NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on July 10, 2016, 21:11:10
-
One of my goals as a nature photographer has been to upgrade my equipment, as best as I can, and to get the most reach possible with the fewest items to carry with me on a hike.
The following illustrates how I can achieve 300mm to 900mm with my 300mm lens, 2 cameras (a Nikon D810 and on a Nikon D500), and a 2x TC to add (or not add) as I see fit.
(Note: carrying an extra camera (http://buy.cottoncarrier.com/products/ccs-camera-vest-2) is a lot easier, and cheaper, than carrying an extra telephoto lens.)
For explanation, the following conversions are true:
- Nikon D810 = Full Frame (FF) camera with a 1.0x conversion;
Nikon D500 = Crop (APS-C) camera with a 1.5x conversion;
Nikon 2x TC doubles (x2) all measurements.
Therefore, a 300 mm is a 300mm on a D810 (1.0x), but is a 450mm on a D500 (1.5x)
With the added variable of a 2x Teleconverter (TC), the combination is essentially like having 4 different telephoto lenses (a 300mm, a 450mm, a 600mm, and a 900mm), by rotating the 2 cameras + the TC, as needed, centered around 1 lens.
That said, I was very worried that the quality of adding a 2x TC would significantly-degrade my images. However, I am pleased to report excellent quality is retained when the 2x TC III is added. (I do notice 'some' reduction in quality, but not much. It is worthy of mention that the 2x TC III and 300mm VR II came out at the same time (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii), and were specifically designed to work together. Note: the 2x TC does *not* work well with mediocre zooms. It is designed for high-end primes.)
For fun, here are the incremental (un-cropped) stages of closeness I am able to achieve from 300-900mm with 2 cameras, 1 lens, and 1 TC:
The subject is just the log itself, and how close I am able to get to it.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/300.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/300.jpg)
@ 300mm (D810 + 300mm)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/450.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/450.jpg)
@ 450mm (D500 + 300mm)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/600.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/600.jpg)
@ 600mm (D810 + 300mm + 2x TC)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/900.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/900.jpg)
@ 900mm (D500 + 300mm + 2x TC)
Click the images if you'd like. (Nothing special about the images, and no effort was made to render this ordinary subject. Posted just for interest-sake to illustrate the reach differences.)
The flexibility of this combo is pretty neat. The weight of simply carrying an extra FF camera, plus 2x TC, is FAR preferable than carrying 3 extra 6-8-lb lenses. (Not to mention the cost).
Here are a several images, a couple taken with the D810 + 300mm + 2xTC (@ 600mm), most taken on a hike this morning with the D500 + 300mm + 2xTC (@ 900mm) at San Dimas Canyon:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001531_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, 10% crop) | 1/100/ | f/8.0 | ISO 100
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001516_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, no crop) | 1/1250 | f/7.1 | ISO 320
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001534_large.jpg)
Nikon D810 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 600mm, 50% crop) | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 320
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001523_large.jpg)
Nikon D810 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 600mm, 10% crop) | 1/250 | f/6.3 | ISO 320
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001535_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, 60% crop) | 1/250/ | f/8.0 | ISO 4000 - really pushing it here
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001529_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, fallen bird nest, no crop) | 1/200/ | f/8.0 | ISO 1000
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001528_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, no crop) | 1/200/ | f/8.0 | ISO 1000
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001533_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, no crop) | 1/1250/ | f/7.1 | ISO 320
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001527_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, no crop) | 1/100/ | f/8.0 | ISO 2000
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001532_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, 10% crop, after running up the hill) | 1/100/ | f/8.0 | ISO 2000
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001538_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, no crop) | 1/125/ | f/9.0 | ISO 160
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001537_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 | 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter TC-20E III (@ 900mm, 50% crop) | 1/400/ | f/8.0 | ISO 320 - again, really pushing it here (extreme darks + extreme lights)
The versatility of this combination ... from a macro replacement (at a comfortable 15' distance) ... to a super-long telephoto option ... from ISO 100 - ISO 4000+ ... is mind-boggling :o :-X
Jack
-
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001541_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001544_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001543_large.jpg)
All shots taken w 2x TC III @ 900mm, 1/100, f/8, ISO 1000 (except the first, which was 1/80).
Never had the ability to reach birds before ... and it's kinda cool :D
Believe this is a young Cooper's Hawk ... to say I am "pleased" with the results of this 2x extender would be an understatement.
It has exceeded my expectations.
Jack
-
Very nice samples!
I'm also really impressed by the TC-20E Mark III but also TC-14E Mark III, those two together with the 300mm PF f/4 are a really nice kit ;)
With the 'taps' removed they even work stacked,,,
One surprise to me was that the TC-20E Mark III was performing really well with the 70-200 AFS II f/2.8 as reported by others.
-
The 300mm PF is a fantastic performer, I'd like to own one someday!
-
Very nice samples!
I'm also really impressed by the TC-20E Mark III but also TC-14E Mark III, those two together with the 300mm PF f/4 are a really nice kit ;)
With the 'taps' removed they even work stacked,,,
One surprise to me was that the TC-20E Mark III was performing really well with the 70-200 AFS II f/2.8 as reported by others.
Thank you.
I have heard the 1.4x and 1.7x are great as well; I just went for the 2x and swap between the D810 and D500 (and 2x TC) for reach variance.
Interesting on the "stack" idea :)
On the link I provided (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii), there is a very useful chart as to which lenses work, which do not (no AF), as well as which apertures are optimal for each lens to receive optimal sharpness with the converter.
Cheers.
-
The 300mm PF is a fantastic performer, I'd like to own one someday!
The price is steep, but really a value by comparison.
The Sony 300mm is $7500 and sucks.
The Canon 300mm is $6100, and is almost as good, but not quite.
The Nikon 300mm VR II is only $5500 and is better than both 8)
With the 2x TC, and 2 camera backs (one FF the other APS-C), you get an incredible variety of lens lengths, retaining excellent quality throughout.
Since the tripod supports the heavy lens, you can "hands free" switch cameras (as well as TC or no TC) rapidly and efficiently.
