Nikkor TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter

[Fanie]

My feeling is that the 1.7 TC also does better on my 300 f2.8 AFI than the 2TC mk3.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[John Koerner]

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

I's not able to see your images, Jan.

[bobfriedman]

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..

[bobfriedman]

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

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


Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1000.0mm iso3200

[John Koerner]

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


Nikon D5 ,Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
1/2000s f/10.0 at 1000.0mm iso3200

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

[Roland Vink]

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.

[bobfriedman]

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

[John Koerner]

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

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

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:








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

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

[John G]

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.       

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[BW]

A riddle; This Fieldfare is a IR capture with a M4/3 sensor, the TC 2EIII, 600 mm f4 vr. Whats the focal length?

[BW]

My answer is: I dont know and I dont care, as long as it gets me the framing I want

[bobfriedman]

I have not had my combo as long as you, so I don't have the same diversified portfolio yet

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.