TC-14E vs. TC-14EIII improvement?

[Wally]

Does anyone have a first hand comparison of optical quality when using these TCs on the fast and long tele Nikkors, especially 200 VRII and 500?
Is it worth to upgrade? How does the TC-14EIII compare to the TC-17E? Thanks!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I haven't found any TC that really does the AFS 200/2 justice, although the newest TC20E.3 begins to approach the target.

The TC17E is OK with the AFS 300/2.8 Nikkors though.

Will test the newer TCs on as 500/4 VR FL E when I get my review sample.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I have used the TC-14E III and TC-14E II with the VR 200/2 II, and the VR 200/2 original version with TC-14E II. I think the main difference that I can see is that the color is a bit more vivid and contrast slightly better with the III version of the TC than the II version of the TC, however, I did not compare the two TCs side by side. I found the VR 200/2 II takes the TC-14E II better than the VR 200/2; the internal flare exhibited at wide apertures with the first VR version of the lens and this TC is reduced when using the nano-coated second VR version of the lens with this TC.

I think overall the 200/2 II and the TC-14E III are a combination that gives quite good results (stopped down to f/3.5 or more) and I use this combination from time to time, when I need to and the results are quite decent; autofocus with this combination works excellently. I also occasionally use the 200/2 II with the TC-20 E III but the sharpness is not as good and there is a lot more CA, until stopped down to f/8 where very good image quality is finally obtained. I find that autofocus is erratic with the 2X TC especially at long distances, which is a major drawback for using this combination for action. For landscape details and other static subjects I have obtained good results with the TC-20E III using both versions of the 200/2, also at short to medium distances the AF has worked ok (outdoor concerts). With the 200/2 II + TC-14E III the autofocus function is very fast and accurate at all distances.

The cameras I've used mostly have been the D800 and D810 with these combinations.

I haven't used the TC-17E II nor a Nikon 500mm lens.

[bobfriedman]

i use the TC1.4III mostly with the 500/4VR or the 600/4VR... it seems to be an improvement in my mind (color, sharpness, contrast, CA, etc.. ) i guess.. i really haven't anything but 10s of 1000s of wildlife shots in varied conditions to go on. (e.g. http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/160719681 or http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/160658870 or http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/157260361  i have many more to look at)

[Lance B]

On the 500 f4, the new 1.4x TCIII is quite a bit better for sharpness than the 1.4x TCII, especially at distance. It also seems sharper overall at any distance. I didn't find any improvement on my 300 f2.8 VRII, though. As for AF speed and accuracy, the new 1.4x TCIII is much better on the 500 f4 than the old TC. On all lenses, there is a small improvement in CA as well.

D810 + 500 f4 VR + 1.4x TCIII

[beryllium10]

Can I add a related question to this old thread?  If it gets missed I'll re-start it as a new thread.

I am interested to know if there are any significant differences in performance, robustness, build-consistency, etc between the TC-14E and TC-14EII?  Various internet sites say they are optically identical.  I'm not sure if that extends to identical coatings.  The TC-14E sells used for a much lower price than the TC-14EII, and I'd be interested to know if this is due to a known weakness of the TC-14E, superstition, or the common belief that a newer version must be better.  My main use will be with the 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810. 

A second, more obscure question: The main difference seems to be in the materials used in construction. Does anyone know whether either version has problems in very cold conditions (say, down to -20C)?  I notice that Oivind Toien has posted some very nice winter photos from Alaska indicating use of the TC-14E, elsewhere on NG.

Thanks - John

[tommiejeep]

Bob, Lance, you both get outstanding images so I'm listening.  Ancient history now, but when I was considering going from the 1.4 EII to the III it seemed that the consensus was that it only made an appreciable difference with the newest Nikon long glass.  I've never been unhappy with the TC1.4EII.   I use the TC1.7EII on the 300 2.8vrI quite a bit and was hoping for a 1.7III.
Cheers,
Tom

[Erik Lund]

Can I add a related question to this old thread?  If it gets missed I'll re-start it as a new thread.