The Cotton Carrier (https://buy.cottoncarrier.com/products/ccs-camera-vest-2) is an invaluable resource to this end, far better than any backpack (where you have to take it off, get your exchanges, etc.)
-
These images are great to see and very inspiring alongside many of the D500 images I have viewed.
I was so excited to see the D500 production and pondered how it could work as second body along side a D800E.
I nearly exchanged the D800E to the D810, but I then got a chance to use the D810, enjoying some of the new
features available but felt a little insecure about the quality of the DX Mode. Even though it was speedily accessable
with a re-assigned fn button. I regularly done a burst in FX quickly followed by a burst in DX.
I felt I should await the release of the D500 and see how it is received by its users. I am very interested in owning a D500 as a outcome
to all the positive feedback. Apart from a collection of function failure reports, I have not seen any writings that are negative towards it.
I intend to use it in a very similar way to yourself. Make the most of the equivalent FOV to give an impression of larger magnification,
as well as capitalise on the AF capabilities and shutter burst/buffer count.
I have a TC 17 ii that I use regularly on a 70 - 200mm f4 I have also used the TC 17 ii in a stacked TC arrangement with MF ais lenses.
In good light it is capable of a image that is presentable hand held and surprisingly good on a tripod.
It looks like Nikon have done quite a nice turn for there users in the flexible choices they have in DSLR bodies.
-
Thanks for the tip-off to Cotton Carrier John.
-
These images are great to see and very inspiring alongside many of the D500 images I have viewed.
I was so excited to see the D500 production and pondered how it could work as second body along side a D800E.
I nearly exchanged the D800E to the D810, but I then got a chance to use the D810, enjoying some of the new
features available but felt a little insecure about the quality of the DX Mode. Even though it was speedily accessable
with a re-assigned fn button. I regularly done a burst in FX quickly followed by a burst in DX.
I felt I should await the release of the D500 and see how it is received by its users. I am very interested in owning a D500 as a outcome
to all the positive feedback. Apart from a collection of function failure reports, I have not seen any writings that are negative towards it.
I intend to use it in a very similar way to yourself. Make the most of the equivalent FOV to give an impression of larger magnification,
as well as capitalise on the AF capabilities and shutter burst/buffer count.
I have a TC 17 ii that I use regularly on a 70 - 200mm f4 I have also used the TC 17 ii in a stacked TC arrangement with MF ais lenses.
In good light it is capable of a image that is presentable hand held and surprisingly good on a tripod.
It looks like Nikon have done quite a nice turn for there users in the flexible choices they have in DSLR bodies.
John, the D500 is a great camera, truly.
I have the D810, and single-image-wise it is the best of the bunch, and its low-ISO capabilities are awesome ... but at the end of the day I use the D500 now 9x to 1 over the D810 in the field.
The reach, the AF, and the full-customizability of the D500 just make it the better field camera.
One of the things I recommend is that you spend 1-2 hours customizing the D500, to your unique needs, before you head out to take photos.
(Most of the boo-hoo posts I've seen are from idiots who pull the camera out of the box, buy sub-standard cards, fail to first calibrate/fine-tune their lenses, and who just run out there to shoot. Don't do that.)
If you take the time to first set it up, tinker with everything and get it to your specs, you will LOVE this camera ;D
The awards are already coming in now:
- “The search for the perfect DSLR starts and ends with Nikon’s D500”
-Digital Trends: Editor's Choice
“The D500 is the most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested, and among the very best.”
-DPReview: Gold Award
More will follow 8)
In closing, and to get back on topic, it is no understatement to say that the Nikkor TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter has been the single greatest $500 purchase I have ever made.
It doubles your reach, and expands your capabilities tremendously, and it does so at such a high-quality, that all I can do is kick myself for not taking advantage of it sooner.
Jack
-
Thanks for the tip-off to Cotton Carrier John.
You bet Tristin.
-
For users of the 300/2.8 the TC-20E III is a good choice; I briefly tested this and felt it was quite good. However, I felt the tripod collar of the VR 300/2.8 II is annoyingly wobbly for use with the 2X TC. I'm waiting for Nikon to revise the 300/2.8 with fluorite and hopefully make the tripod collar a bit more rigid in the update. Optically the current 300/2.8 is excellent and the autofocus is snappy and reliable, and the lens works well with TCs, but I feel strongly about the tripod collar issue and will wait for now.
When used with the VR 200/2 II, the TC-20E III image at f/4 is a bit blurry, at f/5.6 it is sharp but there is LoCA, at f/8 it is close to perfect (on a D810). I sometimes use this combination but it feels a little foolish to have to use such a heavy rig for 400/8. The autofocus with the 200/2+2X is ok at short to mid distances but at long distances I find it to give scattered results. Perhaps it is better using the new Multi-CAM 20k autofocus module in the D5 and D500; I have not yet tried. I am keeping the 2X around mainly for possible future use with a 300/2.8 and for an occasional moon landscape shot with the 300/4 PF (something that I haven't tried yet).
-
The 200/2 AFS is very picky about TCs and in my experience the only giving consistently good results are the TC-14E (Mk.2,3). The 1.4 Mk.3 might be a tad better, though, but the older model also is very acceptable. Both blend very well with the 300/4 PF.
On occasion I have employed the TC-20E Mk.2 with the 200/2 AFS and results vary a lot, sometimes very good, at other times pretty awful. The Mk.3 costs too much to tempt me to buy it for use with the 200.
The TC-17E Mk.2 is excellent with my 300/2.8 AFS and that not much to boast of otherwise.
-
I have tested the TC-20E III on both the 300/4D AFS and 300/4E PF VR and at least with my samples it was sharper wide open @f/8 on the older 300/4D AFS. And I used that combination mainly for moon shots (since I sold my 300/4D AFS, I now mainly use my 300/4E PF VR with the TC-14E III, very happy with that combination).
-
For users of the 300/2.8 the TC-20E III is a good choice; I briefly tested this and felt it was quite good. However, I felt the tripod collar of the VR 300/2.8 II is annoyingly wobbly for use with the 2X TC. I'm waiting for Nikon to revise the 300/2.8 with fluorite and hopefully make the tripod collar a bit more rigid in the update. Optically the current 300/2.8 is excellent and the autofocus is snappy and reliable, and the lens works well with TCs, but I feel strongly about the tripod collar issue and will wait for now.
