500mm vs 600mm

fracster said:
Neil, you really should not make sweeping statements like that, especially when you are wrong pal. Yeah, some lenses do not like tcs, the 300 and 500 f4s are fine with the 1.4. Never had a 400 2.8 Joe, but they are a big numb b****r when i have had the opportunity to use one.
Click to expand...
Ade
I am not wrong I am speaking from experiance, I tried all the TC's on my new 300mm f2.8 and they degrade the picture IQ by ~30% and like I also said they also mess with AF by 50% ........................I cant speak for a 4 or 500 as I dont have them but on a 300mm they are crap pal
 
ndwgolf said:
Ade
I am not wrong I am speaking from experiance, I tried all the TC's on my new 300mm f2.8 and they degrade the picture IQ by ~30% and like I also said they also mess with AF by 50% ........................I cant speak for a 4 or 500 as I dont have them but on a 300mm they are crap pal
Click to expand...

Honestly Neil, some of the best shots that I have taken, (I said I have taken, before I get the usual comments), have been with the 300mm f2.8 VR + TC20lll and before that with the 300mm f4 + TC14ll

Maybe the TC's that you have had have not been great copies ………… the best way for me to get to 900mm is DX D7100 + 300mm f2.8 + TC20lll = 1.5 x 300 x 2 = 900mm @ f5.6
I have not noticed any "softness" and at f5.6 not really any slower AF speeds.
Of course the 300mm F2.8VR is a stellar lens on its own ……… but the cost to get to 900mm at f5.6 is now affordable
 
BillN_33 said:
Honestly Neil, some of the best shots that I have taken, (I said I have taken, before I get the usual comments), have been with the 300mm f2.8 VR + TC20lll and before that with the 300mm f4 + TC14ll

Maybe the TC's that you have had have not been great copies ………… the best way for me to get to 900mm is DX D7100 + 300mm f2.8 + TC20lll = 1.5 x 300 x 2 = 900mm @ f5.6
I have not noticed any "softness" and at f5.6 not really any slower AF speeds.
Of course the 300mm F2.8VR is a stellar lens on its own ……… but the cost to get to 900mm at f5.6 is now affordable
Click to expand...

Out of interest Bill you find stopping down a stop with the 300mm and 2x TC down to f/8 produces better quality images or is it fine at f/5.6? with my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2x I always stop down to f/8 as it improves the images alot IMHO as its pretty softish wide open at f/5.6
 
ndwgolf said:
Ade
I am not wrong I am speaking from experiance, I tried all the TC's on my new 300mm f2.8 and they degrade the picture IQ by ~30% and like I also said they also mess with AF by 50% ........................I cant speak for a 4 or 500 as I dont have them but on a 300mm they are crap pal
Click to expand...
Neil, the problems you are having are mainly down to lack of experience and user error. Sorry to be so harsh, but blaming your, very good, kit is just wrong. Look at some of the other exceptionally good bird photographers on here, look at the "lesser" kit they are getting results with, in far worse light than you get, and then try and tell me i`m wrong.

I`m not having a pop at you, please believe that bud, you can afford great kit and best of luck to you, enjoy what you do and keep at it. But the statement you are giving is just downright wrong fella.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Out of interest Bill you find stopping down a stop with the 300mm and 2x TC down to f/8 produces better quality images or is it fine at f/5.6? with my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2x I always stop down to f/8 as it improves the images alot IMHO as its pretty softish wide open at f/5.6
Click to expand...

Hi Joe

If the light is good I find stopping down 2 stops can improve things but with the general light conditions so far this year I am always bumping up against high ISO's values to ensure that I get a high enough shutter speed - most of the time I try for near 1/1000 secs or over, even on a tripod, and I am prepared to sacrifice noise for central sharpness, i.e. sharpness on the bird, (that may seem like a contradiction, so maybe I have not explained it well).

So what I am saying is; so far I have let the deciding factor be shutter speed, then fvalue, and set a maximum of ISO 1600 using the auto ISO setting, (which is a complete reverse of what I did last year with the 300mm f4 …… 95% of the time I shot in Av mode at f4 and a max of ISO800 and let the shutter speed suffer).
But I am no expert in any way ……… just trying to figure it all out and can change my mind in a day.

Funnily enough, if I want a "good" image with the V1 + FT-1 and 70 200mm f2.8VR …….. I find that by far the best f value is f8 …… because the V1 only has single point focus with the FT-1 it always focuses with no problems at f8 in good light, below that I seem to have IQ problems.

