.

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

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.

File: smirk.jpg (22KB, 620x330px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 620x330px

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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