Interesting. I have zero "wobble" issues with my 300mm f/2.8 II collar ring. It is strong, tight, and rotates quite smoothly.
When used with the VR 200/2 II, the TC-20E III image at f/4 is a bit blurry, at f/5.6 it is sharp but there is LoCA, at f/8 it is close to perfect (on a D810). I sometimes use this combination but it feels a little foolish to have to use such a heavy rig for 400/8. The autofocus with the 200/2+2X is ok at short to mid distances but at long distances I find it to give scattered results. Perhaps it is better using the new Multi-CAM 20k autofocus module in the D5 and D500; I have not yet tried. I am keeping the 2X around mainly for possible future use with a 300/2.8 and for an occasional moon landscape shot with the 300/4 PF (something that I haven't tried yet).
f/8 is the key aperture with the 300mm + 2x III also. I didn't get to experience your copy, and I am not sure if they changed the collar since you ordered yours, but the collar on mine is excellent. I have rotated and composed with it from every-which-way, for hours, with no trouble, not a hint of "wobbliness."
Also, the AF on the D500 is much better than the D810.
-
The Mk.3 costs too much to tempt me to buy it for use with the 200.
The TC-20E III is a major update to the TC-20E II. It is an entirely new optical design, with an aspherical element, and is reputed to deliver far better performance than its predecessor.
I haven't owned the prior version, but I am thrilled with this version. As far as cost goes, I would say it is the best (and cheapest) $500 that can possibly be spent to double your reach.
-
The alternative to a TC is of course bringing a long lens with you. Sometimes this is practical, sometimes not.
I have many longer lens that could substitute for a 200/2 + TC20E, hence my decision. Upgrading to Mk.3 is not cost effective in my case.
The inferiority of the tripod collar of modern long Nikkors is wide recognised. For users in countries where light can be pretty low for long periods of the year, it is a major concern. Other users operate under more conducive light climates and might be less troubled because exposure times are much shorter.
-
Oh dear. Checked my notes and apparently it is the TC-20E Mk.3 I own ... Remember now I got it because it held hopes for emergency enlarging the reach of the 200/2 AFS. Later experiences showed its behaviour was less consistent than those early trials indicated, though.
Note to self: A reminder to check field notes more instead of relying on memory for all those details.
At present the TC-20EW.3 is on loan to a friend together with a 500 lens. I'm not in a hurry to get it back at present.
-
this is on the 70-200VR2 :o :o :o
not bad. pity i sold my TC...
-
I really really love the first falcon shot! The series before is also great and I cannot really decide
if I like the IQ of the D810 or the D500 better.
I got one of the first D500s in early May and love her more and more every day.
I even thought of getting a second one. Can hardly wait for the D8xx upgrade....
-
My experience with TCs also varies a lot.
I only use them on long, non-zoom, lenses.
TC14v3 is ok with all (200, 400 and 600)
TC17v2 sold all of them, after have tried 5 samples and none gave the results expected...
TC20v3 not yet a definite opinion on those lenses, being the 400 the one that liked it the most, but results are not always predictable
TC14v2 sold, good indeed but v3 is better
TC20v2 sold, and really inferior to v3
-
I really really love the first falcon shot! The series before is also great and I cannot really decide
if I like the IQ of the D810 or the D500 better.
Thank you. The light was best in that one, I agree.
The IQ of the D810 is marginally better, but less useful. Even 600mm is "short" more often than not.
I use the D500 9x out of 10 now, even though I have both at the-ready.
The reach, that wonderful 1.5x reach, makes all the difference in the world ... that and the wonderful AF system make the D500 the better field camera.
I got one of the first D500s in early May and love her more and more every day.
I even thought of getting a second one. Can hardly wait for the D8xx upgrade....
My sentiments exactly ... on both counts :)
-
TC20v2 sold, and really inferior to v3
That is exactly the conclusion of this review (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii/5):
- "Without a doubt, the new Nikon TC-20E III is a huge improvement over the Nikon TC-20E II. While I have not had a chance to actually test both side-by-side, I have tried using the Nikon TC-20E II in the past and was very disappointed with the results, even when used with fast lenses like Nikon 300mm f/2.8G. As can be seen in the previous pages of this review, the new TC-20E III is capable of producing excellent sharpness and contrast with most fast prime lenses and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II."
-
I have a TC-20E III which I use almost exclusively with my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II. There is a slight quality fall-off, but the results remain very good. I have too little usage for a 600mm, so the TC alternative works out for me.
Nikon D4s, Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II; 1/4000-8000 s f/5.6; Fuerteventura, Canary Islands (SP)
-
Really great photos of wildlife and action.
I also have expended much thought and trials to match my lens suite to the outing, i.e. hiking and/or fieldwork versus shooting from a hide or a local amble from camp or study. All these wonderful instruments now available to today's outdoor photographer (plus budget juggling!) makes for hard choices compared to the era when manual IF-ED primes were the pinnacle of optical quality. And the argument by the late Galen Rowell rings all the more truer today - especially his essay 'When You Can't Take it with You' Outdoor Photographer, September 1998. cf links to his essays on the family website in the thread on the 20mm f4.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1644.0.html
So as empitomized in the fast 300 with TC's, the ideal 'Dinky Nikon Inventory' balances min weight with best possible performance ..... At least for DX, the collation of empirical evidence in this thread convinces me to take the 300 f2.8 VRII over the new 400 f2.8 FL VRII (let alone the cost differential). Still I argue cost & weight strictures rank a 300 f4 PF higher (provided any VR niggles with the particular purchase do not interfere). Obviously, one is running out of speed (f8) with the TC-20E III extending a 300 f4, but the TC-14E III delivers a 630 f5.6 thanks to the 'DX Effect'
http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2015/06/25/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/
Most grateful thanks to you all for yet another most valuable thread of shared expertise and advice
kind regards
Woody
-
Really great photos of wildlife and action.