Generally Joe, I find the 300mm f2.8VR very very good, I was over the moon when I got it after the first days shooting, I bought it used - the same when I used it with the TC20lll, again over the moon with the results and of course, the reach……… I paid less than half the new price of the VRll for the 300mm f2.8 VR ……. in great condition …..as new ………..I think that the glass quality is the same in both versions …… I will always try to buy used for these long Nikon primes as IMHO it is the only sensible affordable way.

I have not used the TC20lll yet with my 70 200mm f2.8VR, but I intend to give it a try

I suppose I'm learning all the time; and that the "right' light is a blessing as I find in S Africa ……… maybe that's why Glenn Bartley uses a flash on an extended bracket quite a lot particularly in not only indense forest type areas, (OK I know it is dark and and can have strong shadows), but in other places.

Take care

Bill
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
Neil, the problems you are having are mainly down to lack of experience and user error. Sorry to be so harsh, but blaming your, very good, kit is just wrong. Look at some of the other exceptionally good bird photographers on here, look at the "lesser" kit they are getting results with, in far worse light than you get, and then try and tell me i`m wrong.

I`m not having a pop at you, please believe that bud, you can afford great kit and best of luck to you, enjoy what you do and keep at it. But the statement you are giving is just downright wrong fella.
Click to expand...
Wrong I am stating facts.........you want to use TC's "go ahead" knock yourself out. For me I don't like them..............nuff said
 
The Canon 300 2.8 is widely acknowledged to be Canon's best lens for taking TCs. I've seen it stated in lots of places that it was the lens Canon used as a baseline when developing their TCs.

A 1.4TC on my 500 F4 does reduce the quality a small amount, but it's still sharper than my 100-400, which is no mean feat considering it's an L lens also.

TC's do work very well with telephoto lenses, you just have to know what their limits are with slower AF acquisition/tracking, and in some cases, a much stronger "long lens technique" needed. What with a stop or more less light and longer focal length to deal with, by bunging one on you can suddenly be in a bad situation for keeping the rig still enough to get a sharp shot .

They can sometimes introduce a focus calibration issue where the combo will need to be microadjusted or calibrated to be tack-sharp.
 
ndwgolf said:
Wrong I am stating facts.........you want to use TC's "go ahead" knock yourself out. For me I don't like them..............nuff said
Click to expand...

Neil, I think you'll gather from the general opinion here that most people think you are just plain wrong, if you are getting poor results then I suspect you should check your equipment (or get it checked for you), or your technique.
No one, especially me, is getting at you but I would hate to see a newcomer read your posts and be put off buying teleconverters.

I haven't experience of Nikon, but I can't see them being substantially worse than Canon, I've made my points in posts above, and I'd reiterate that with a mk2 super-tele and mk3 extenders, the results are very impressive.

So, if anyone is reading this and swithering, I'd say go ahead, try it, rent if you want before buying, you won't be disappointed.

George.
 
ndwgolf said:
Wrong I am stating facts.........you want to use TC's "go ahead" knock yourself out. For me I don't like them..............nuff said
Click to expand...

Neil
did you have problems with TC's with your D4S or your D3S, or both? ……. I'm just about to get one of those lens calibration charts to check the set up of each lens to my D300 and D7100 ………. I will also have a look if the settings change when you add the TC14 and TC20 …… and I think that you can test sharpness with the chart ……. I think I would want to establish exactly why you find TC's unacceptable.

A general question to others, sorry to used that words: has anybody used the Syder Lens Calibration Tool - a simple device but it still costs £50?

(not getting at you Neil - you will be "Independent" soon and that's when it will all "kick off"!!!!!)
 
Last edited:
FoCal is I think the best, (albeit probably the most expensive!).....but it takes any subjective element out of the equation.
 
George said:
FoCal is I think the best, (albeit probably the most expensive!).....but it takes any subjective element out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Thanks george

£20 to £70 for the best pro version - just reading the review - need to check how to deal with longer lenses and if they do a mac version ……. plus that I can use it for 2 bodies - it looks like it works for up to 5 bodies
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks george

£20 to £70 for the best pro version - just reading the review - need to check how to deal with longer lenses and if they do a mac version ……. plus that I can use it for 2 bodies - it looks like it works for up to 5 bodies
Click to expand...