I am interested to know if there are any significant differences in performance, robustness, build-consistency, etc between the TC-14E and TC-14EII?  Various internet sites say they are optically identical.  I'm not sure if that extends to identical coatings.  The TC-14E sells used for a much lower price than the TC-14EII, and I'd be interested to know if this is due to a known weakness of the TC-14E, superstition, or the common belief that a newer version must be better.  My main use will be with the 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810. 

A second, more obscure question: The main difference seems to be in the materials used in construction. Does anyone know whether either version has problems in very cold conditions (say, down to -20C)?  I notice that Oivind Toien has posted some very nice winter photos from Alaska indicating use of the TC-14E, elsewhere on NG.

Thanks - John

Mark I and Mark II are identical except for some grooves on the outside of the 'barrel'

Temperature will not affect image quality regarding the converter.

[Roland Vink]

The TC-14E and TC-14EII are optically the same. The TC-14E first came out in 1992 for use with the AF-I super-telephoto lenses, which is why it is labelled "AF-I". It was upgraded to the "AF-S" TC-14EII in 1996 with the release of the first AF-S telephotos. The main difference is a change in styling to match the new lenses, otherwise it is pretty much the same lens optically, mechanically and electronically.

The TC-14EIII is an all-new lens design with 7 elements in 4 groups, compared to the 5/5 design of the earlier models. The TC-14EIII is not AI compatible. Which is better? It might depend on the lens/TC combination, although I would guess the TC-14EIII is designed to work best with modern telephoto lenses.

I'm guessing here, but I'd say the construction on all models is similar - they all weigh about the same. These TCs have almost no moving parts, so shouldn't be affected by temperature - the camera/batteries would be affected first.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Some of the earlier AFS versions of the 300/2.8 are incompatible with the TC-14E Mk.3, however works well with the Mk.2. Might be other long lenses in the same category as well.

I'm eager to have a TC 1.4X for my AFS 200/2, but hesitate to invest in the TC-14E Mk.3 in addition to the Mk.2 already in my possession. Will decide over the summer, though. I'll keep the Mk.2 in any case for the 300/2.8.

[beryllium10]

Roland and Erik,

Thanks for the information on the functional similarity of the TC-14E and EII.  I will go with former, and be glad to pocket the savings.

Cheers,  John

[Gary Irwin]

FWIW I shot the TC14EII heavily with the 500VR G for years and then after I dropped the @(&#$ thing, the TC14EIII for a short time before upgrading to the 600E. I could not detect any difference optically between the two versions of TC's at least on center axis where my subjects are always located. The newer version is said to work better on the new E series lenses, and especially the TC20EIII, but I think that's just because the optics of the latest supertele's are that much better than the G versions, which is certainly the case with the 500G. Bottom line, if I owned the TC14EII, I wouldn't rush to upgrade. I've never used the TC14E, but from what I've read the coatings are better on the newer versions which should account for something. That said, I refuse to use the TC17EII or TC20EIII on anything any more.

[Erik Lund]

Moderation comment:

TC's have always devided photographers and they will continue to do so 

Please accept that fact - And not fall into yet another crusade to convince people to join the other side.

Thanks!

[PedroS]

Moderation comment:

TC's have always devided photographers and they will continue to do so 

Please accept that fact - And not fall into yet another crusade to convince people to join the other side.

Thanks!

For me a TC is always a compromise not a solution...
Used all v2 TCs on the majority of long lenses... never been in love with any.
Still use v3 TCs (dished a long time the 17) on the newer 400 FL... still not in love... it's maybe me !

[MILLIREHM]

TCS always a compromise
400FL takes Version III converters pretty well
TC14E II and III make a great difference on the AF-S 80-400, the first one unusable, the III version can help sometimes
Never could identify too much difference between the TC20 EII and III maybe its me
Most of the time i cant get warm with the TC17