Ai and K Nikkors 400mm f5.6 ED "non-IF"

[Akira]

When I first got the 400 in question, I also got a TC-14 (no letter suffix) teleconverter, which is, I think, the AI verion of what became the TC-14B for AIS.  I found it worked pretty nicely with the 400 on film, and the quality seemed quite good.  I haven't done a lot of comparison recently, but back when I first started shooting digital with a D3200, I tried it just to compare teleconverter use with cropping.  It seemed about a dead heat,  and not too long after that I got the 200-500 anyway, so the TC-14 hasn't seen much use.

I'll have to try it again in daylight, with the D7100, and see if I can do a better test.

Matthew, thank you for sharing your experience.  I also had the no-name TC-14, but when I had it, my only compatible lens was Ai 300/4.5.  The combo along with Nikon 1 J1 enabled me to shoot Vinus in Transit, but I wasn't able to assess its performance when combined with better optics.

Unlike TC-14C or the current TC800-1.25E ED designed for specific lenses, other TCs are designed for general use with other long Nikkor lenses, hence my assumption of the newer TCs.

[Gerhard2006]

Gerry, hope you would allow me to piggyback my question on yours.

I found a second-hand TC-20E II offered at a reasonable price.  I wonder if "could" perform better than the TCs designed during the same period as the non-IF 400/5.6 ED, or if an APS-C or even m4/3 body would be a better choice for the purpose?

With a 2X converter you would have an 800 F11 lens. I had the 1000mm F11 lens and it was a bear to focus accurately, I would think using the 400 w/ TC14 would give you 1 extra stop and the smaller sensor with give the narrower field of view and with mirrorless you could focus on screen better. Regards Gerry

[Akira]

With a 2X converter you would have an 800 F11 lens. I had the 1000mm F11 lens and it was a bear to focus accurately, I would think using the 400 w/ TC14 would give you 1 extra stop and the smaller sensor with give the narrower field of view and with mirrorless you could focus on screen better. Regards Gerry

Live view or either LCD or EVF would handle the large f-stops, but the difficulty of manual focus of elongated lenses will be more painful for sure.

A better solution may be to combine a 1.4x TC and a smaller format camera.

[Birna Rørslett]

Small not large f-"stops".

[Akira]

Small not large f-"stops".

I should have said large "f-numbers". 

[Birna Rørslett]

No, small f-numbers. f/0.5-f/1 are extremely large, f/45-f/90 very small. To give an indication of the inverted scale used here. One always needs that extra split second to reorientate one's mindset.

[Matthew Currie]

OK, here's another quick and dirty test.  Taken in the back yard.  A cold sunny morning, in which the thermal effects were enough to make the image a little woozy, so though not ideal for sharpness, it's a real world sort of day. D7100, on a tripod, ISO200, 5.6 aperture on lens, Aperture priority, shot with self timer.  The converter is a Nikon TC-14.  The crops are done and converted to JPG in View NX-2, conversion and  downsizing of uncropped original, and juxtaposition of crops, in Irfanview.  No post processing of any kind. 

In the comparison, left is without TC, right is with.

As you can see, the image quality is not much different, but interestingly, along with getting a less pixellated image from the TC, it looks as if the chromatic aberration is less with the TC.

[Matthew Currie]

Just for grins and giggles, I did another little test of the same subject, this time using the 500/4 AIP.  Not surprisingly, at least at any realistic setting, the 500 is a little sharper than anything and seems to give better overall contrast, and it seems to be at its best wide open, despite being so big that it's hard to keep perfectly steady on the tripod.  Cropped to outrageous depth, some of that visible advantage disappears, but all three combinations are pretty impressive, I think.  Here is a crop down to a single letter on the sign.  This crop was done on the JPG of the larger crops, so does not benefit from the slightly better performance of View NX-2 on raw crops.  400 no TC on left, 400 with TC in middle, 500 with no TC on right.  Once again, the fairly surprising result is that the TC seems to undo some chromatic aberration, and the overall takeaway is that if you need to crop very deep, the TC is probably a good bet.

[Gerhard2006]

Just for grins and giggles, I did another little test of the same subject, this time using the 500/4 AIP.  Not surprisingly, at least at any realistic setting, the 500 is a little sharper than anything and seems to give better overall contrast, and it seems to be at its best wide open, despite being so big that it's hard to keep perfectly steady on the tripod.  Cropped to outrageous depth, some of that visible advantage disappears, but all three combinations are pretty impressive, I think.  Here is a crop down to a single letter on the sign.  This crop was done on the JPG of the larger crops, so does not benefit from the slightly better performance of View NX-2 on raw crops.  400 no TC on left, 400 with TC in middle, 500 with no TC on right.  Once again, the fairly surprising result is that the TC seems to undo some chromatic aberration, and the overall takeaway is that if you need to crop very deep, the TC is probably a good bet.


Wow thanks for posting Matthew this test really shows the quality of both the 400 5.6 lens and the TC and comparing it to a 500 that actually looks really good. I wondered how it would compare with the newer lenses and your test is like super pixel peeping. This wouldn’t show up on normal pictures on my D 700 or my D 300. Thanks again for your investigative report. Regards Gerry

[MEPER]

I miss the BF-3 front cap for my TC-14.
Would a BF-3A or BF-3B work?

The BF-3 is a metal cap?

[Matthew Currie]

Mine came without caps or case, and I don't seem to have any of that series, only original Nikon F caps (which do not fit being too shallow) and BF-1B, which fit fine, though a little loose.  You might want to file a little notch in the cap to engage the latch pin.

[MEPER]

Ok....a BF-1B may be an option.
I put the cap from a TC-300 on my TC-14 as I used that more.....but then the TC-300 may get its cap back :-)

[Akira]

No, small f-numbers. f/0.5-f/1 are extremely large, f/45-f/90 very small. To give an indication of the inverted scale used here. One always needs that extra split second to reorientate one's mindset.

Really?!  I might have learned the wrong way.   

[Akira]

Matthew, thank you very much for sparing your time to take the comparison images.  These are really helpful.

Interestingly, long Nikkors and TCs seem to be designed so that at least the chromatic  aberration could be canceled when a master lens and a TC are combined.

I miss the BF-3 front cap for my TC-14.
Would a BF-3A or BF-3B work?

The BF-3 is a metal cap?

So far as I remember, the BF-3 was beautifully made of metal, possibly aluminium.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Really?!  I might have learned the wrong way.   

It is just math. f = focal length so f/2 means the aperture is half the focal length. Using a 200mm lens as example, f/2 =100mm,  f/4 =50mm. f/8 =25mm.