Nikkor TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter

[David H. Hartman]

Don't you mean 600mm lens?

[John Koerner]

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 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[John Koerner]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I am fully aware of the EXIF-field FocalLengthIn35mm. One can consider its numerical value as useful information, or confusing. Each to their own.

[Jan Anne]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Assuredly will not. Aye aye sir. TC 20E it is.

[John Koerner]

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

[Jan Anne]

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

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.

[John Koerner]

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

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

Jack

[bobfriedman]

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

[John Koerner]

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

Jack

[Jan Anne]

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).

[John Koerner]

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

Jack

[Jan Anne]

The image

Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012



The crop

Nikkor 200/2VR with 1.7TC on D800E @ f/4, Rotterdam zoo 2012