1.4 teleconverter

holty

holty

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,401
Edit My Images
No
whats the difference between the nikon 1.4 v2 and the 1.4 v3
apart from the price
im looking for one for my d850 and d500
 
The Mk3 will not be compatible with some older AF-S lenses and works best with the newer lenses ... slight improvement in IQ.
Example it worked great with my D500 + 200-500 and now with my D850 + 200-500.
 
will the mk 2 version work ok with my d500 and d850 using nikon 70-200 2.8 nikon 200-500 f5.6 ?
also what newer lens's are you talking about ?
 
Last edited:
The V3 added communication for the new E lenses with electronically controlled apertures and lost the screw drive mechanism.
I don't think I would bother using it with the 200-500...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The V3 added communication for the new E lenses with electronically controlled apertures and lost the screw drive mechanism.
I don't think I would bother using it with the 200-500...
Click to expand...

The 200-500 is of course an 'E' lens and the Mk 3 TC works well with it ... if budget is an issue the Mk 2 will work well too but it won't be a complete match.
 
its the mk 2 version i was looking at for the 200-500 !!
 
sk66 said:
What I meant to indicate is that I wouldn't bother using any TC on the 200-500
Click to expand...
I think that depends on what olther lenses you have available ... if I had a 600 f4 I probably wouldn'y use a TC on the 200-500 either.
However if the 200-500 was my longest lens (which it now is for me) I would (and do) use the 1.4x effectively in the right conditions.
 
gramps said:
I think that depends on what olther lenses you have available ... if I had a 600 f4 I probably wouldn'y use a TC on the 200-500 either.
However if the 200-500 was my longest lens (which it now is for me) I would (and do) use the 1.4x effectively in the right conditions.
Click to expand...
I've tried it numerous times on similar lenses... most recently w/ the new Sigma 60-600. In every case the impact on AF (loss of focus points, loss of light to the AF module, etc) has been significant. And the loss of contrast (MTF) is enough to negate the magnification benefit... you're better off cropping 50%. Especially with high resolution sensors like the D850/D500... because the resulting lens aperture leaves no room for stopping down to regain sharpness/detail due to diffraction.

When the distance is too great you can use a crop body, crop in post, buy a longer lens, or add TC's... of the options TC's are probably the least desirable by some margin. Even in the best of cases (i.e. $$$$) it really doesn't much matter which option you choose because you're stuck in the "Equivalence Circle." TC's are more cost effective than a new body/lens, which is part of why I use them (w/ f/2.8 lenses).
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
It works for me ... :)
Click to expand...
Sure, it's usable w/in the limits it creates (which are significant IMO), but have you critically tested/compared the differences? I have, numerous times (although I don't own Imatest).

For these images/uses I can fairly well promise you that you would be better off just cropping; as long as there was at least 1024x pixels remaining, and maybe even if there wasn't. Both in terms of IQ and functionality.
Also, being at f/5.6 max on the D850 allows you to stop down a little for sharpness/DOF w/o a significant loss; but being at f/8 max doesn't (diffraction limited)... if you are getting better results at f/10 then that means the TC is compromising the native lens/sensor resolution beyond where it can be recovered.

According to this test, the Imatest results for the 200-500 show it delivers 2,244 L/PH at 500/8 (center), a bit better than the 2,143 L/PH at f/5.6. With the 1.4vIII it's down to 1,620 L/PH at 700/8... it does show an improvement to 1,894 L/PH at f/11, but still below the native lens even wide open (f/5.6). With the vII TC I believe the results would be even somewhat less for that lens. Basically, you're just smearing the details out in order to make them larger on the sensor... and compressing them back down to 1024x isn't really going to help comparatively.
It's worth noting that the test was done with a D4s... on a D850 I would expect a little higher baseline numbers and less improvement from stopping down. Basically, I think the test results would look a lot like shifting all of these 1 stop left.

If you're happy enough with the results using it, then that's all that really matters. But I really doubt that it's really helping you at all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top