Thanks, and agree on the great action photos also.
I also have expended much thought and trials to match my lens suite to the outing, i.e. hiking and/or fieldwork versus shooting from a hide or a local amble from camp or study. All these wonderful instruments now available to today's outdoor photographer (plus budget juggling!) makes for hard choices compared to the era when manual IF-ED primes were the pinnacle of optical quality. And the argument by the late Galen Rowell rings all the more truer today - especially his essay 'When You Can't Take it with You' Outdoor Photographer, September 1998. cf links to his essays on the family website in the thread on the 20mm f4.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1644.0.html
Agree with everything you say here as well.
The 300mm (6.4 lb) is what you want on a hike, not the massive 600mm (8.4 lb). As mentioned in the beginning of the thread, my combo gives me 300mm - 900mm range.
However, in a blind situation, the 600mm lens would double that with the same two cameras, giving me 600-1800mm of reach :o
For this reason, I plan on adding a the 600mm FL ED VR within a year, after I save up for it.
On a hike, though, it's too much IMO. Along with the 300mm VR II, I carry between 2 and 4 AI-S lenses on a front belt pouch: the 15mm f/3.5 Ai-S, 20mm f/2.8 AI-S (or 28mm), and 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.
No backpack needed, all available on my waist. It's wonderful.
So as empitomized in the fast 300 with TC's, the ideal 'Dinky Nikon Inventory' balances min weight with best possible performance ..... At least for DX, the collation of empirical evidence in this thread convinces me to take the 300 f2.8 VRII over the new 400 f2.8 FL VRII (let alone the cost differential). Still I argue cost & weight strictures rank a 300 f4 PF higher (provided any VR niggles with the particular purchase do not interfere). Obviously, one is running out of speed (f8) with the TC-20E III extending a 300 f4, but the TC-14E III delivers a 630 f5.6 thanks to the 'DX Effect'
http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2015/06/25/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/
That is a great review, thanks for sharing.
I agree on the 400mm. Fabulous lens, but the $11,000 price, and the added weight, were too much for me. Esp. for hiking.
Now, as for ranking the 300 f/4 "higher" than the 300mm f/2.8, hmmm, that's a tough one. Weight-wise, convenience-wise, and cost-wise, yes. No question.
However, sacrificing 270mm of reach is a big hit IMO. 630mm vs. 900mm is a massive reach deficit (I know, because I get 600mm of reach with the D810, and almost never use it now because of how much more significant that extra 270mm is that I get on my D500).
The 300 f/4 simply doesn't work as well with the 2x TC III as does the 300 f/2.8 II. AF doesn't work at all, and the resolution isn't as good.
It's an individual judgment call, of course, but to be reduced in my reach by 270mm would be unacceptable IMO. If I hadn't have seen the difference, I would be thrilled with getting 600mm on my D810 + 2x II ... but having seen the difference, I only use wides (and my macro) on my D810 now. The 300mm f/2.8 II is bolted to my D500 :)
Hell, there are many times the combined 900mm isn't enough reach, let alone 600. Here is an example of a 900mm grab I got yesterday:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001552_large.jpg)
No crop here. That is as close as I was able to get with 900mm before this pregnant lizard ran back down its hole ... let alone if I lost another ~300mm of reach by using the 1.4x III. No thanks.
With birds, forget it. Many times 900mm shots need to be cropped ... so, to me, what makes the 2x TC III such a value is the additional reach.
And, unfortunately, getting this reach does not work as well on the 300mm f/4 PF as it does the 300mm f/2.8 II.
So the 300 f/2.8 II is the way to go IMO.
Most grateful thanks to you all for yet another most valuable thread of shared expertise and advice
kind regards
Woody
Thanks to you as well, that was a great article.
The 300 f/4 looks like a handy and wonderful option, esp. with the 1.4x.
Its only weighing 1.6 lb sounds wonderful as well (not to mention its $2,000 price compared to $5600).
However, not working with the 2x TC III, and losing ~300mm of reach in the process, just was not a trade-off I personally was willing to make.
Jack
-
Belated thanks for detailed feedback on these 300 Nikkors. So I have been reconciling with the reality to expand my budget for a 300 f2.8 as well as the 300 f4 PF!
Being so much lighter and compact, the latter has major advantages of portability
kind regards
Woody
-
my TC2IIIE is not that sharp... consider yourself very lucky.
-
Now we are two of that observation.
-
my TC2IIIE is not that sharp... consider yourself very lucky.
Sorry to hear that.
I don't know if I am "lucky" ... or if you are unlucky ... as there are a lot of excellent reviews on it, so it could be you were on the wrong-end of the quality-control line.
(I also don't know what lens you've tried it with, what aperture you're shooting at, if you're hand-holding or using a tripod, etc., because these can affect your results also.)
Here are some more recent shots I've taken with mine:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001561.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/695/1561/medium)
Mule Deer
Nikon D500 | Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon 2x TC III (900mm - no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001567.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/1/1567/medium)
The Ravens
Nikon D500 | Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon 2x TC III (900mm - no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001574.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/695/1574/medium)
Common Merganser
Nikon D500 | Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon 2x TC III (900mm - no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001568.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/695/1568/medium)
Robin Redbreast
Nikon D500 | Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon 2x TC III (900mm - no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001569.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/1/1569/medium)
A Cute Squirrel :D
Nikon D500 | Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II | Nikon 2x TC III (900mm - no crop)
Recent trip to Yosemite ... these were the highlights in an otherwise totally-overcrowded weekend :o
Jack
-
Belated thanks for detailed feedback on these 300 Nikkors. So I have been reconciling with the reality to expand my budget for a 300 f2.8 as well as the 300 f4 PF!
Being so much lighter and compact, the latter has major advantages of portability
kind regards
Woody
Sounds like your mind was made up before you posed the question.
I empathize with your decision, however: after toting-around the 300mm f/2.8 II for 3 consecutive 8-hour hikes, slung over my shoulder on a tripod, I feel like someone beat my back and shoulders with a crowbar :-\
However, that said, I wouldn't switch to the 300 f/4 PF, because it can't take the 2x TC III ... and so I wouldn't have the reach I enjoy now. The lesser reach of the "lighter, cheaper" 300 f/4 would have meant I would have failed to get the same shots I was able to get ... having (essentially) a 900mm lens, thanks to the much higher-quality of the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2x TC III.