Yes, it works with longer lenses. the chart just has to be further away, but it's in the instructions.
And,yes, they do a Mac version, it's what I use, sometimes can be a bit pernickety but worth it in the long run.....and you certainly can do a few bodies, no limit to no of lenses.

George.
 
I had to fine tune my TC-20EIII and 70-200mm the other week on my D800 as the sharpness was way out, After I fine tuned it started to produce some decent images, Have you tried fine tuning your converts? @ndwgolf
 
BillN_33 said:
Hi Joe

If the light is good I find stopping down 2 stops can improve things but with the general light conditions so far this year I am always bumping up against high ISO's values to ensure that I get a high enough shutter speed - most of the time I try for near 1/1000 secs or over, even on a tripod, and I am prepared to sacrifice noise for central sharpness, i.e. sharpness on the bird, (that may seem like a contradiction, so maybe I have not explained it well).

So what I am saying is; so far I have let the deciding factor be shutter speed, then fvalue, and set a maximum of ISO 1600 using the auto ISO setting, (which is a complete reverse of what I did last year with the 300mm f4 …… 95% of the time I shot in Av mode at f4 and a max of ISO800 and let the shutter speed suffer).
But I am no expert in any way ……… just trying to figure it all out and can change my mind in a day.

Funnily enough, if I want a "good" image with the V1 + FT-1 and 70 200mm f2.8VR …….. I find that by far the best f value is f8 …… because the V1 only has single point focus with the FT-1 it always focuses with no problems at f8 in good light, below that I seem to have IQ problems.

Generally Joe, I find the 300mm f2.8VR very very good, I was over the moon when I got it after the first days shooting, I bought it used - the same when I used it with the TC20lll, again over the moon with the results and of course, the reach……… I paid less than half the new price of the VRll for the 300mm f2.8 VR ……. in great condition …..as new ………..I think that the glass quality is the same in both versions …… I will always try to buy used for these long Nikon primes as IMHO it is the only sensible affordable way.

I have not used the TC20lll yet with my 70 200mm f2.8VR, but I intend to give it a try

I suppose I'm learning all the time; and that the "right' light is a blessing as I find in S Africa ……… maybe that's why Glenn Bartley uses a flash on an extended bracket quite a lot particularly in not only indense forest type areas, (OK I know it is dark and and can have strong shadows), but in other places.

Take care

Bill
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

I find the same, f8 on the 70-200mm with converter the best to produce sharp images, Tbh Bill stick with the 300mm f/2.8VR I + TC-20EIII, Don't bother trying the 70-200mm with 2x IMHO as its such a downgrade, if your looking for something lighter to use, just continue using the 300mm f/4 with 1.4x. That will produce sharper and better images IMHO...

I always also try to shoot at least 1/1250 at f/8 and ISO ranging between 200-3200, Are push the ISO if its worth it, As you were saying about the flashes I have been looking into getting a 'better beamer' not sure if you have heard of them but they basically make your flash usable with large lens between 300&800mm I think the range is, As I do alot of shooting in dark forests it is something I'am considering strongly in the near future...

Interesting to hear how much you paid for the 300mm f/2.8VR I as I have read online the only difference between the two is the VR improvement, I will have to look into it more but if there is no major leap in quality different it is a lens I will seriously consider looking at.

Joe
 
Joeturner11 said:
Interesting to hear how much you paid for the 300mm f/2.8VR I as I have read online the only difference between the two is the VR improvement, I will have to look into it more but if there is no major leap in quality different it is a lens I will seriously consider looking at.
Click to expand...
Optically the 300mm f/2.8 VR and the 300mm f/2.8 VR II are identical. The only differences between the two lenses are slightly improved VR capability and some fancy coatings. If there's any kind of price difference between the two, then the older version is likely to be better value.
 
Joe

Advertised prices when I looked at the beginning of the year of used 300mm f2.8VR ……. the first model …….. seem to be around 50% of the new price of the latest incarnation, the VR2 which I think retails at £5k.

so from £2.5k to £3k should get you a really good one optically and cosmetically with the Nikon "Hood" and Nikon soft case

I used mine today at Bashfords Lakes - quiet and cloudy - unfortunately I did not see the "famous" Sparrowhawk that is supposed to be 'wiping out" the colony of Sand Martins or the rumoured Hobby that has supposed to have helped it out - pleasant day though for a walk around …….. heavy hand held but there's no way I going into the Gym to sort things out.
To me it is the most flexible and most cost effective way to get to 600mm on FX or 900mm on DX …. IMHO the IQ is very good, cannot see how it can get much better, but I have never used the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm or or £18k 800mm
 
I'm finding the Nikon 70-200 vr2 & TC-2.0III tele to be soft - even at f8. To the point I won't now use it on this lens - the TC-1.4II however works fine at f4...