To each his own,
Jack
-
Don't you mean 600mm lens?
-
Don't you mean 600mm lens?
No, I don't.
D500 has a 1.5x crop factor.
D500 + 300mm = 450mm.
D500 + 300mm + 2x TC = 900mm ;)
-
A topic beaten to death over and over again.
No magic, the 300 mm lens with a 2X TC still ends as a 600 mm.
If you so wish, think of the angle of view with that 300*2 mm = 600 mm on your DX camera as similar to that provided by a 900 mm lens. On the FX camera, that is. Thus the potential for confusion is huge.
Thus, we won't elaborate the matter further. Think what you want. But be careful with the assertions. "Focal length" is not a good proxy for angle of view.
-
A topic beaten to death over and over again.
No magic, the 300 mm lens with a 2X TC still ends as a 600 mm.
I understand what you're saying.
If you so wish, think of the angle of view with that 300*2 mm = 600 mm on your DX camera as similar to that provided by a 900 mm lens. On the FX camera, that is. Thus the potential for confusion is huge.
Thus, we won't elaborate the matter further. Think what you want. But be careful with the assertions. "Focal length" is not a good proxy for angle of view.
Point well taken.
What I do know is 35mm is The Standard.
What I also know is, on Adobe Bridge, the EXIF data on these shots shows this:
- Focal Length: 600mm
Focal Length in 35mm: 900mm
So both interpretations have merit.
What I also know is that, if I took these same shots with a D810, I would be pulled-back much further ... and if I cropped to the same degree to get what I captured naturally on my D500 I would not have the same number of pixels to work with.
Therefore, conceptually, there is a difference IMO ...
Jack
-
I am fully aware of the EXIF-field FocalLengthIn35mm. One can consider its numerical value as useful information, or confusing. Each to their own.
-
Let's not repeat the focal length discussion here as well, please continue your thoughts on subject in the dedicated topic:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html
-
Assuredly will not. Aye aye sir. TC 20E it is.
-
Let's not repeat the focal length discussion here as well, please continue your thoughts on subject in the dedicated topic:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html
I wasn't the one who did so.
I posted images taken with the Nikkor TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter, crystal-clear images (which is a surprise to many), and which was also the topic of this thread.
A careful review will show others decided to digress into the focal length minutia.
Regardless of philosophy or credo as to which focal length is to be mentioned ... the point is, the Nikkor TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter is capable of taking outstandingly-clear images, IF put on the right lens, and IF utilized at its optimal aperture.
That is the point I tried to make for the benefit of the members here.
If "a picture's worth a thousand words," I will let my images stand as testimony.
Jack
-
I wasn't the one who did so.
It was a general comment just to prevent a repetition of the mentioned topic where the focal length FX vs DX "equivalence" is beaten to death ;D
Would be nice if we can keep this topic clean and on topic as it contains valuable information of the TC-20E III as you mention.
Personally I was a big fan of the 1.7TC, better IQ than the 2.0, half a stop faster and almost the same extra reach.
-
It was a general comment just to prevent a repetition of the mentioned topic where the focal length FX vs DX "equivalence" is beaten to death ;D
Agreed; it's easy to digress.
Would be nice if we can keep this topic clean and on topic as it contains valuable information of the TC-20E III as you mention.
Agreed; I did my homework and wanted to share the results.
It appears many members were surprised at the results ... which exceeded even my own expectations.
Optimal results are dependent upon using the right lens + the right aperture, etc.
So I felt this was valuable info to share.
Personally I was a big fan of the 1.7TC, better IQ than the 2.0, half a stop faster and almost the same extra reach.
The 1.4x TC III has better IQ than the 1.7 TC III ... but "not enough" reach to be valuable, IMO (630mm on the D500 compared to 765mm)
The 1.7x TC III has better IQ than the 2x TC III ... and, as you say, "almost" the reach of the 2x TC (765mm on the D500 compared to 900mm).
Each step up gives an extra 135mm of reach ...
My point here is, if used correctly, and on the right lenses, at the right aperture, the 2x TC III is plenty sharp ... and gives the best reach of the bunch.
Reading some of the reviews, I almost didn't buy the 2x TC III ... however, in reading carefully, I realized you need the right lens to use with the 2x (which I had) and I decided to go ahead and get it. You also need to use the right aperture.
I would rather use my D810 + 2x TC (600mm) than use a D500 + 1.4x TC (630mm).
With the D500, I would rather have the extra 135mm (with a 2x TC) than lose that same 135mm of reach (with a 1.7x TC).
While there may be a negligible difference in IQ, and a stop of light with the 2X TC, this is offset by the high ISO capability of the D500 ... and the extra 135mm of reach surely does come in handy not to mention an extra 270mm over the 1.4x TC ;D
Jack
-
My preference is the tc17eII. Or the TC14eIII latest.
And I have used the tc2eIII with the 300/2.8VR, 500/4D, 500/4VR, 600/4VR and the 600/4FL. Cams D800e, D810, D4, D4s and D5
That said I have made the tc2 work on occasion albeit with Focustune but have been disappointed more often than not.
Example http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/152666010
-
My preference is the tc17eII. Or the TC14eIII latest.
And I have used the tc2eIII with the 300/2.8VR, 500/4D, 500/4VR, 600/4VR and the 600/4FL. Cams D800e, D810, D4, D4s and D5
Again, the takeaway here is the 2x TC III is designed to work optimally with f/2.8 prime lenses, which means only the first lens you posted was optimized for it (and that the last 4 lenses on your list were not).
That said I have made the tc2 work on occasion albeit with Focustune but have been disappointed more often than not.
1) See above.
2) I will bet most of your better images were taken with the 300mm f/2.8 (still not as good as the f/2.8 II) ... and that the majority of "disappointments" were with your other lenses that were not optimized for it.
3) A picture's worth a thousand words; post some of your 1.7x TC III images :D
Jack
-
I used the 1.7TC on the 200/2VR for a very usable 200/2 and 340/3.3 combo on FX and DX.
Did try the latest 2.0 during the NG Stavanger-Bergen event with said lens and if memory memory serves me well it did better than expected but didn't outperform the 1.7TC which did everything I wanted it to do (am not a birder looking for max FOV).
-
My preference is the tc17eII. Or the TC14eIII latest.
And I have used the tc2eIII with the 300/2.8VR, 500/4D, 500/4VR, 600/4VR and the 600/4FL. Cams D800e, D810, D4, D4s and D5
Again, the takeaway here is the 2x TC III is designed to work optimally with f/2.8 prime lenses, which means only the first lens you posted was optimized for it (and that the last 4 lenses on your list were not).
That said I have made the tc2 work on occasion albeit with Focustune but have been disappointed more often than not.
1) See above.
2) I will bet most of your better images were taken with the 300mm f/2.8 (still not as good as the f/2.8 II) ... and that the majority of "disappointments" were with your other lenses that were not optimized for it.
3) A picture's worth a thousand words; post some of your 1.7x TC III images :D
Jack
-
The image
(https://c2.staticfrimptootr.com/8/7095/7354298356_4a12b3ddbd_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
The crop
(https://c1.staticfrimptootr.com/9/8162/7169111551_04e83fb341_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
-
My feeling is that the 1.7 TC also does better on my 300 f2.8 AFI than the 2TC mk3.
-
The AFS 200/2 is an acceptable combination with the TC-17E.2. A bit up and down with the TC-20E.3.
I use either of them if I have to.
-
The image
(https://c2.staticfrimptootr.com/8/7095/7354298356_4a12b3ddbd_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
The crop
(https://c1.staticfrimptootr.com/9/8162/7169111551_04e83fb341_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
I's not able to see your images, Jan.
-
The AFS 200/2 is an acceptable combination with the TC-17E.2. A bit up and down with the TC-20E.3.
ahh.. i forgot to add that.. i have used the 200/2VR1 with TC2IIIE as well. perhaps i should revisit that one..
-
2) I will bet most of your better images were taken with the 300mm f/2.8 (still not as good as the f/2.8 II) ... and that the majority of "disappointments" were with your other lenses that were not optimized for it.
3) A picture's worth a thousand words; post some of your 1.7x TC III images :D
2) actually, i only use the TC2 under some desperate conditions requiring the reach otherwise it really doesn't make sense to use it.. i currently handhold my 500/4VR and now also my 600/4FL thanks to the new lightweight design so why would i put a doubler on a 300.
there are plenty of images on my web site under the birds section categorized by lens/cam combo, check the EXIF for the TC's most have them on.
http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/birds
3) but if you insist. here's one recently shot that i haven't posted here under a different thread
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/9.0 at 1000.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/163487429/original.jpg)
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1000.0mm iso3200
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/163495055/original.jpg)
-
2) actually, i only use the TC2 under some desperate conditions requiring the reach otherwise it really doesn't make sense to use it.. i currently handhold my 500/4VR and now also my 600/4FL thanks to the new lightweight design so why would i put a doubler on a 300.
If you have a 600mm, I agree.
Right now, I can't afford one ... so hats off if you can :)
Still, I think I am getting comparable images with a TC, and it's lighter to carry.
there are plenty of images on my web site under the birds section categorized by lens/cam combo, check the EXIF for the TC's most have them on.
http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/birds
Very nice, thanks for sharing.
3) but if you insist. here's one recently shot that i haven't posted here under a different thread
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/9.0 at 1000.0mm iso1250
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/163487429/original.jpg)
Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1000.0mm iso3200
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/163495055/original.jpg)
Gorgeous!
I honestly think I can get nearly-comparable with the 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC, but maybe that's more hoping and wishing.
I will not debate the quality of the 600mm, by itself, but what I wanted to see is if the images you've taken with a 300 + 1.7x TC are "better" or "sharper" than the ones I've posted with the 2x TC III.
I would have to see that to believe it.
Jack
-
A good test for a TC is whether the results are better than the lens by itself (or lens + shorter TC) cropped down to the same field of view.
So for example, if a 300/2.8 + TC-20III delivers better results than cropping a straight 300/2.8 image, or 300/2.8+TC-14, then it's worth using, even if the results are not perfect - it's still an improvement.
What works will depend on the exact lens/TC combination, and the camera, for example a camera with a high pixel density may give better results with a cropping, where a low rez camera might work better with a TC.
-
I will not debate the quality of the 600mm, by itself, but what I wanted to see is if the images you've taken with a 300 + 1.7x TC are "better" or "sharper" than the ones I've posted with the 2x TC III.
I would have to see that to believe it.
Almost this entire gallery is a 300/2.8VR + TC17II http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/d800e_30028g_vrii
Nikon D800E ,AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II
1/1600s f/7.1 at 500.0mm iso800
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/156072215/original.jpg)
-
Almost this entire gallery is a 300/2.8VR + TC17II http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/d800e_30028g_vrii
Nikon D800E ,AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II
1/1600s f/7.1 at 500.0mm iso800
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/156072215/original.jpg)
That is gorgeous, Bob. (Your whole gallery is gorgeous!)
I have not had my combo as long as you, so I don't have the same diversified portfolio yet ;D
That said, on the subject of resolution and detail, it's hard to see any difference in the intricate detail of your image versus my images.
I feel I can get the same quality with my D810 + 300 f/2.8 + TC 2x III @ 600mm, and I also feel I can approach this quality at 900mm. I have posted these before, but here they are again as a direct comparison:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001561.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/695/1561/medium)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001567.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/1/1567/medium)
Remember, these are at 900mm, uncropped.
Not sure how "far away" they'd look at 510mm ... reduced by over 60% ... if I was limited with the 1.7 on a D800E :o
If you were standing in the same spot, taking these same images as I did, your results with the D800E + 1.7x TC would be pulled-back by over 60% ... and I am not sure how it would look if you cropped it this close, trying to get the same framing.
I know I would be pleased to get the results you're getting too ... again, all of your images look great ... at 510mm ... but again, I am confident I could get the same quality with the D810 + 2x III at 600mm.