The Nikon 300mm vr2 is awesome with the TC-1.4II - wide open (f4) & is soft with the TC-2.0III at f5.6.
f7.1 is ok & at f8 its back to life & perfectly usable.
 
Last edited:
lost said:
Two reasons I bought the 600mm most people I know who have the 500mm have the 1.4 extender on a lot of the time
So you have a 5.6 lens the auto focus time is now a lot slower
And you have to bump up the iso to get your shutter speed back. That said the 500 is a great lens
Regards
Richard
Click to expand...
Richard
with regard to 500 over 600mm do you find the 600mm a pain in the butt to travel with and if so do you have to check it in or can you take it as carry on...............I will order mine when I get home in two weeks time just trying to get as much info as possible before I splash out the $$$$$
Also framing BIF with the 600mm on a gimbal head is that a challange or just something that needs practice
 
Last edited:
Cheers @BillN_33 & @StewartR for the input, Looks like there is no point in splashing out 4k new for the 300mm f/2.8VR II if I go down that round, This brings a good cheaper option of the 300mm f/2.8VR I Being 3k at the most giving me 1k to invest in a wide angle lens I have been wanting for some time for the landscape. Or I could also have a look at the 300mm F/2.8D IF ED II as to be honest I don't need VR at all...
 
Diving Pete said:
I'm finding the Nikon 70-200 vr2 & TC-2.0III tele to be soft - even at f8. To the point I won't now use it on this lens - the TC-1.4II however works fine at f4...
Click to expand...

I find the combo works terrible from my experiences on my D800 always missing focus and only with static subjects getting OK results, I find attaching the combo to my D3 works far better and gets usable results from it.
 
ndwgolf said:
Nuff said
Click to expand...

Neil, you took what i SAID OUT OF CONTEXT, please read ALL of my post, I really think you must be a trainee politician or Daily Mail correspondent Here is the full text.

Neil, I think you'll gather from the general opinion here that most people think you are just plain wrong, if you are getting poor results then I suspect you should check your equipment (or get it checked for you), or your technique.
No one, especially me, is getting at you but I would hate to see a newcomer read your posts and be put off buying teleconverters.

I haven't experience of Nikon, but I can't see them being substantially worse than Canon, I've made my points in posts above, and I'd reiterate that with a mk2 super-tele and mk3 extenders, the results are very impressive.

So, if anyone is reading this and swithering, I'd say go ahead, try it, rent if you want before buying, you won't be disappointed....is what I said.


Anyway, others and I have made the point that we don't agree with you, and I for one am now out of this discussion.
 
ndwgolf said:
Joe,
using TC's (any of them) will downgrade the IQ of the immage by at least 30%.......it will also effect the AF by about 50%..............................Head to the gym and work on your sholders and arms and you will be fine with a600mm f4 :):)
Click to expand...

Is this a reference to Nikon lenses or all makes when used with a TC?

I use Canon and with a 1.4x III or 2x III TC on my 70-200 MkII, 300 f/4 or 500 MkII it most certainly doesn't lose these amounts of IQ or AF percentages by a long shot (no pun intended). In fact I hardly notice any deteriation in either area. Then again the TC's MkIII are designed for the newer MkII lenses so I'm informed, so that might be why.
 
Diving Pete said:
I'm finding the Nikon 70-200 vr2 & TC-2.0III tele to be soft - even at f8. To the point I won't now use it on this lens - the TC-1.4II however works fine at f4...

The Nikon 300mm vr2 is awesome with the TC-1.4II - wide open (f4) & is soft with the TC-2.0III at f5.6.
f7.1 is ok & at f8 its back to life & perfectly usable.
Click to expand...