My point for this thread topic is, what I can't do with my D810 + 300 (nor can you do with your D800E) is get 900mm when I need it. That is a 390mm advantage in reach, which is significant.
I realize you have a 600mm, and with the 1.7x you can get 1020mm in reach, but that is an extra $7,000 you had to spend to get a 120mm advantage over what I'm using.
For me, with the D500, I have a 135mm advantage over my same setup, by choosing the 2x III, for the same price as a 1.7x ... enjoying a 390mm reach advantage over your D800E + 300mm + 1.7x TC :)
I am quite happy with the results at 900mm, with the 2x III, and feel it is comparable in quality to what I am seeing out of the D800E + 1.7x TC at 510mm.
Best regards,
Jack
-
I have been reading this this Topic with interest, as it is well pointed out, to get to a super telephoto lens in your kit bag,
is not a cheap option.
I have been achieving this with a variety of TC's including a TC 17e ii and a 300mm or 500mm ais lens set up. The use of these old school lenses will make the type of work being offered for viewing in this Topic very difficult to achieve, but can be done to a degree, shrouded in limitations.
I have looked at Bob's Pbase album with the TC 17e ii as the most used attachment,
I can only applaud Bob on the quality of the content and am inspired.
I have a slight confusion on some of the explanations, as I believe I have learned correctly, over time that a crop factor is not a increase in focal length.
To increase focal length a change in a lens or lens assembly to a is required.
I have come to believe a crop factor offers a equivalent field of view of a focal length.
I have read, but not tested the theory for myself, that in a test situation, where a subject is placed at a set distance.
The image taken by a Telephoto lens will have a larger measured subject in the frame, than a image that is produced using a cropped sensor to obtain a equivalent FOV of the focal length of the Telephoto lens used in the test.
I wonder how true this is ?
I also thank all the contributors to this topic, for making another good reference for the future.
-
The TC alters magnification of detail, which is what really counts. It does not change the near limit. The format of the camera limits the covered angle of view. The TC "steals" light by enlarging detail. A TC 1.4X "costs" 1 stop and a TC 2X "costs" two stops. The matter isn't really that much more complicated. Magnification in combination with the aperture determines the depth of field (to an acceptable first degree of approximation).
All the confusion on these matters would cease to exist if we stopped used the focal length, fictitious or not, as a proxy for the parameters outlined above.
-
A riddle; This Fieldfare is a IR capture with a M4/3 sensor, the TC 2EIII, 600 mm f4 vr. Whats the focal length? ;)
-
My answer is: I dont know and I dont care, as long as it gets me the framing I want ;D
-
I have not had my combo as long as you, so I don't have the same diversified portfolio yet ;D
i no longer own the 300/2.8VR... have gone to the 500/VR.... and if i can sell it for a reasonable amount will go to the 500/FL which is even lighter.
-
A riddle; This Fieldfare is a IR capture with a M4/3 sensor, the TC 2EIII, 600 mm f4 vr. Whats the focal length? ;)
Easy. 1200 mm f/8. No more, no less.
Børge, didn't know you used that kind of heavy weaponry, through? A 600/4 is massive. Had one years ago so should know.
-
It would be better to just give the actual focal length as otherwise there can be some confusion about what is meant. If you want to give the angle of view, you can do that as well. ;-)
-
It is the perception of what constitutes "actual" focal length that sometimes turns out to be so difficult ... Totally agree otherwise. Focal length, format, those data should be enough for anyone keen to calculate other aspects. However what these figures have to do with the ensuing photograph is obscure at best.
-
Have had it for some years, but I carefully choose when to haul it. It is a fantastic lens that works well with the 2x converter, when atmospheric conditions are favorable. If temperature and humidity is high or over sea in winter, it is almost impossible to get a good clear image. Far away objects are especially prone to this effect. I suspect this might affect the observed image quality of this combo. But otherwise it is great. Here is another one with the combo. Water shrew, 1/500 sec, f8, Iso 25600, Df, 600, 2x.
-
Børge, great advert for the Df . Very interesting image. The 300 2.8vrI is the only lens I use the TC2.0EIII on. Tried with the 70-200 2.8GvrII but found the 80-400vr was better at anything over short to medium distances. I would love to try the TC2 on the 500 f4Gvr on a cool , crisp morning with low humidity but that is never going to happen in Goa :( . A couple of years back we were planning on driving from Goa to Ladakh with an SUV full of gear. I was really looking forward to getting to the remote areas. In that instance the Chinese Army spoiled the plan.
I have seen some wild atmospherics shooting birds across a small lake in the heat and humidity.
-
For really long lenses, the conditions of the atmosphere severely impact what and how one can shoot. A problem I see in particular during late summer into winter is temperature inversions, and shooting through an inversion layer is literally as being enshrouded in dense fog. Nothing comes into sharp focus and visibility drops more the longer the focal length.
A cold late autumn or winter morning just before sunrise is the best. Like this one from the Central Mountain Range of Norway, shot very early using the first sun rays grazing the mountain slopes. The red patch is an alpine heather Arctostaphylos alpina, famous for its intensely coloured foliage in September. In fact, showing the red hues to their full extent is hopeless on a web page. The heather here grows on a moraine ridge that gives the dry habitat required to maximise the colours.
(500/4)
-
Beautiful Bjørn! You explained the atmospheric impact on focal length better than me. I have come to the conclusion that to properly assess the image quality of a lens and tc combo one must take into account the athmopheric conditions. And Tom, I guess that these conditions seldom occur in your part of the world. The only thing I could thhink of is to exaggerate the athmospheric condition during a sunset or a sunrise.
-
As I stated a few times before, I do use TCs when their use is warranted.
Sometimes, even on a zoom lens like the 70-200/2.8 VR Mk.2 here with the TC-20E mk.3
-
Another TC'd shot, this time using the AFS 200/2 again with the TC-20E Mk.3. On occasion, the combination works well enough.
When heat waves and air turbulence cause problems, one better has to be closer to the main subject.
(Death Valley dunes).
-
On par with my observations. I used the same combo as you (70-200 and tc) on both wildlife and landscapes and was quite satisfied with the results. The heat from the Death valley scene radiate from the screen :)
-
Ah, Central Mountain Range image is easily one of the most impressive one by Bjørn. Glad to see it as a larger image datum.
-
Second attempt to post these images, somehow the paths to the images got screwed up.
The image
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7095/7354298356_4a12b3ddbd_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
The crop
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8162/7169111551_04e83fb341_o.jpg)
Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012
-
No reason to complain about the quality, JA.
-
Second attempt to post these images, somehow the paths to the images got screwed up.
Very nice detail, easily as nice as the 2.0 TC.
I personally can see no qualitative difference between the two.
I believe the folks who have had bad results are either a) using a lens not suitable, b) using the wrong apertures, and/or c) hand-holding or otherwise implementing bad technique and blaming it on the TC.
With the right lens, the right aperture, and with optimal (tripod, sometimes even hand-held) technique, the results of this adapter are superb.
Will post more images as time permits ... back to work now 8)
-
While user error might play some part in getting things to work there's also the inevitable variations in construction tolerances.
With 0 being optimal performance a +1 lens and a +1 TC you end up with +2 performance, one can work on ones technique all he want but the combination will never sing. Attach the same +1 TC on a -1 lens and magic does happen without little extra effort besides the basic skill set of using long lenses.
My 200/2VR and 1.7TC combo was very usable wide-open at f/3.3 and very close to native IQ at f/4. The only problem that did occur was that this lens shifted my perception of acceptable optical performance to new heights and my dislike for anything zoomish ;D ;D
-
It doesnt get sharper than that Jan. Your technic must be flawless :)
-
The TC-20E III can give good results with the 500/4 AF-S VR as well. Here is a female Common Pochard (Aythya ferina):
-
My goto lens combo if I need some reach is the 300AFI TC1.7 combo on either my D2Xs or D300 (well that is what I have :-)
If the subjects are closer I go back to D800/300 AFI
I often try the 2TCmkiii, but it does not take too long before the TC1.7 goes back on.
-
holy moly Fanie - clear to me that gear doesnt count looking at this :)
okey it counts a little...
-
I have had mixed experiences with the 2x TCIII. Not worth it in the end - so I moved it.
but sometimes it worked.
D3x + 200-400 (first generation) + 2 x TCIII
-
I am reviving this thread as I recently acquired a used TC-20E III to use with my AFS 300mm f/4 PF E. While researching this TC I also came across the following discussion which I think can be useful for anyone considering different TC alternatives: https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=1202 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=1202)
My copy of the TC-20E III so far seems capable of providing very good results when paired with a high quality lens of newer date like the 300PF (brief testing with my old AF 300 mm f/4 ED is a different story; I think that lens is better paired with the TC301), but of course naturally quite up to the level of my TC-14E. I have tested with AW1 and D500. While the 300PF alone does not require AF fine tuning, with the TC-20E III, +11 is needed for optimal results. [I have previously also not used AF fine tuning with my TC-14E, but when checked it now, I seem to get some improvement with +4.] AF keepers and focus speed are certainly much lower than with the 300 PF alone, it seems that single frame shots get higher keepers than high speed shooting, where often only the first frame is optimal unless light is very good, even at 1/1000 sec shutter speed (my normal with this lens). Issue with handholding a 600mm lens could be part of that. I usually do not have problems locking the focus, even indoors. Most of my testing was in AF-C, 25 point dynamic and VR in sports mode, mostly handheld.
Here are some examples in better light, unfortunately a bit flat, but also the best results on my sometimes skittish test subject. First the uncropped frames:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029673800.jpg)
NIKON D500, f/10 @ 600 mm, 1/1250, ISO 800
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029673801.jpg)
NIKON D500, f/10 @ 600 mm, 1/1000, ISO 1250
100% crops, they likely need to be opened in a new tab for full res. view unless you have a very high resolution monitor:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029673805.jpg)
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029673807.jpg)
100% crop of Paper Birch bark:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029673802.jpg)
NIKON D500, f/10 @ 600 mm, 1/1000, ISO 1400
What more often than not limits resolution is light levels this time of the year at my latitude, typically pushing ISO up in the 4000-6400 range, here an uncropped example:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4030650160.jpg)
NIKON D500, f/10 @ 600 mm, 1/1000, ISO 6400
I think distance performance very much depends on quality of the air. Here is Mount Hayes, 144 km (89 miles) south of Fairbanks. I have plenty of images showing a very blurry view of these mountains with the 300PF alone, while this capture was on a day with unusually clear and untroubled air, although still not perfect:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4029674790.jpg)
Another not quite so distant capture at dusk of the antenna dish at the university, a stitch of two horizontal frames:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4030873155.jpg)
(about ISO 1000, but shadows lifted at least one stop.)
100% crop of bottom frame (open in new tab for full resolution):
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4030891873.jpg)
Finally a comparison to 1.4xTC. First out TC-20E III, both are full frames.
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4030912156.jpg)
NIKON D500, f/10 @ 600 mm, 1/1000, ISO 6400
Then TC-14E. Note that inherently, the 1.4x converter has the aperture advantage that causes lower ISO to be used, which in turn affects resolution:
(https://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4030912158.jpg)
(http://NIKON D500, f/7.1 @ 420 mm, 1/1000, ISO 2800)
It should also be mentioned that TC-20E II stacked with TC-14E on the 300mm PF works quite well for astrophoto purposes (i.e. moon captures ) as exemplified in this thread:
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=1867.msg163322#msg163322 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=1867.msg163322#msg163322)
-
Thank you for your review, looking good!
Evaluating teleconverters is quite a task, since they often behave unpredictable with some lenses, similar to adding extension - Sometimes the results are fine even superb but often one is left wondering why it does not deliver the expected outcome.
Often the back ground suffers when using converters, here you have very neutral back gorund so much better even Bokeh.
Still some color artifacts are clearly visible in the highlight, first and third image.
-
Thanks for the comment Erik. Yes, snow crystals can behave quite unpredictably, as they often consist of multiple point sources close together with different spectral colors.