BIRD IMAGES

Pete and Joe - I agree with comments about the 70 200mm f2.8VR - with or without TC's it is not a "birding" lens especially in poor conditions…. it's a good zoom, but not for birding, certainly not in my hands

As you both know it is all about "shooting" conditions, particularly "light quality"
Poor quality light gives disappointing bird images no matter what I use……. maybe if you are an exceptional photographer it's different, but I'm Mr average

I have the AFS Nikon 300mm f4, the 300mm f2.8VR and the TC-14ll and TC20lll

I find the 300mm f4 is very good hand held and on a tripod or monopod, great to carry around and the quality is exceptional for the money
at f4 it is as good as at any other aperture, with the TC-14ll it is equally as good, maybe with a very slight loss of IQ in poorer conditions ……. I never use the TC-20ll with this unless I don't have the 300mm f2.8 with me

IMHO the 300mm f2.8 VR is really good ……… especially on a tripod, at f2.8 upwards to f8 - I seldom use fvalues above that ….

I'm still not convinced about the VR, for me it has not improved images in poor conditions and I don't need it on a tripod ………. in fact when I have used VR on a tripod, as some have suggested, I have found the results to be "softer"
Obviously in poor light conditions the images can be disappointing …. but they would be anyway

The 300 f2.8 VR + the TC-20lll, I find exceptional for the money ……… no question about that ……. for the money it is impossible to come near that combo for what it gives you
The newer generations of Nikon TC's are incredibly good value performance wise/per £ for that they give you on these two Nikon lenses ……. performance per £ is important …………… and when you get into the "exotic" long lens the law of financial diminishing returns kick in in a big way and you pay a fortune money for a small increase in IQ ………obviously if we all have unlimited £'s then we would go for these longer exotics ……. but maybe not

I have never used a Canon "digital" lens, body or TC …… so cannot comment
Obviously all IMHO

I am going to buy the FoCal software and also the Spyder charts …. I no it is duplicating but I reckon that, even for just piece of mind, knowing that your lenses are "matched" to the camera body is important ……… why pay £5k for glass and not set it up properly?

I'm rambling again, but that is what this forum has done to me
 
Last edited:
George said:
Neil, you took what i SAID OUT OF CONTEXT, please read ALL of my post, I really think you must be a trainee politician or Daily Mail correspondent Here is the full text.

Neil, I think you'll gather from the general opinion here that most people think you are just plain wrong, if you are getting poor results then I suspect you should check your equipment (or get it checked for you), or your technique.
No one, especially me, is getting at you but I would hate to see a newcomer read your posts and be put off buying teleconverters.

I haven't experience of Nikon, but I can't see them being substantially worse than Canon, I've made my points in posts above, and I'd reiterate that with a mk2 super-tele and mk3 extenders, the results are very impressive.

So, if anyone is reading this and swithering, I'd say go ahead, try it, rent if you want before buying, you won't be disappointed....is what I said.


Anyway, others and I have made the point that we don't agree with you, and I for one am now out of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Its OK to not agree; like wise I dont agree with you..................
 
Last edited:
George said:
....and if you're passing here, I'd love to let you have a look at the results I'm getting, I'm really surprised that it seems the Nikon ones are giving you poor results, there's another thread

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-2x-extender-mkiii.542888/#post-6277809

ongoing about extenders, (again Canon) which seems to indicate another happy user?;)

George.
Click to expand...

George - the Nikon ones aren't giving poor results, it is only the ones that Neil has used, in his opinion, produce poor results …….. and he seems to have sold the problem on if you look at the thread above…….. now two of them have produced poor results with the TC so it would indicate either the same user errors or poor TC's ……. but to get two poor TC's together, a TC20lll and a TC14ll would seem to be a very unlucky coincidence, but that's what seems to have happened?? ……. maybe we should ask the "third" owner
 
I just had a chat with a pal of mine who is an excellent photographer and who uses all the latest Nikon gear, and he says the Nikon extenders are not as good as the Canon ones, especially on the zoom lenses, so perhaps that explains some of Neil's problems.

He is also using their relatively new 80-400 lens (with D800, D4 and D4s bodies) and says it is really sharp, an excellent lens.

I wish Canon would bring out that focal length, but it looks like the new one will still be a 100-400, ie a direct replacement in terms of focal length.
 
George said:
I just had a chat with a pal of mine who is an excellent photographer and who uses all the latest Nikon gear, and he says the Nikon extenders are not as good as the Canon ones, especially on the zoom lenses, so perhaps that explains some of Neil's problems.

He is also using their relatively new 80-400 lens (with D800, D4 and D4s bodies) and says it is really sharp, an excellent lens.

I wish Canon would bring out that focal length, but it looks like the new one will still be a 100-400, ie a direct replacement in terms of focal length.
Click to expand...

Neil does not use inferior zoom lens, he would not lower his standards, he is a "prime" D4S man
 
Slapping a long lens on your body and even more so with a converter and expecting everything to gel and produce the goods is perhaps asking too much. As I, and im sure many others, have found nothing shows up poor technique more than long lenses and even more when a TC is added. DOF becomes even less wide open and even the slightest front or back focus can screw the results. Canon / Nikon havent put MA into their bodies as a gimmick. It is a useful tool. I know that some photographers will send the body and lens to be calibrated together and worth doing if its way out but for most a little bit of MA will and does help.

To get the best out of your gear you sometimes need to put in some effort to brush up on technique / tweak your lens/body combo. I know that some combinations dont seem to gel that well but top glass from Nikon and Canon should produce the goods with or with out TC's.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I hope this reply doesn't detract too much on Peter's thread - please let me know and I will delete.

Since I have used two of the three Nikon TCs (1.4x and 2x), in combination with some telephoto lenses, I though I would chime in here. It's worth noting that we all have different expectations, and what is exceptable to one person may not necessarily be OK to another. I hope by providing some examples here may help those considering using TCs make an informed decision.

I do think that the TC20eIII, while sharp enough (to my eyes) for most applications, is a specialist tool. Doubling any focal length will suck up a lot of light, reduce AF speed, and sometimes accuracy, substantially. So like most things in life, it's a compromise. Stopping down will help attain greater DOF and increase sharpness, but at the expense of reduced light. I would therefore, only recommend using it with a fast prime i.e. f2.8, which is what it's originally designed for, or when light is plentiful.

I have not bothered with any examples using the 1.4 because I cannot tell the difference between having one or not, both in terms of sharpness and to a lesser extent, AF speed. Most of us working photographers use it with our f4 teles without any hesitation. A good number of my images online were captured using this combo, head-on over if you want to look get an idea (website | facebook).

The EXIF data is left intact on the leading full-frame images. They're unedited and exported straight from Lightroom, then resized in Photoshop. The 100% crops show both unedited and processed views.

Hope this helps.

_DSC7345_full.jpg

Full frame, Nikon 200-400mm VR2 telephoto with TC20eIII, f11 (necessary to compensate for the very shallow DOF at close distance), ISO1600, Nikon D3s.

_DSC7345_100.jpg

Processed image has been sharpened.

_DSC2986_full.jpg

Full frame, Nikon 500mm AF-S II telephoto with TC20eIII, f11, ISO6400, Nikon D3s.

_DSC2986_100.jpg

Processed image has been sharpened.

_DSC9030_full.jpg

Full frame, Nikon 600mm VR telephoto with TC20eIII, f8, ISO3200, Nikon D800e.

_DSC9030_100.jpg

Processed image has been sharpened.
 
Just to add - you need to click the cropped images to get an expanded view.
 
Thanks dragonfly - certainly indicates their worth and as Nikon and reviews always indicated

300mm f2.8 is good with TC-20lll

and reviews indicate that
300mm f4 is good with TC-14ll
 
George said:
FoCal is I think the best, (albeit probably the most expensive!).....but it takes any subjective element out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Just downloaded the `"Pro" version - now where are the USB leads that came with the camera
 
IMHO, the difference in FL between the 500 and the 600 is minimal... it's only 20% in area. The extra 100mm isn't going to make up for not being able to get close enough.. (and neither is a TC or Crop/Crop Factor for that matter).

(not my image and not a good example of IQ capabilities IMO)
7-6.jpg


Here's an old, but still valid and good IMO, discussion on the choices between the two lenses: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml

RE TC's: they're lenses...as technology improves and they release newer versions the results improve, especially if matched to the newer technology lenses. If you buy a cheap/unmatched TC your results will likely be notably worse. Prior to the TC-E 20e III I had never found a 2x to work well w/ my Nikon lenses.
RE TC's and AF: it all comes down to the available light and the AF compatibility at the max available aperture.

This is the Nikon 2x III on the 400mm f/2.8 wide open @ f/5.6 (image is ~ 4000px wide)
_SGK5089-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

This is the Sigma 2x on the 120-300 stopped down 1 stop @ f/8 (~ 3000px wide)
Blue Gray Gnat Catcher by skersting66, on Flickr

I have a lot of examples of shots taken w/ TC's; mostly 2x's. That's because I chose to buy faster/shorter lenses (f/2.8) for when things are more difficult. It's all compromises...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top